General Petraeus: Okay to let Ukraine use UK’s long-range stormshadow cruise missiles and US’s ATACMS to hit Russian soil - Putin will NOT attack any NATO country - NOT use nukes
- ALREADY attacks Ukraine to max - it’s A PATH TO PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
General Petraeus is a US retired four star general and one of the best informed people on the topic. He was director of the CIA and led American and international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has been over to Ukraine four times in the last 18 months. He is speaking from Kyiv in this interview.
Context for scared people: This is to help you see that we are SAFE from Russia and the war in Ukraine is localized to Ukraine and Russia. And that nothing bad will happen if Ukraine has better abilities to fight back and liberate its country. The opposite, this will make it so there is a better chance of Putin wanting genuine peace negotiations.
I have highlighted some of the main points in bold.
This is the most central part for those worried about Putin’s bluff about escalation. I will summarize this part in bullet points for easy reading first
.
General Petraeus as four star general in US army - now retired.
Summary of what General Petraeus said in bullet points:
General Petraeus says, first that Putin is bluffing:
Yes, Putin is bluffing.
His nukes threat is also a bluff - his biggest ally and partner China / president Xi said “don’t even think about that” and so did Prime Minister Modi of India, an important customer for crude oil etc
On what Putin can do by way of retaliation (nothing essentially)
Putin can’t do anything more conventionally than he is doing already
This is NOT a NATO decision it’s unilateral decisions by the US, UK and France and we do things all the time that are not to do with NATO
Putin will NOT attack NATO. His hands are more than full with Ukraine. He pulled forces out of Eastern Russia, Africa, and Syria to fight in Ukraine.
Putin doesn’t want to take on another fight
On prospects for peace - that the US needs to do everything it can to enable Ukraine to accumulate more battlefield successes to change the dynamics so that genuine peace negotiations can start.
This improves the prospect for peace
Right now the dynamics of the war are not going to encourage Putin to negotiate and Ukraine are not keen to negotiate either
The US needs to do everything it possibly can to help Ukraine to accumulate battlefield successes, so that the dynamics change sufficiently for meaningful negotiations
Here is the part of the transcript I summarized in those bullet points:
Q. Are you saying that you think he is bluffing?
A. I am. I think he has established innumerable red lines before. Ukrainians and or Western Countries have crossed just about all of them. He's even rattled the nuclear sabre. So much so that his own biggest ally and partner China, President Xi said "don't even think about that" as did Prime Minister Modi, an important customer in India for Russian crude oil, and so forth.
So, no, I don't think there is anything more conventionally that he can actually do, that he's not already doing.
Q. President Putin however has said that if this goes ahead this will be NATO countries being drawn into the conflict. General Patraeus, if there was a miscalculation, if this is a huge loss of civilian life for instance, how do those countries get around the fact that it will have been UK, French, US weaponry that was used.
A. First of all this is not a NATO decision. NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council has not decided to conduct these transfers. These are bilateral decisions. Unilateral really decisions by the US and the UK.
Q. All by members of NATO Countries.
A. Yes but we do things all the time unilaterally or bilaterally with another country, in this case Ukraine without NATO approval or NATO involvement.
This is one of those examples, and I don't see what Russia can do. He is certainly not going to attack a NATO country and force NATO to invoke the article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, clause. He doesn't want a fight with NATO.
He has got more than his hands full. He is so heavily engaged in Ukraine right now.
You recall they pulled forces from the Eastern part of the Russian Federation, they pulled them out of Africa, they pulled them out of Syria, other locations. He doesn't want to take on another fight. And then really bring NATO into this in a way that it has been cautious about being brought in before, which is why I think he has not done that in the past.
Q. Does it change this decision if it happens, the prospects for peace, in any way.
Well, look the prospects of peace depend really on the dynamics of this war. Right now the dynamics are not such that Russia is eager to negotiate and would negotiate in a responsible and rational and reasonable manner. And frankly, the Ukrainians aren't that keen to negotiate either at this moment.
And a lot of us have always counselled that the US needs to do even more than it has. It needs to do everything it possibly can to enable the Ukrainians to achieve victories on the battlefield and accumulate those so that the dynamics can be changed sufficiently that there might actually be some prospect for meaningful negotiations. I think that's really critical.
Here is the complete transcript, he says many interesting things at the start too, main points highlighted in bold.
TRANSCRIPT STARTS
1:23 Q. But who better to talk about all of this than General David Patraeus? He was director of the CIA and led American and international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. We will be talking to him from Kyiv in this episode of UkraineCast.
...
2:00: Q. Hello, this is Lucy Hawkings in Washington DC where the morning news networks here are all talking about the potential of these restrictions being lifted on Ukraine about the use of long range missiles into Russia. Everyone is talking about whether it will happen and what the risk of it happening could be and whether it will lead as president Putin has said to an escalation in this conflict.
And I'm so pleased to say that joining us from Kyiv is General David Patreaus.
General, very good to have you with us. Your fourth visit in the last 16 months to Kyiv. How does it feel there at the moment. Is it different?
A. It feels a bit different. On the one hand there is the reassurance that was not here the last time I was here that the US assistance bill passed at someone's back.
And there is reassurance because the pipeline has been filled to a considerable degree with US arms and ammunition and air defence and other systems. Certainly it's never as much as they would like. It's not always as timely as they would like. But it is working. And again $61 billion dollars worth of assistance is enormous. As you know it is larger than the defence budget of any European country.
But there's also a degree of weariness under the surface. Again I've been coming here since early on in the war and there is a sense here, a degree of tenuousness if you will. It's a difficult moment, a challenging moment. There's a concern about the lines in the SE holding in Donetsk and Luhansk and of course especially around the important logistical hub city of Pokrovsk. And then there are questions about whether the Ukrainians can hold onto what they have achieve in that really very impressive combined arms offensive that took the Russians completely by surprise in Kursk.
4:02 Q. And General Petraeus to move the needle, President Zelensky has for a long time, he's very grateful about the aid that has been committed so far militarily but he wants better and stronger weapons. I know that you have supported for a long time limited long range missiles which can be used deep inside Russia. But what do you believe the risk of that potential escalation?
A. Look I think it's always right to be concerned about risks, and having actually sat at the situation table in three - four star combat commands and also as a CI director, it's a lot easier to stand here and question why it has taken so long for this decision, but I think at this point it *has* taken too long for the decision. I am very hopeful that out of this summit today between the UK prime minister and the US president one of the deliberables will be a joint announcement that the limits, restrictions on the use of Stormshadow by the UK and the Army Tactical Missile System by the US have been lifted. This will enable these systems to range and take out air bases and locations from which the Russians have been launching planes and missiles that have done so much damage to so many of the areas especially in Eastern Ukraine. And I think that is hugely important. And I don't see this as enormously risky. I just don't see that.
Q. You don't see that there's a possibility that Russia has now had the chance to actually prepare for this, for the lifting of restrictions, that they've moved their targets further away, that this is actually too little too late?
A. It's never too little too late. But it would have been better to have been done earlier and without this lengthy public discussion of the decision.
Because undoubtedly the Russians *have* assessed. They know the arcs of these systems and they very likely have moved some of these but they can't move them all. And they still will use some of these bases.
Their systems have range limits as well and so I think this is a very important decision to enable the Ukrainians to get the full effect of these particular systems.
And I'd also add again, someone asked me, will Russia throw anything more at the Ukrainians? I said they have thrown everything they have at the Ukrainians. There's 6000 lb glide bombs [3 tons] that are just hammering into Kharkiv, the second largest city and other locations that are close to the borders. As you know they have systematically targeted the electrical generation and transmission infrastructure in Ukraine. It's going to be a very tough long hard cold and dark winter. I fear for the Ukrainians.
They are desperately trying to re-establish the generation capacity but they can't do that. And of course they even hit the major children's hospital that serves Kyiv.
So I think again this is long over due. I hope we hear it today and I hope it will allow the Ukrainians to use these weapon systems to their full effect.
Q. So General Patraeus when President Putin said that this will mean that NATO is directly participating in the conflict, that this is a red line for Russia, are you saying that you think he is bluffing?
A. I am. I think he has established innumerable red lines before. Ukrainians and or Western Countries have crossed just about all of them. He's even rattled the nuclear sabre. So much so that his own biggest ally and partner China, President Xi said "don't even think about that" as did Prime Minister Modi, an important customer in India for Russian crude oil, and so forth.
So, no, I don't think there is anything more conventionally that he can actually do, that he's not already doing.
Q. President Putin however has said that if this goes ahead this will be NATO countries being drawn into the conflict. General Patraeus, if there was a miscalculation, if this is a huge loss of civilian life for instance, how do those countries get around the fact that it will have been UK, French, US weaponry that was used.
A. First of all this is not a NATO decision. NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council has not decided to conduct these transfers. These are bilateral decisions. Unilateral really decisions by the US and the UK.
Q. All by members of NATO Countries.
A. Yes but we do things all the time unilaterally or bilaterally with another country, in this case Ukraine without NATO approval or NATO involvement.
This is one of those examples, and I don't see what Russia can do. He is certainly not going to attack a NATO country and force NATO to invoke the article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, clause. He doesn't want a fight with NATO.
He has got more than his hands full. He is so heavily engaged in Ukraine right now.
You recall they pulled forces from the Eastern part of the Russian Federation, they pulled them out of Africa, they pulled them out of Syria, other locations. He doesn't want to take on another fight. And then really bring NATO into this in a way that it has been cautious about being brought in before, which is why I think he has not done that in the past.
Q. Does it change this decision if it happens, the prospects for peace, in any way.
Well, look the prospects of peace depend really on the dynamics of this war. Right now the dynamics are not such that Russia is eager to negotiate and would negotiate in a responsible and rational and reasonable manner. And frankly, the Ukrainians aren't that keen to negotiate either at this moment.
And a lot of us have always counselled that the US needs to do even more than it has. It needs to do everything it possibly can to enable the Ukrainians to achieve victories on the battlefield and accumulate those so that the dynamics can be changed sufficiently that there might actually be some prospect for meaningful negotiations. I think that's really critical.
And BTW for those who say, well we can't do that plus do deterrence in the Indo-Pacific which after all is the major challenge in the world. And they are right that is the main effort, ensuring that what is characterised as a severe competition turning into a real conflict. That has to be the major priority and is, for the US and for many other Western countries.
But look we can do both. And not only that. If we don't help Ukraine, and were Ukraine ever to fail, what would that do to deterrence in the Indo Pacific, knowing that deterrence of course is based on a potential adversaries' assessment of your capabilities on one hand and your willingness to employ them on the other?
And if you don't help Ukraine, that undermines the perception that you would actually help another country that might be in need if pressed by aggressive action by that potential adversary.
BTW we need to do the same in the Middle East. And we can do this. Especially if we all do it together. Because this should always be a whole of governments' approach with an s at the end of it not just a unilateral approach to these efforts.
. Ukrainecast - Could the West cross Putin's new red line? - BBC Sounds
EXPANDING ON THE GENERAL’S REMARKS - NO WAY RISK AVERSE PUTIN ATTACKS NATO
There is no way that risk averse Putin is going to attack NATO.
Putin is very risk averse not mad. The reason he seems crazy to some people is just because of the Ukraine invasion. But in reality Putin is very risk averse and he thought his spies had given him a 100% risk free way to take over Ukraine in 2 weeks. There is no way he can think the same of an attack against NATO
.
Putin is "A VERY RISK AVERSE INDIVIDUAL" (ISW).
He planned to take Hostomel airport on day 1. Land tanks and take over Kyiv government next day. Take over Ukraine in 2 weeks. Would NEVER HAVE DONE THIS if he thought his plan could fail. Had no plan B.
Debris from destroyed Russian helicopter
Putin thought he had a risk free plan to take Kyiv in 2 days and the rest of Ukraine in 2 weeks.
He was so sure of this plan devised by spies he kept it secret from his generals and had “no plan B”
Battle for Hostomel airport - only 200 soldiers but they were able to make the airport impossible for plans to land on and destroy many helicopters as they tried to land.
Photo of the damaged airport from: Occupiers fail to secure their foothold in the attack on Kyiv
Then, some of you may have been influenced by media articles with fantasy ideas of what nukes can achieve. Putin CAN’T win a war with nukes. Even the vastly superior Soviet Union couldn’t do that. Russia doesn’t even have one nuke each for every US and UK military base (many of which will be hardened against nukes).
Never mind the destroyers, the fighter jets, bombers, and the UK, France and US always have nuclear powered submarines at sea, both with nukes and conventional weapons that can’t be seen by Russia because radar doesn’t penetrate water.
See my:
I need to expand a bit on the general’s remark:
General Patreaus: He is certainly not going to attack a NATO country and force NATO to invoke the article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, clause. He doesn't want a fight with NATO.
Most people don’t have a clue that Russia can’t protect itself against NATO which has vastly superior technology it hasn’t given to Ukraine. It has difficulties protecting itself from Ukraine with decades old equipment.
The ATACMS isn’t modern US technology, it’s technology from the 1980s.
NATO has hundreds of fighter jets that Russia wouldn’t be able to see in their radar until it’s too late. Russia has nothing like this, its equivalent is not yet combat ready and they don’t fly them anywhere near the combat zone in Ukraine because they worry they could be shot down.
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC When you look for one of these F-35s on radar …
This is what you see: [large potato]
Russian radar operator (imagined): “What is that on the radar? A supersonic potato?”
Billie Flyn, F-35 test pilot on what it would do in Ukraine.
It would go in and kill every surface-to-air missile threat that was out there, and neutralize all the threats on the ground, and achieve air dominance because it would kill all the air-to-air assets also. Remember: we see them, they don’t see us. It’s like playing football, when one team’s invisible, and the other team is not….
Background photos: rightmost potato from: Potato var. Linda HC1 and F-35 at Edwards
For more about NATO’s vast technological advantage over Russia see my:
This shows the range of the US tomahaw
k
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Range of the US tomahawk cruise missile with a half ton payload like the ATACMS, travels at nearly 1000 km / hour, range 2,400 km.
Proven ability to get through Russia's S-400 system
With the current state of Russian air defences, teh US could sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet in a few hours but doesn't give this capability to ukraine.
Details of the missile here: Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia
Circle drawn with this free online map circle drawing tool Radius Around a Point on a Map
It is the other way round. Russia seems unable even to stop modified microlight hobbyist aircraft loaded with explosives!
This is about how Ukraine is using modified microlights as long range attack drones. Ukraine appears to deploy modified A-22 ultralights as suicide UAV
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Russia's air defences are so degraded that Ukraine is able to fly microlights through them without getting shot down.
Replace pilot and passenger by explosives and remote control, and you have a drone that can evade the Russian air defences and bomb a Russian oil refinery 1000s of kilometres from Ukaraine.
Yet Russia claims FALSELY it can "escalate" and win a war against not just Ukraine but NATO as well. Just bluffs and bulls**t.
Graphic shows the A-22 microlight - a small Ukrainian civilian microlight plane with just enough payload for the pilot plus one passenger. Aeroprakt A-22 Foxbat . Replace pilot and passenger by explosives and remote control and you have a drone that can evade the Russian air defences and head off and bomb a refinery deep in Russia.
Video showing some of the drones attacking oil refineries Ukraine’s AI-enabled drones are trying to disrupt Russia’s energy industry. So far, it’s working | CNN Business Bear in mind that to do this it has flown slowly at about the speed of a fast car over Russia for many hours and not been shot down by air defences or even fighter jets. Here are more of the sorts of things Ukraine uses. Most are propellor driven. H I Sutton - Covert Shores
Using things like this it also hit one of Russia's most advanced 5th generation fighter jet. The remarkable thing is that it wasn't protected by air defences!
QUOTE STARTS
With too few radars and surface-to-air missile batteries to defend every headquarters, factory, oil refinery and air base, the Russians have to make hard choices. Ukrainian drone attacks “force a Russian reassessment of their air-defense resources,” noted Mick Ryan, a retired Australian army general.
It’s possible this reassessment left that Su-57 unprotected just long enough for an explosive drone to strike. And it’s possible additional stealth fighters, as well as other expensive weapons, are also exposed. (A Ukrainian Drone Strike May Have Destroyed A Russian Air Force Su-57 Stealth Fighter)
Details here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/how-to-see-there-is-no-way-putin
As General Petraeus said:
You recall they pulled forces from the Eastern part of the Russian Federation, they pulled them out of Africa, they pulled them out of Syria, other locations. He doesn't want to take on another fight. And then really bring NATO into this in a way that it has been cautious about being brought in before, which is why I think he has not done that in the past.
It makes no sense for anyone even very rash never mind risk averse Putin
The reason Russia will never use a nuke is because, if Russia uses a nuke:
1. It is a rogue nation like NK.
2. Its use of nukes can't be hidden from Russians
3. China and India can't support Russia even neutrally.
4. Questions the legitimacy of Russia's seat in the UN Security Council - with Ukraine as its obvious successor.
5. Allies surely immediately give Ukraine everything it wants and the permissions it needs to defend itself
6. The US WILL respond. Jack Sullivan said this in 2022, they have communicated directly privately to Putin.
In more detail on the last point: for a short time in the fall of 2022 the CIA assessed that there might be a risk of Putin using a small tactical nuke in Ukraine. Biden then instructed Bill Burns, director of the CIA to talk to one of his counterparts in the Kremlin, Sergei Nerishki and tell him exactly what would happen if Russia used a tactical nuke.
The CIA presumably concluded that there was no longer a risk after that since Bill Burns just said "There was a moment in the fall of 2022 when I think there was a genuine risk of tactical nuclear weapons". "A moment" suggests they resolved it and there is no longer a risk.
So whatever they said they'd do they assessed that this would stop Putin from using a nuke.
The ISW are skeptical that there really was a risk even then saying "This rhetoric was likely more a part of a routine information operation designed to deter Western security assistance to Ukraine than an indicator of Russian readiness to use nuclear weapons, however."
QUOTE STARTS
…William Burns cautioned the West against concern about boilerplate Russian nuclear saber-rattling, which ISW has long identified as part of a Kremlin effort to promote Western self-deterrence and influence key moments in Western policy debates about support for Ukraine. … Burns stated that the CIA had assessed that Russian forces may have considered using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine in the fall of 2022 and that he was in contact with Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Director Sergei Naryshkin on the matter.
The CIA's assessment of possible Russian readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine in the fall of 2022 corresponded with intensified Russian rhetoric about nuclear confrontation amid the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive operations in Kherson and Kharkiv oblasts. This rhetoric was likely more a part of a routine information operation designed to deter Western security assistance to Ukraine than an indicator of Russian readiness to use nuclear weapons, however.
The Kremlin has repeatedly invoked thinly veiled threats of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and the West during key moments in Western political discussions about further military assistance to Ukraine, such as in the fall of 2022, to induce fear among decision makers. ISW continues to assess that Russia is very unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine or elsewhere.
The US might have been responding to a controlled leak. It might even be Putin talking about the idea to colleagues if the CIA somehow intercepted communications from Putin himself, but in his mind not for a moment seriously considering it - even with the best intelligence, they can't look inside his mind.
The main thing is that if there was a genuine risk even for a moment in 2022 [and maybe there never was] then the spy chiefs assess that they successfully counteracted it and it is no longer a risk.
The US do not say what Burns said they would do but General Patreus who is not privy to the discussions speculates that it is conventional on targets in occupied Ukraine and the Black Sea.
First, Bill Burns
21:22. There was a moment in the fall of 2022 when I think there was a genuine risk of tactical nuclear weapons. I have never thought as an agency that we should be unnecessarily intimidated by that. Putin is a bully. He is going to continue to saber rattle from time to time.
The president sent me to talk to one of our Russian counterparts Sergei Nerishki and at the end of 2022 to make very clear what the consequences of that kind of escalation would be and we've continued to be very direct about that. So I don't think we can afford to be intimidated by that saber rattling or bullying. We've got to be mindful of it.
. Financial Times Live (@ftlive) on X
Then Jake Sullivan:
QUOTE STARTS
Jake Sullivan: we have communicated to the Russians what the consequences would be but we've been careful in how we talk about this publicly because from our perspective we want to lay down the principle that there would be catastrophic consequences but not engage in a game of rhetorical Tit for Tat, so the Russians understand where we are we understand where we are
We are planning for every contingency and we will do what is necessary to deter Russia from taking the step and if they do we will respond decisively.
Then General Petraeus:
QUOTE STARTS
General Patraeus (retired): But that range of options would largely inflict more damage on Russian Ukraine including very likely on Crimea and in the Black Sea as well. And again the effort has been to deter, to persuade the Kremlin, to persuade Putin that this would be a catastrophically bad idea to which the response would be catastrophic in nature. That’s the words of Jake Sullivan, the US national security advisor.
It would be very very unwise for Putin to do this and it would not get him out of this desperate situation in which he finds himself, he would actually find himself in a more desperate situation as a result of this if he were to use these weapons.
Recording here that I did from the program, for checking the transcription.
http://robertinventor.online/booklets/General-Petraeus.mp4
So - Putin would not be surprised as he has been told in advance. He doesn't say what they'd do. But the West for instance could likely sink the Black Sea Fleet using precisely targeted long distance tomahawk missiles. Not with nukes, only catastrophic to Putin's regime.
https://x.com/DoomsdayDebunks/status/1830711490237866118
For details including the Patraeus and Sullivan transcripts see:
So hopefully you are less scared now?
I think most who don’t follow this closely have no idea how vastly superior NATO is to Russia.
They get a false idea from seeing Russia and Ukraine at a standstill in Ukraine. It makes Russia seem equal in power to NATO.
What most people don’t realize is that if NATO countries were to give Ukraine
Tomahawk cruise missiles
F-35 fighter jets
permit Ukraine to employ ex fighter jet pilots as volunteer foreign fighters
Then the war would be over in a day or two, Russia would have to retreat with no chance of holding on to occupied Ukraine. The Russian forces would be dominated from the air with no chance to fly their own helicopters or figher jets over occupied Ukraine - and since it’s not Russian territory they wouldn’t have the motivation to want to go on fighting as fighters in tunnels like the Azov battalion in Mariupol. They would just leave.
I summarized it like this with my AI generated graphic of a dwarf Putin fighting a mammoth with soap bubbles.
WHY RUSSIA WILL NEVER ATTACK NATO - BECAUSE NATO IS VASTLY MORE POWERFUL LIKE A MIDGET ATTACKING A MAMMOTH WITH SOAP BUBBLES
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
NASA, huge and powerful but very timid
Russia knows it can't use nukes in reality
Russia tiny and weak, bluffs as meaningless as soap bubbles
Even the Soviet Union had no way to win a war with nukes
Imagine if your team was invisible - how easily you could win a game of football.
That is how much better NATO's F-35 jets are than anything Russia has.
300+ F-35s (USA), 100+ F-35s (Europe).
Russia's 5th generation fighter jet is not ready for war and may never be (expensive technology to develop).
NATO's technology is vastly superior (one of many ways)
NATO: Population 967 million [it's 631 million leaving out USA] NATO: 3.5 million soldiers
Russia: Population 144 million, 0.9% = 1.32 million soldiers
Ukraine: 42 million, 2.1% = 900,000 soldiers
UK war levels of conscription ~12%.
US defence spending $883.7 billion, 3% of GDP
NATO European allies $380 billion, 2% of GDP
Russia: $112 billion, 6% of GDP.
Ukraine: $43.23 billion, 22.1% of GDP
Based on this image created by Dall-E via Bing Chat Generated by Microsoft Copilot
American football photo from: US Navy 090608-N-3283P-018 The Yokosuka Seahawks face off against the Yokohama Harbors during the U.S. Forces Japan-American Football league at Yokosuka Field - Wikimedia Commons
Putin head from this graphic flipped Vladimir Putin (2017-01-17)
Details for the figures on the graphic, see Short debunks For Russia to attack NATO is like a midget attacking a mammoth with soap bubbles - it can't do it
[if it doesn’t jump to the section search the page for “mammoth” or look under world war in the left menu]
SEE ALSO ON MY SUBSTACK:
And on Quora mid-edit:
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
SEARCH SHORT DEBUNKS
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
Also my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.