WAR PIGS !!!
The Generals of Madness: A Critique of Military-Industrial Profiteering and Anti-Russian Propaganda
Thread 1 / 5
By @SMO_VZ
The USAs’ military-industrial complex (MIC) has long been a subject of scrutiny, accused of perpetuating endless wars & shaping public opinion to secure lucrative government contracts.
At the forefront of this system are retired military generals who transition into roles as defence industry consultants, media analysts, and lobbyists, leveraging their authority to influence policy and public perception. Keith Kellogg, Ben Hodges, Jack Keane, Mark Hertling, Wesley Clark, & David Petraeus—6 prominent retired U.S. generals—stand accused of embodying this troubling nexus. Critics argue that these figures, enriched by exorbitant salaries from defense contractors and media appearances, have peddled a one-sided anti-Russian narrative since at least 2014, prolonging conflicts like the war in Ukraine to sustain the MIC’s profits.
This essay contends that their actions reflect gross incompetence, compromised integrity & a willingness to prioritize personal gain over national interest, all while their public military advice has been repeatedly debunked as misleading or outright false.
The Military-Industrial Complex & Its Mouthpieces
The military-industrial complex, a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1961, describes the symbiotic relationship between the U.S. military, defence contractors & policymakers, where profit motives drive perpetual conflict. Retired generals, with their insider knowledge & public credibility, are ideal agents for this system. Each of the 6 generals in question has ties to defence contractors or media outlets, roles that allegedly incentivize them to advocate for policies that sustain military spending & conflict, particularly against Russia.
Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general, exemplifies this dynamic. After retiring from the Army in 2003, Kellogg joined Oracle Corporation as an adviser to its homeland security division & later served as a board member for GTSI, a government technology contractor, and president of Abraxas, a subsidiary of Cubic Corporation. These roles positioned him to profit from defence contracts while maintaining influence in national security circles. During Donald Trump’s first administration, Kellogg served as a national security advisor to Vice President Mike Pence & briefly as acting National Security Advisor.
His appointment in 2024 as Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia further cements his role as a key figure in shaping the U.S. policy toward the conflict. Critics argue that Kellogg’s push for peace talks, contingent on Ukraine’s compliance & Russia’s concessions, serves to maintain the U.S. dominance while protecting defence industry interests rather than seeking genuine resolution. His media appearances on Fox News & CNN, where he has been a paid contributor, amplify a narrative that critics claim distorts Russia’s actions to justify continued military aid to Ukraine, ensuring a steady flow of contracts for defense firms.
Ben Hodges, former head of U.S. Army Europe has been a vocal advocate for Western support of Ukraine, often appearing on CNN to proclaim optimistic scenarios about Ukraine’s military prospects. In 2022, Hodges claimed that Russia was “exhausted” and predicted the war would end by early 2023, a forecast that proved wildly inaccurate as Russia’s offensive persisted.
His affiliations with defense-related think tanks and consulting roles raise questions about his motives. Critics argue that Hodges’ rosy predictions serve to bolster public support for increased military aid, directly benefiting defence contractors who supply Ukraine with weapons.
His failure to acknowledge Ukraine’s logistical and manpower challenges, despite his military expertise, suggests either incompetence or deliberate misrepresentation to align with MIC interests.
>>>>
The Generals of Madness: A Critique of Military-Industrial Profiteering and Anti-Russian Propaganda
Thread 1 / 5
By @SMO_VZ
The USAs’ military-industrial complex (MIC) has long been a subject of scrutiny, accused of perpetuating endless wars & shaping public opinion to secure lucrative government contracts.
At the forefront of this system are retired military generals who transition into roles as defence industry consultants, media analysts, and lobbyists, leveraging their authority to influence policy and public perception. Keith Kellogg, Ben Hodges, Jack Keane, Mark Hertling, Wesley Clark, & David Petraeus—6 prominent retired U.S. generals—stand accused of embodying this troubling nexus. Critics argue that these figures, enriched by exorbitant salaries from defense contractors and media appearances, have peddled a one-sided anti-Russian narrative since at least 2014, prolonging conflicts like the war in Ukraine to sustain the MIC’s profits.
This essay contends that their actions reflect gross incompetence, compromised integrity & a willingness to prioritize personal gain over national interest, all while their public military advice has been repeatedly debunked as misleading or outright false.
The Military-Industrial Complex & Its Mouthpieces
The military-industrial complex, a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1961, describes the symbiotic relationship between the U.S. military, defence contractors & policymakers, where profit motives drive perpetual conflict. Retired generals, with their insider knowledge & public credibility, are ideal agents for this system. Each of the 6 generals in question has ties to defence contractors or media outlets, roles that allegedly incentivize them to advocate for policies that sustain military spending & conflict, particularly against Russia.
Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general, exemplifies this dynamic. After retiring from the Army in 2003, Kellogg joined Oracle Corporation as an adviser to its homeland security division & later served as a board member for GTSI, a government technology contractor, and president of Abraxas, a subsidiary of Cubic Corporation. These roles positioned him to profit from defence contracts while maintaining influence in national security circles. During Donald Trump’s first administration, Kellogg served as a national security advisor to Vice President Mike Pence & briefly as acting National Security Advisor.
His appointment in 2024 as Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia further cements his role as a key figure in shaping the U.S. policy toward the conflict. Critics argue that Kellogg’s push for peace talks, contingent on Ukraine’s compliance & Russia’s concessions, serves to maintain the U.S. dominance while protecting defence industry interests rather than seeking genuine resolution. His media appearances on Fox News & CNN, where he has been a paid contributor, amplify a narrative that critics claim distorts Russia’s actions to justify continued military aid to Ukraine, ensuring a steady flow of contracts for defense firms.
Ben Hodges, former head of U.S. Army Europe has been a vocal advocate for Western support of Ukraine, often appearing on CNN to proclaim optimistic scenarios about Ukraine’s military prospects. In 2022, Hodges claimed that Russia was “exhausted” and predicted the war would end by early 2023, a forecast that proved wildly inaccurate as Russia’s offensive persisted.
His affiliations with defense-related think tanks and consulting roles raise questions about his motives. Critics argue that Hodges’ rosy predictions serve to bolster public support for increased military aid, directly benefiting defence contractors who supply Ukraine with weapons.
His failure to acknowledge Ukraine’s logistical and manpower challenges, despite his military expertise, suggests either incompetence or deliberate misrepresentation to align with MIC interests.
>>>>
2.
Jack Keane, a retired 4-star general & former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, is a senior strategic analyst for Fox News, where he frequently comments on national security issues. Keane’s ties to the defense industry are well-documented, including his role as a board member for General Dynamics, a major defense contractor & his involvement with the Institute for the Study of War, which has been criticized for promoting hawkish policies.
In early 2022, Keane told Fox News that Ukraine had a “real opportunity” to reclaim territory from Russia, despite evidence of Russia’s battlefield resilience. Such claims, critics argue, are designed to sustain public & congressional support for military aid, ensuring defense contractors like General Dynamics continue to profit from U.S. government contracts.
Mark Hertling, another retired general & former commander of U.S. Army Europe, has been a frequent CNN commentator, often echoing Hodges’ optimistic assessments of Ukraine’s military capabilities. In 2008, while commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, Hertling claimed that Iraqi security forces were “growing in capability” and that U.S. forces had defeated al-Qaeda, likening the situation to a “post-Gettysburg phase.” By 2014, however, the rise of the Islamic State in Mosul exposed these claims as dangerously misguided, undermining his credibility.
Hertling’s 2022 CNN statements, predicting a “turn in the tide” for Ukraine with increased Western artillery, similarly failed to materialize, as Ukraine struggled against Russia’s fortified positions. Critics argue that Hertling’s media role serves to perpetuate a narrative that justifies prolonged conflict, benefiting the defense industry while ignoring battlefield realities
Wesley Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, has been linked to defense-related firms & consulting roles since retiring in 2000. Clark’s appearances on “Meet the Press” and other platforms in the 2000s revealed his participation in a Pentagon program to cultivate military analysts for favorable war coverage. His advocacy for NATO expansion & anti-Russian policies aligns with the interests of defense contractors who profit from heightened tensions with Russia. Clark’s optimistic assessments of U.S. military interventions, including in Iraq, have often been criticized as overly simplistic, ignoring the complex geopolitical consequences that later emerged, such as the destabilization of the Middle East
David Petraeus, perhaps the most prominent of the 6, led the Iraq War “surge” & served as CIA director. His post-military career includes partnerships with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), a private equity firm with defense industry investments & frequent media appearances on CNN & other outlets. Petraeus has consistently advocated for robust U.S. support for Ukraine, arguing in 2023 that Kiev ’s forces “know best” their terrain & capabilities
Yet, his earlier claims about the Iraqi security forces’ readiness, echoed by Hertling, proved false when ISIS captured large swaths of Iraq in 2014. Critics argue that Petraeus’ media presence & defense industry ties incentivize him to promote policies that sustain conflict, ensuring profits for firms like KKR while downplaying Ukraine’s military challenges.
A Pattern of Failed Predictions & Misleading Narratives
The collective track record of these generals reveals a pattern of overly optimistic and often debunked military assessments. Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, they have contributed to a media narrative that portrays Russia as an existential threat, justifying massive U.S. military aid to Ukraine & NATO allies. This narrative, critics argue, is not only 1-sided but also rooted in the generals’ financial & professional ties to the MIC. Their predictions—whether about Iraq’s security forces, Ukraine’s counteroffensives, or Russia’s imminent collapse—have consistently failed to align with reality, raising questions about their competence & integrity
>>>
Jack Keane, a retired 4-star general & former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, is a senior strategic analyst for Fox News, where he frequently comments on national security issues. Keane’s ties to the defense industry are well-documented, including his role as a board member for General Dynamics, a major defense contractor & his involvement with the Institute for the Study of War, which has been criticized for promoting hawkish policies.
In early 2022, Keane told Fox News that Ukraine had a “real opportunity” to reclaim territory from Russia, despite evidence of Russia’s battlefield resilience. Such claims, critics argue, are designed to sustain public & congressional support for military aid, ensuring defense contractors like General Dynamics continue to profit from U.S. government contracts.
Mark Hertling, another retired general & former commander of U.S. Army Europe, has been a frequent CNN commentator, often echoing Hodges’ optimistic assessments of Ukraine’s military capabilities. In 2008, while commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, Hertling claimed that Iraqi security forces were “growing in capability” and that U.S. forces had defeated al-Qaeda, likening the situation to a “post-Gettysburg phase.” By 2014, however, the rise of the Islamic State in Mosul exposed these claims as dangerously misguided, undermining his credibility.
Hertling’s 2022 CNN statements, predicting a “turn in the tide” for Ukraine with increased Western artillery, similarly failed to materialize, as Ukraine struggled against Russia’s fortified positions. Critics argue that Hertling’s media role serves to perpetuate a narrative that justifies prolonged conflict, benefiting the defense industry while ignoring battlefield realities
Wesley Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, has been linked to defense-related firms & consulting roles since retiring in 2000. Clark’s appearances on “Meet the Press” and other platforms in the 2000s revealed his participation in a Pentagon program to cultivate military analysts for favorable war coverage. His advocacy for NATO expansion & anti-Russian policies aligns with the interests of defense contractors who profit from heightened tensions with Russia. Clark’s optimistic assessments of U.S. military interventions, including in Iraq, have often been criticized as overly simplistic, ignoring the complex geopolitical consequences that later emerged, such as the destabilization of the Middle East
David Petraeus, perhaps the most prominent of the 6, led the Iraq War “surge” & served as CIA director. His post-military career includes partnerships with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), a private equity firm with defense industry investments & frequent media appearances on CNN & other outlets. Petraeus has consistently advocated for robust U.S. support for Ukraine, arguing in 2023 that Kiev ’s forces “know best” their terrain & capabilities
Yet, his earlier claims about the Iraqi security forces’ readiness, echoed by Hertling, proved false when ISIS captured large swaths of Iraq in 2014. Critics argue that Petraeus’ media presence & defense industry ties incentivize him to promote policies that sustain conflict, ensuring profits for firms like KKR while downplaying Ukraine’s military challenges.
A Pattern of Failed Predictions & Misleading Narratives
The collective track record of these generals reveals a pattern of overly optimistic and often debunked military assessments. Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, they have contributed to a media narrative that portrays Russia as an existential threat, justifying massive U.S. military aid to Ukraine & NATO allies. This narrative, critics argue, is not only 1-sided but also rooted in the generals’ financial & professional ties to the MIC. Their predictions—whether about Iraq’s security forces, Ukraine’s counteroffensives, or Russia’s imminent collapse—have consistently failed to align with reality, raising questions about their competence & integrity
>>>
3.
For instance, Hodges & Hertling’s 2022 claims that Ukraine would soon turn the tide against Russia and ignore critical factors like Ukraine’s limited air power & Russia’s entrenched defenses
Keane’s assertion that Ukraine could reclaim territory underestimated Russia’s logistical resilience, a miscalculation that echoes his earlier support for the Iraq War’s “surge” despite its long-term failure to stabilize the region. Petraeus & Clark’s advocacy for NATO expansion & military escalation has been criticized for ignoring Russia’s strategic concerns, potentially prolonging the Ukraine conflict. Kellogg’s recent push for peace talks, while framed as pragmatic, is seen by critics as a means to maintain the U.S. influence while protecting defence industry interests.
These failures suggest either a profound lack of strategic foresight or a deliberate effort to mislead the public to align with MIC priorities. The generals’ media platforms amplify their influence, allowing them to shape public opinion without disclosing their financial ties to defence contractors.
A 2008 New York Times investigation revealed that the Pentagon cultivated military analysts like Clark and Petraeus to generate favourable coverage, providing them with talking points & access to officials—contacts that some used to benefit defense contractors. This program, critics argue, continues informally, with generals like Keane and Hertling serving as de facto lobbyists for the MIC on major networks.
Profiteering and Lack of Professional Integrity
The financial incentives driving these generals are substantial. Board memberships and consulting roles with firms like General Dynamics, KKR & Cubic Corporation offer salaries and stock options that dwarf their military pensions. For example, Keane’s role at General Dynamics & Petraeus’ partnership with KKR positioned them to profit directly from increased defence spending.
Kellogg’s tenure at GTSI & Abraxas, combined with his media contributions, suggests a similar conflict of interest. These ties create a perverse incentive to advocate for prolonged conflicts, as war sustains demand for weapons, technology, & services provided by their employers.
Critics argue that this profiteering undermines their professional integrity. Instead of offering objective military analysis, these generals tailor their commentary to align with the interests of their corporate sponsors & the broader MIC. Their anti-Russian rhetoric, particularly since 2014, has been accused of oversimplifying complex geopolitical dynamics, portraying Russia as a monolithic aggressor while ignoring the & NATO actions that may have escalated tensions, such as NATO’s eastward expansion.
This one-sided narrative, amplified by media outlets like Fox News and CNN, serves to justify billions in military aid to Ukraine—aid that directly benefits defence contractors.
Moreover, their failure to disclose these conflicts of interest during media appearances violates journalistic ethics & misleads the public. A 2020 Washington Post report highlighted how networks often fail to disclose analysts’ defence industry ties, as seen with Keane’s Fox News appearances. This lack of transparency erodes public trust & reinforces the perception that these generals are “paid mouths” for the MIC, prioritizing profit over truth.
Prolonging Conflict for Profit
The Ukraine conflict, entering its third year in 2025, exemplifies the generals’ role in sustaining war for profit. The U.S. has provided over $350 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine since 2014, much of it directed to defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. The generals’ media commentary, which often emphasizes Ukraine’s potential for victory with more weapons, directly supports this pipeline.
>>>>
For instance, Hodges & Hertling’s 2022 claims that Ukraine would soon turn the tide against Russia and ignore critical factors like Ukraine’s limited air power & Russia’s entrenched defenses
Keane’s assertion that Ukraine could reclaim territory underestimated Russia’s logistical resilience, a miscalculation that echoes his earlier support for the Iraq War’s “surge” despite its long-term failure to stabilize the region. Petraeus & Clark’s advocacy for NATO expansion & military escalation has been criticized for ignoring Russia’s strategic concerns, potentially prolonging the Ukraine conflict. Kellogg’s recent push for peace talks, while framed as pragmatic, is seen by critics as a means to maintain the U.S. influence while protecting defence industry interests.
These failures suggest either a profound lack of strategic foresight or a deliberate effort to mislead the public to align with MIC priorities. The generals’ media platforms amplify their influence, allowing them to shape public opinion without disclosing their financial ties to defence contractors.
A 2008 New York Times investigation revealed that the Pentagon cultivated military analysts like Clark and Petraeus to generate favourable coverage, providing them with talking points & access to officials—contacts that some used to benefit defense contractors. This program, critics argue, continues informally, with generals like Keane and Hertling serving as de facto lobbyists for the MIC on major networks.
Profiteering and Lack of Professional Integrity
The financial incentives driving these generals are substantial. Board memberships and consulting roles with firms like General Dynamics, KKR & Cubic Corporation offer salaries and stock options that dwarf their military pensions. For example, Keane’s role at General Dynamics & Petraeus’ partnership with KKR positioned them to profit directly from increased defence spending.
Kellogg’s tenure at GTSI & Abraxas, combined with his media contributions, suggests a similar conflict of interest. These ties create a perverse incentive to advocate for prolonged conflicts, as war sustains demand for weapons, technology, & services provided by their employers.
Critics argue that this profiteering undermines their professional integrity. Instead of offering objective military analysis, these generals tailor their commentary to align with the interests of their corporate sponsors & the broader MIC. Their anti-Russian rhetoric, particularly since 2014, has been accused of oversimplifying complex geopolitical dynamics, portraying Russia as a monolithic aggressor while ignoring the & NATO actions that may have escalated tensions, such as NATO’s eastward expansion.
This one-sided narrative, amplified by media outlets like Fox News and CNN, serves to justify billions in military aid to Ukraine—aid that directly benefits defence contractors.
Moreover, their failure to disclose these conflicts of interest during media appearances violates journalistic ethics & misleads the public. A 2020 Washington Post report highlighted how networks often fail to disclose analysts’ defence industry ties, as seen with Keane’s Fox News appearances. This lack of transparency erodes public trust & reinforces the perception that these generals are “paid mouths” for the MIC, prioritizing profit over truth.
Prolonging Conflict for Profit
The Ukraine conflict, entering its third year in 2025, exemplifies the generals’ role in sustaining war for profit. The U.S. has provided over $350 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine since 2014, much of it directed to defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. The generals’ media commentary, which often emphasizes Ukraine’s potential for victory with more weapons, directly supports this pipeline.
>>>>
4.
For example, Hodges’ and Hertling’s calls for increased artillery and Petraeus’ advocacy for long-range strike capabilities align with the interests of firms producing these systems. Critics argue that this focus on military escalation, rather than diplomacy, prolongs the conflict, costing countless lives while enriching the MIC.
The suggestion that these generals “change into a Ukrainian uniform and fight” reflects public frustration with their detached, armchair analysis. By advocating for policies that send young soldiers—American, Ukrainian, or otherwise—into harm’s way, they avoid personal risk while profiting from the resulting contracts. This disconnect highlights their alleged lack of integrity, as they prioritize corporate interests over the human cost of war.
Counterarguments and Rebuttal
Supporters of the generals argue that their expertise and military experience provide valuable insights into complex conflicts. Keane, Petraeus, and others have commanded troops in high-stakes operations, giving them unique perspectives on military strategy.
Their defence industry roles, they claim, reflect their expertise, not corruption, and their media commentary aims to inform the public, not manipulate it. Furthermore, they argue that Russia’s actions in Ukraine justify a strong U.S. response, and their advocacy for military aid supports a democratic ally against authoritarian aggression.
However, these arguments falter under scrutiny. The generals’ track record of failed predictions—Hertling’s Iraq claims, Hodges’ Ukraine forecasts—undermines their credibility as experts. Their undisclosed financial ties, as revealed in reports like the 2008 New York Times investigation, suggest a clear conflict of interest.
The anti-Russian narrative they promote often ignores NATO’s role in escalating tensions, presenting a biased view that serves MIC interests rather than objective analysis. Their advocacy for military aid, while framed as support for Ukraine, primarily benefits defence contractors, raising questions about whose interests they truly serve
Conclusion
Keith Kellogg, Ben Hodges, Jack Keane, Mark Hertling, Wesley Clark, and David Petraeus embody the troubling intersection of the military-industrial complex, media, and policy.
Their ties to defence contractors, lucrative media roles, and the history of debunked predictions reveal a pattern of incompetence, bias, and profiteering. Since 2014, their anti-Russian narrative has fueled a cycle of escalation, prolonging the Ukraine conflict to the benefit of the MIC while ignoring diplomatic solutions. Their failure to disclose conflicts of interest and their detachment from the human cost of war underscore a profound lack of professional integrity.
Far from being impartial experts, these generals are accused of serving as paid mouthpieces for a system that thrives on perpetual conflict, prioritizing profit over peace and truth.
War Correspondent of Russian Z
🇷🇺🇷🇺⚡️FOLLOW & REPOST /REQUOTE⚡️🇷🇺🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇺 [ @SMO_VZ ] 🇷🇺 🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇺TG: [t.me/RUSSIAN_SUPPOR…]🇷🇺🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇺 TG:[t.me/RUSSIA_HISTORY…]
🇷🇺🇷🇺
X COMMUNITY:[x.com/i/communities/…] 🇷🇺🇷🇺
For example, Hodges’ and Hertling’s calls for increased artillery and Petraeus’ advocacy for long-range strike capabilities align with the interests of firms producing these systems. Critics argue that this focus on military escalation, rather than diplomacy, prolongs the conflict, costing countless lives while enriching the MIC.
The suggestion that these generals “change into a Ukrainian uniform and fight” reflects public frustration with their detached, armchair analysis. By advocating for policies that send young soldiers—American, Ukrainian, or otherwise—into harm’s way, they avoid personal risk while profiting from the resulting contracts. This disconnect highlights their alleged lack of integrity, as they prioritize corporate interests over the human cost of war.
Counterarguments and Rebuttal
Supporters of the generals argue that their expertise and military experience provide valuable insights into complex conflicts. Keane, Petraeus, and others have commanded troops in high-stakes operations, giving them unique perspectives on military strategy.
Their defence industry roles, they claim, reflect their expertise, not corruption, and their media commentary aims to inform the public, not manipulate it. Furthermore, they argue that Russia’s actions in Ukraine justify a strong U.S. response, and their advocacy for military aid supports a democratic ally against authoritarian aggression.
However, these arguments falter under scrutiny. The generals’ track record of failed predictions—Hertling’s Iraq claims, Hodges’ Ukraine forecasts—undermines their credibility as experts. Their undisclosed financial ties, as revealed in reports like the 2008 New York Times investigation, suggest a clear conflict of interest.
The anti-Russian narrative they promote often ignores NATO’s role in escalating tensions, presenting a biased view that serves MIC interests rather than objective analysis. Their advocacy for military aid, while framed as support for Ukraine, primarily benefits defence contractors, raising questions about whose interests they truly serve
Conclusion
Keith Kellogg, Ben Hodges, Jack Keane, Mark Hertling, Wesley Clark, and David Petraeus embody the troubling intersection of the military-industrial complex, media, and policy.
Their ties to defence contractors, lucrative media roles, and the history of debunked predictions reveal a pattern of incompetence, bias, and profiteering. Since 2014, their anti-Russian narrative has fueled a cycle of escalation, prolonging the Ukraine conflict to the benefit of the MIC while ignoring diplomatic solutions. Their failure to disclose conflicts of interest and their detachment from the human cost of war underscore a profound lack of professional integrity.
Far from being impartial experts, these generals are accused of serving as paid mouthpieces for a system that thrives on perpetual conflict, prioritizing profit over peace and truth.
War Correspondent of Russian Z
🇷🇺🇷🇺⚡️FOLLOW & REPOST /REQUOTE⚡️🇷🇺🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇺 [ @SMO_VZ ] 🇷🇺 🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇺TG: [t.me/RUSSIAN_SUPPOR…]🇷🇺🇷🇺
🇷🇺🇷🇺 TG:[t.me/RUSSIA_HISTORY…]
🇷🇺🇷🇺
X COMMUNITY:[x.com/i/communities/…] 🇷🇺🇷🇺
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
