DEBUNKING THE TOP 10 FALSEHOODS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP WITH FACTS

 Following the first presidential debate, pundits across mainstream media claimed Donald Trump’s responses were blatant lies, leaving Americans dizzyingly confused about the facts surrounding his statements. During the same event, President Biden made several untrue and easily fact-checked statements that have been largely ignored by the media.

Did you know...?

Biden has blamed Trump for high inflation, saying it was 9% when he took office. The claim is “not close to true” according to CNN. The year-over-year inflation rate in January 2021, the month of his inauguration, was about 1.4%. Read more at CNN →

President Biden claims Trump left him a poor economy. According to FactCheck.org, Biden “misleadingly contrasts that with a loss of jobs under former President Donald Trump, a loss that occurred because of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Read more at FactCheck.org →

President Biden this February said, “the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends.” However, illegal border crossings soared in the months after Biden took office after he immediately rolled back many Trump-era restrictions.

During the June 2024 presidential debate, Biden said Trump would sign a national abortion ban if elected to Congress. Donald Trump said he would not sign a national abortion ban if elected to the White House again.

[MORE}

https://www.offthepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Top-Ten-Trump-Facts-.pdf

'Kamala Harris and the Election of Laughter and Forgetting'

 Quickly, before it passes us by, let’s reflect on our momentous summer. I’m afraid that if we don’t, the astounding events of the past six weeks will be memed, distorted, and memory-holed into oblivion. 

We began with an 81-year-old president who his advisers, his party, and most of the legacy press insisted was sharp as ever. That line was exposed before the nation and the world at the June 27 debate that revealed a feeble, infirm commander in chief incapable of stringing together two coherent sentences.

When pressure on Biden to drop out came from members of his own party and a suddenly observant media, he vowed to fight on, saying he’d quit only “if the Lord Almighty comes down and tells me that.”

Then an assassin nearly murdered Donald Trump. And here we are in August, less than 90 days from Election Day. As far as we know, the Almighty never made a visit to Biden’s home in Rehoboth Beach. But we now have a new Democratic nominee who, until three weeks ago, was widely acknowledged as a political lightweight, a poor manager, and the author of incomprehensible word salads like this: “Culture is. . . it is a reflection of our moment in our time, right? And present culture is the way we express how we are feeling about the moment.”

And while it’s still unclear if the elected president is running the country, the news cycle since the ascendance of Vice President Kamala Harris has been vibes-based. There is Brat Girl Summer, the supposed “weirdness” of Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance, and then the veepstakes, won by Minnesota governor Tim Walz, who birthed the “weird” meme that mocked the Republicans, and joked that Vance may have once copulated with a sofa. All of this is happening as some outlets stealth edit Walz’s military record to wipe away the falsehood that the Minnesota governor served in Iraq when in fact he was deployed to Italy in 2003.

Yes, it is weird. But not weird in the way the Democrats suggest. It’s weird because the party now asks us to forget what they were saying only a few weeks ago. We are being asked to accept an absurdity: that the president too feeble to run for reelection is fit for the job he currently holds. And that his successor is now the second coming of Barack Obama. 

Neither of those things are true. Biden’s public appearances are more scripted than ever, and he has still yet to address whether he has the stamina and cognitive acuity to be the president 24 hours a day. Meanwhile, Harris is coasting through the first three weeks of her campaign without doing a legitimate interview or bothering to explain, in her own words, why she has abandoned the fringe left positions she took in 2019. 

Being unburdened by what has been demands laughter and forgetting.

The surreal mood reminds me of the novels of Milan Kundera, the Czech dissident who wrote with scathing wit about how the communist regime of his era waged war against memory and history. Kundera’s work traced how public lies beget private ones until a whole society begins to see itself in the funhouse mirror of official distortion.  

In the first section of his novel, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, the protagonist, Mirek, seeks to stamp out the memory of a distant affair with the same ruthlessness as the communists who erase photos of politicians that have fallen out of favor. 

Mirek concludes that all political parties “shout that they want to shape a better future, but it’s not true. The future is only an indifferent void no one cares about, but the past is filled with life, and its countenance is irritating, repellent, wounding, to the point that we want to destroy or repaint it. We want to be masters of the future only for the power to change the past.”

That book, along with a few other works by great twentieth-century anti-totalitarian rebels, can help us make sense of this moment in history as the Democratic Party—and Kamala Harris herself—ask us to imagine what will be, unburdened by what she has been. 

Eli Lake is a longtime journalist covering foreign affairs and national security. He formerly covered these topics for Bloomberg, The Daily Beast, and Newsweek. Lake has reported on these topics from India, China, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Israel.

https://www.thefp.com/p/kamala-harris-and-the-election-of-forgetting

This Minnesotan warns: You REALLY don’t want Tim Walz taking his act nationally

 As a 50-year resident of Minnesota, I’ve followed vice presidential nominee Tim Walz’s career closely.

Here are some things Americans should know.

First, Minnesota hasn’t prospered under Walz’s leadership.

Historically, ours was a prosperous state, with a per-capita gross domestic product above the national average.

But that advantage has been slipping; in 2023, for the first time ever, we fell below the national average.

This is the result of the high tax, out-of-control spending, heavy regulation and anti-growth policies of the Walz administration.

Minnesota was also always a low-crime state.

But Gov. Walz is anti-law enforcement, and his dithering for four days while Minneapolis burned during the George Floyd riots triggered a crime spree that continues to this day.

After five years of Tim Walz, Minnesota is officially a high-crime state for the first time in our history: Our per-capita rate of serious crimes is now above the national average.

Education is a similar story. Minnesotans used to be proud of their public schools, but during the Walz administration, while spending has skyrocketed, student achievement has plummeted.

Now, more than half of all K-12 students in Minnesota’s public schools can neither read nor do math at grade level.

The most recent reading scores for 4th and 8th graders are the lowest ever recorded, and 64% of 11th graders can’t do math at grade level.

This decline has something to do with the fact that Walz shut the schools down during COVID, and more to do with the fact that our schools are now emphasizing political indoctrination more than academic achievement.

What happens when a state’s government has lousy policies?

People start to leave — and Minnesota has joined California, New York and Illinois as a state that many are moving out of and few people want to move into.

We now lose people, on a net basis, in every age range and every income bracket over $50,000. Almost all of those losses are to lower-tax, less liberal states.

With a record like that, how did the governor win re-election in 2022?

First, note that Walz won his first term in 2018 by a 12-point margin, 54%-42%.

By 2022, his popularity had slipped; he won by seven points, 52% to 45%.

And Walz was aided that year when the election turned into a referendum on abortion, which is popular with Minnesota swing voters, and by the fact that Democrats outspent Republicans by three to one, mostly with out-of-state money.

With this record and his declining popularity, why did Democrats put Walz on their national ticket?

They don’t need him to carry Minnesota, which they haven’t lost since 1976.

Apparently they will try to market him as a small-town guy and a veteran.

That’s ironic, since Walz is despised in rural Minnesota, in part because he has expressed contempt for rural people.

He famously told a group of Democrats they needn’t worry about the countryside turning red, since those places consist of “mostly rocks and cows.”

Thousands of rural residents banded together as the Rocks and Cows of Minnesota; they put up anti-Walz billboards across the state and sold Rocks and Cows merchandise.

In 2022, Walz was routed in rural Minnesota.

As for being a veteran, Walz did serve in the Minnesota National Guard for 24 years, rising to a high rank. But now his service has become a flash point of controversy.

In 2005, his Guard unit was deployed to Iraq. After telling his fellow Guardsmen that he’d go, Walz changed his mind and resigned from the Guard instead.

Many of his fellow Guardsmen bitterly resented his abandoning the unit.

He also has been accused of exaggerating his rank when he retired, and was captured on video claiming, falsely, that he carried “weapons of war” “in war.”

That was clearly false.

So it seems that Walz’s military service is more likely to offend veterans than to impress them.

Yes, many Minnesotans are proud of one of our own finding his way onto a national ticket.

Running for vice president is something of a Minnesota specialty, with Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale.

But those of us who have followed Walz’s policies and their consequences more closely are horrified at the thought that he could find himself near the seat of power in Washington.

Tim Walz shouldn’t be allowed to do to America what he has done to Minnesota.

John Hinderaker is president of the Center of the American Experiment.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/09/opinion/this-minnesotan-warns-you-really-dont-want-tim-walz-taking-his-act-nationally/

VP Nominee Tim Walz Supports the Right to Infanticide

 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has picked Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate. Walz recently legalized infanticide in the state of Minnesota. As someone who does not identify as conservative, I’d be delighted if this claim could be dismissed as a right-wing fever dream. Unfortunately, it is all too real. And by infanticide, I really do mean aiming at the death of newborn infants.

A bit of history. Before Christian ethics became dominant in the West, infanticide was considered (along with abortion) a legitimate way to control reproduction. In ancient Greece and Rome, for instance, the abandonment of newborn infants (usually because they were female or disabled) was even systematized—with certain places designated as baby abandonment spaces. Very often such babies were killed by exposure or wild animals, but sometimes they were picked up by those who raised them as slaves or prostitutes.

The practice was apparently so prevalent that one reason ancient Christians warned against visiting prostitutes was because there was a decent chance the woman could be a family member. These ancient Christians not only adopted many of these exposed infants and raised them as their own, but the earliest Catechism we have, the Didache, responds to the signs of those times by insisting that Christians must not “murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.”

Many moral philosophers of our own era who have explicitly rejected this Christian vision of the dignity and equality of every single human life—and instead focused only on creatures who have certain traits (rationality, self-awareness, etc.)—have, unsurprisingly, embraced the pre-Christian view of infanticide as a morally legitimate way to control birth. Thinkers like Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, Jeff McMahon, Eduard Verhaegen, Pieter Sauer, Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva (and several others) have affirmed this view publicly. The prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics even dedicated an entire issue to infanticide back in 2013.

In that issue, Prof. Robert George and I explored our disagreement about whether the whole concept of infanticide is “madness.” On the one hand, I very much agree—given the vision of the good present in the Didache—that infanticide is morally mad. But according to the vision of the good adopted by our repaganizing Western culture, the right to infanticide follows logically from the right to abortion. On this view, merely being Homo sapiens—whether inside or outside of the womb—doesn’t grant one moral or legal status. Indeed, some prenatal human beings (say at 28 weeks gestation) are more developed and sophisticated than are neonatal human beings born prematurely (say, at 23 weeks).

Which brings us to Tim Walz, now the Democratic nominee for vice president, and his legalization of infanticide in Minnesota. In 2023, Walz supported an omnibus health bill that radically changed his state’s abortion law. This health bill, in a callback to the ancient practice of abandoning newborns, intentionally and explicitly legalized the denial of life-saving medical care to infants born alive after botched abortions. State law used to explicitly protect these babies. But Walz and his supporters changed it, insisting that references to abortion be removed and that “medical care” be changed to mere “care.” In addition, while the original law required medical personnel to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant,” the Walz-supported change struck that whole line—it now requires medical personnel merely to “care for the infant who is born alive.”

No more requirements to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant after a botched abortion. Got it.

New York state did something similar in passing its Reproductive Health Act. That state originally required two physicians to be present at an abortion after viability to “ensure the health and safety of the mother and viable child” if there were an accidental birth. But the 2019 law explicitly removed this requirement of protection for the newborn infant. Readers may also be familiar with a similar 2019 bill in Virginia which then Governor Ralph Northam said would allow the following: “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

This kind of intentional non-treatment of newborns so they die is now routine in our culture. Gov. Northam admitted it. The state of Minnesota also admitted it via their state records. I also wrote a detailed article for Public Discourse that demonstrates just how often this happens, especially (but not only) when the baby has an unwanted disability. For instance, I show how in one case a family was given a life-limiting diagnosis (spina bifida) for their child prenatally—and then, after fending off repeated and aggressive suggestions that they ought to have an abortion, being told that they could wait until her son was born and withhold treatment then.

Again, withholding life-sustaining treatment because the baby is “too disabled and we want them to die now” is fairly common in today’s neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Yale bioethicist and neonatologist Mark Mercurio writes in the Journal of Perinatology that most neonatologists and other physicians have some cases in which they will withhold life-sustaining medical care because the patient is too disabled and other cases in which they will not. Their research found that, for a younger baby, life-sustaining treatment will be routinely withheld, but for an older child it will not be, even if both children have the same health issues and potential for long-term disability.

The reason for this, Mercurio suggests, is because the younger child lacks “the interpersonal attachment that older babies and children have,” and health care providers may not consider him or her “to have the same personhood as older infants who went home.” Indeed, he says that some physicians think of themselves as “saving” the older child who already has a disability, but “creating” a person with a disability if they successfully treat the newborn.

Obviously, such a view makes little sense if a newborn infant is equal in dignity and value to those of us who are older, but the fact that aiming at the death of newborns in this way is now routine in Western NICUs is yet another indicator of our repaganizing. We no longer think that being human is enough. Something else is required—and newborn human beings don’t have it. Peter Singer and many contemporary secular philosophers think so. Contemporary medicine thinks so. And the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States thinks so.

Charles C. Camosy is a professor of medical humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine and a moral theology fellow at St. Joseph Seminary in New York.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/08/vp-nominee-tim-walz-supports-the-right-to-infanticide

Belarus boosts troops at border, summons diplomat after accusing Ukraine of airspace violation

 Belarus sent more troops to reinforce its border with Ukraine on Saturday, saying Ukrainian drones had violated its airspace in the course of Kyiv's military incursion into Russia's Kursk region.

Belarus' Foreign Ministry summoned Ukraine's charge d'affaires, demanded measures to ensure such incidents would not recur and suggested a repeat would prompt Belarus to consider whether Kyiv's diplomatic presence in Minsk was "appropriate".

President Alexander Lukashenko, addressing a meeting in eastern Belarus, said air defence forces on Friday destroyed several of "about a dozen" Ukrainian drones after they violated Belarusian airspace in the Mogilev region bordering Russia.

Lukashenko, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's closest allies, said others were later destroyed near the Russian city of Yaroslavl.

"I don't understand why Ukraine had to do this. We have to look into it," the BelTA news agency quoted him as saying. "But we have...made ourselves clear and conveyed to them that any provocation will not go unanswered."

The state television channel Belarus1 showed footage of what it said were fragments of downed drones.

The Belarusian Foreign Ministry, in comments also appearing on BelTA, said Minsk demanded "comprehensive measures" to ensure such incidents were not repeated.

"It was pointed out...that if Ukraine's diplomatic representation in Belarus cannot have an effect on preventing such provocations, the Belarusian side will raise the issue of the appropriateness of its continued presence in Minsk."

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Andriy Kovalenko, head of Ukraine's Centre for Countering Disinformation, a state body, wrote on Telegram that boosting arms deployments near the border was "an attempt to help Putin and divert the attention of Ukraine's command to this sector".

Earlier on Saturday, the Russian Defence Ministry said Russian forces had intercepted six drones in the Yaroslavl region.

"Considering the situation in Ukraine and in the Kursk region of Russia, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has given orders to reinforce troops in the Gomel and Mozyr tactical areas in order to respond to such provocations," Defence Minister Viktor Khrenin said.

"Special operations forces, ground troops and rocket forces, including Polonez and Iskander systems, have been tasked with deploying to the designated areas."

He said Belarus regarded the violation of its airspace as a provocation and "was ready to respond".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/belarus-boosts-troops-border-summons-200529142.html

Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech

 The selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as the running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris has led to intense debates over crime policy, war claims, gender identity policies and other issues.

Some attacks have, in my view, been inaccurate or overwrought. However, the greatest danger from this ticket is neither speculative nor sensational. A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech.

For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of speech, from supporting a massive censorship system (described by a federal court as an “Orwellian Ministry of Truth“) to funding blacklisting operations targeting groups and individuals with opposing views.  

President Biden made censorship a central part of his legacy, even accusing social media companies of “killing people” for failing to increase levels of censorship. Democrats in Congress pushed that agenda by demanding censorship on subjects ranging from climate change to gender identity — even to banking policy — in the name of combatting “disinformation.”

The administration also created offices like the Disinformation Governance Board before it was shut down after public outcry. But it quickly shifted this censorship work to other offices and groups.

As vice president, Harris has long supported these anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech values but an equally shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment.

Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, constitutes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.

In prior testimony before Congress on the censorship system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), declared, “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.

That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the claim of Gov. Walz. For example, in the 2016 Matal v. Tam decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

As the new Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Walz is running alongside one of the most enthusiastic supporters of censorship and blacklisting systems. 

In her failed 2020 presidential bid, Harris ran on censorship and pledged that her administration “will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.”

In October 2019, Harris dramatically spoke directly to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, insisting “This is not a matter of free speech….This is a matter of holding corporate America and these Big Tech companies responsible and accountable for what they are facilitating.” She asked voters to join her in the effort. 

They didn’t, but Harris ultimately succeeded in the Biden-Harris administration to an unprecedented degree with a comprehensive federal effort to target and silence individuals and groups on social media.

In my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I detailed how President Biden is the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Unlike Adams, I have never viewed Biden as the driving force behind the massive censorship and blacklisting operations supported by his subordinates, including Harris. That is not to say that Biden does not share the shame in these measures. He was willing to sacrifice not only free speech but also institutions like the Supreme Court in a desperate effort to rescue his failing nomination.

The substitution of Harris for Biden makes this the second election in which free speech is the key issue for voters. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams, in large part based on his pledge to reverse the anti-free speech policies of the prior administration, including the use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his opponents.

With the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries. Both candidates are committed to using disinformation, misinformation and malinformation as justifications for speech controls. The third category has been emphasized by the Biden-Harris administration, which explained that it is information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Walz has the advantage in joining this anti-free speech ticket without the burden of knowledge of what is protected under the First Amendment.

With the Harris-Walz ticket, we have come full circle to the very debate at the start of this republic. The warnings of the Founders to reject the siren’s call of censorship remain tragically relevant today. Free speech was and remains our “indispensable right.”

As Benjamin Franklin warned, “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech….Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man.”

With her selection of Walz, Harris has decided to put free speech on the ballot in this election. It is a debate that our nation should welcome, as it did in 1800.

The Biden-Harris administration has notably toned down its anti-free speech efforts as the election approaches. Leading censorship advocates have also gone mostly silent.

If successful, a Harris-Walz administration is expected to bring back those policies and personalities with a vengeance. That could be radically enhanced if the Democrats take both houses of Congress and once again block investigations into their censorship programs.

The media has worked very hard to present Harris and Walz as the “happy warriors.” Indeed, they may be that and much more. The question is what they are happy about in their war against free speech.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster).

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4820490-harris-walz-administration-free-speech/

Ukraine Says It Hit & Destroyed Russian Offshore Gas Platform In Black Sea

Ukraine says its military has targeted and destroyed an offshore gas platform in the Black Sea which had allegedly been converted to a forward operating sea base by Moscow forces.

"Ukraine's navy and military intelligence have attacked and damaged a former offshore gas platform used by Russian forces in the Black Sea," a Ukraine navy spokesman said Saturday.

The Ukrainians further released a video purporting to show the strike. The nighttime footage shows a large explosion and fire engulfing an offshore platform. Dozens of people may have been killed in the attack, but it is unconfirmed whether they were military or civilian platform operators.

Royals vs. Cardinals: Previewing a Brief Rivalry Series in KC

24

A Ukrainian government spokesman, Dmytro Pletenchuk, announced on social media: "The occupiers used this location for GPS spoofing to make civilian navigation dangerous. We cannot allow this to happen."

He further claimed there "were no civilians there" and that the "platform was not performing its normal functions" - and thus was a legitimate military target.

Moscow did not immediately comment on the Ukrainian claims or the video. Starting Friday the Kremlin did acknowledge a sizeable Ukrainian naval attack on its Black Sea fleet and infrastructure, as well as drones sent over Crimea.

Russian state media said the bulk of these attacks in various locations were thwarted:

The Russian military has intercepted an attempted landing by Ukrainian marines near Kherson and destroyed a group of sea drones headed for Crimea, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.

Overnight, a group of unmanned surface vessels (USVs) was detected on approach to the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol. Combat camera footage released by the Russian Defense Ministry on Friday showed them being destroyed in the water.

“The on-duty fire systems destroyed seven unmanned boats in the Black Sea,” the ministry said, without elaborating.

Meanwhile, a group of Ukrainian commandos tried to land at the tip of the Kinburn Peninsula, overlooking the mouth of the Dnieper, early on Friday. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, four boats approached the Kinburn Spit, attempting to land a “sabotage and reconnaissance group.” Under covering fire from two of the boats, about a dozen troops stormed the beach.

All of this is also taking place against the backdrop of the surprise Ukraine cross-border attack into Russia's Kursk region, which as of Saturday has entered day five.

Ukraine has in the past months dramatically stepped up its attacks and sabotage campaign against Russian oil and gas infrastructure. Currently a Ukrainian cross-border force appears to be in control of Gazprom's Sudzha trans-shipping hub for Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine, which is a crucial part of the Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod pipeline. Still, supplies appear to be pumping normally, and very little has been confirmed of the current status of fighting in Sudzha amid an information blackout and fog of war.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-says-it-hit-destroyed-russian-offshore-gas-platform-black-sea