ok, so this is crazy, but regardless of how it started, this whole Ukraine coverage thing seems odd to me. Let's recap.
So at some point earlier this year, Russia moved military forces into Ukraine. Ukraine claims it was unjustified (naturally), and Russia claimed they were basically trying to save their own people from persecution (not surprising). Basic premise is set and old bad blood fuels the hate in every direction. No surprise there.
For a few weeks, we see a major media blitz on the topic (also not a big surprise). The obvious intent here is to strum up public opinion, maybe even encourage war proper with Russia, right? Get that sweet, sweet WW3 going amirite?
Then...it stops. Almost overnight. After tens of billions in aid and countless hours of whoring out, the media just drops it like a moldy potato. Russia is still there, they can still shill about Zalensky. What gives? Even if Russia is winning that should be a boon for their "muh evil Russia" propaganda, right?
I argue they achieved their objectives. I theorize one of them was getting money. The way congress quickly and expeditiously handed out over 40 BILLION dollars for Ukraine supports this notion. Given we know Ukraine has been a money laundering hub and the way Zalensky was pimping his "cause" to everyone with money he could find, I wonder if that was his scheme all along. This would also explain the sudden change of heart in the media. The quota was met and the midterms were about to kick off in full.
But why would they need money in the states? They can just print money, right? Well that's where it gets complicated. If they could just print themselves money, they wouldn't need the services of Ukraine or like what the Panama papers entail. They would just openly do it. However, we have many laws for fundraising and such for elections in the US and extra scrutiny after the Zuckerbucks fiasco. This suggests there is a form of resistance to them using this tactic on our side (white hats, perhaps?). However this function is served, they can't just give themselves the money for whatever reason for these midterms. You really think they want to give a cut to the launderers? Hell no!
Additionally, we know that the corruption in the power structure is funded by money. We also know they undoubtedly paid BILLIONS in 2020 across everyone involved from ballot box stuffers and mules, to media outlets, corporate heads like facebook, judges, politicians, and everyone else. No money, no play, after all.
What if they are actually at a point where they cannot spend more money without breaking their fiscal stability? That would explain Ukraine perfectly and why the timing was the way it was. This also fits with bigwigs like Blackrock and Gates buying up land en masse. Their liquid funds are probably tied up.
If this were the case, this would suggest that Dems thought after 2020 and the Jan 6 committee stuff last year that they were untouchable. Trump lost. They "knew" that his movement was over and they could coast on midterms.
Except we haven't stopped. We only moved further. They realized this was going to stick through midterms around fall/winter and that's when they started planning accordingly. The problem? They were functionally broke from bribing 2020 and preparing for the economic collapse (ie. buying land/property).
So if I'm reading this right, the following is likely true in some way:
- Dems got away with 2020 and 1/6 and felt super confident going into 2021
- Big money players like Blackrock and Gates start buying up assets and property while the Federal Reserve assures us there is no inflation, tying up their funds
- MAGA/Anti-Dems became stronger, not weaker like expected and Dems notice around fall/winter of 2021
- Russia invades Ukraine early 2022 and Dems seize moment to launder tens of billions of dollars because they now expect a good fight in the midterms, among other needs.
To further support this idea, why do you think we're taking back smaller districts across the country? The cost of winning each smaller area is too large for the gain it provides them. If there's any cheating in the midterms, it will be for the most influential areas like governor. They are literally rationing their corruption now, which furthers the idea that they're nearly bankrupt (or already are, given backwards Keynesian economics).
Furthermore, what did Russia do almost immediately after the conflict in Ukraine started? Started playing economic hardball with oil and transitioning away from the dollar, setting up BRICS, etc. It's very likely that there's blood in the water and economics are the tell here.
Also notice how no one tried to outbid Musk when it came to Twitter? It's almost like all major investors are scared of investing in Twitter or simply can't afford to pool their money together right now to protect such an important key in their globalist utopia. That's weird, right?
The more I think about this, I think there's something here. Ukraine is a tell about something and I can only see it implying ill for the DS. It's like they're standing in quicksand and it's slowly becoming more apparent. Anyone seeing something similar?
If we're taking this from a Q perspective, my understanding is that there should be white hats undermining black hats in some fashion. As this happens, I would expect there would be more public thrashing and gnawing of teeth beyond what we saw post election 2016. We would clearly have a ways to go.
What I find curious is that both Afghanistan and Ukraine have one thing in common: billions in equipment magically disappearing. Coupled with recent reports of our military allegedly disarming to "help Ukraine" I can't help but notice a pattern.
So again, if we're going Q-style speculating, this would suggest the DS is arming itself to the teeth which is odd. They prefer exploiting government power, yet they are covertly acquiring weapons? Are they planning a non-governmental fighting force or something else? This itself warrants its own discussion.
To think of it another way: Russia invades Ukraine and we start gutting our military? Shortly after we abandoned roughly 80b in equiment in Afghanistan? Something is bizarre here. If the DS were worried about Russia, why aren't they arming the military which has purged conservatives? If mil is on our side, that just makes it more bizarre. Again, this whole angle is odd by itself. There must be extra context I'm failing to factor in here, but there seems to be clear plays and counter-plays afoot here. It's just deciphering them properly so it all "fits."
If military were the only way, who is left holding the guns? Not the West, but Russia and China sure are! Hell, even India is in the area so don't rule them out since they have domestic issues as well.
If I go off my intuition, there is a group working to disarm the West. It may sound odd, but with the way everything is playing out, Q may very well have close ties to Russia. This would also explain the Russophobia for years. While public lefties are stupid, their higher ups are actually pretty savvy (they just have to manage idiots, sadly). The country is also acting in ways that are congruent with Q-ism. They could be co-opting it, but it's impossible to be sure at this point.
Any thoughts in this direction?
I think they clearly don't trust the military as a whole so the disarming the military fits in with this. I'm not sure who they would trust to do their fighting at this point, probably only mercenaries and maybe also people from really poor countries who don't understand what's going on in the world in general, as well as obviously the hardcore American leftists but most of them aren't going to be doing much fighting.