all 24 comments

[–]passionflounderPaper tiger 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Ultimately all adopted pets need to be put down when they develop bad habits.

[–]Oyveygoyim 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Unfortunately "we" protect people like Jewlensky

[–]1Icemonkey[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

For sure. That gooey jew will live forever. Probably longer than Kissinger.

[–]Dragonerne 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Zelenski is a jew so no they wont kill their own

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Like Epstein?

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. Wait you think he's dead?

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Who's to say?

[–]TheMaharishi 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's so god damn weak of the whole world to just sit by. When America has been doing the Hitler since 1945. It's a common misconception that the second world war ended in 1945. When it was simply the year America and the Jew world order took over the baton from Germany. They have been fighting wars in the open and in the shadows without taking a moment to pause ever since. Putting people they could control in charge and simply invading when they couldn't do it on the down low.

[–]1Icemonkey[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Brother, you are right on!

[–]SMCABwhatever 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Remember, the first and third one threatened to trade their oil on the euro. That's a good way to get a sword up your ass.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]1Icemonkey[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

    Stay off my posts nigger.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

    Hahahahah

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

      Stay off his posts! Nigger!

      What you can’t read his eloquent comment!

      [–]1Icemonkey[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

      DILLIGAF?

      [–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      Well. "We" didn't arm Gaddafi, if by "we" we mean the west. After his coup, Libya started sourcing military equipment from the USSR.

      But we did arm Bin Laden et. al. And trained him. It was 25 years later that we killed him. And we did arm Saddam. It was 21 years later that we killed him.

      So keep an eye one what Zelenskyy is doing in about 2045 I guess. If Ukraine is part of the EU and NATO, I would think that would be more like the supply of arms to Nakasone, the biggest recipient of US arms in the 1980s, and who I don't think we did kill.

      [–]1Icemonkey[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

      What we did to the Colonel was talk him into turning over his nukes. I miss him really.

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      Russia did that to Ukraine. It seems they didn't uphold their part of the bargain either.

      [–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

      User name checks out.

      Ukraine never had either legal or practical control of nuclear weapons. Like Belarus and Kazakhstan, it was merely hosting the weapons which were under the legal and practical control of the USSR, and then its successor state the Russia Federation.

      Ukraine's supposed nuclear weapons were guarded by Soviet troops and managed by Soviet technicians. They were never under the control of Ukraine, and the only way they could have gained control would have been for Ukrainian forces to attack the Soviets, which would have led to Ukraine being labelled a "rogue state" and almost certainly a joint US/Russian attack to get them back. Effectively, Ukraine gave up what they never had in the first place.

      Even if Ukraine gained control of the nuclear weapons, they did not have access to the codes to arm or fire them, which meant the most they could do would be crack them open and use them in a "dirty bomb" on their own land. Nor did they have the technical means to maintain the weapons. I dare say that, given time, they probably would have been able to reverse engineer the nukes but that would have taken a long time, and with both the USA and Russia in agreement about avoiding nuclear proliferation, they wouldn't have been given that time.

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Ukraine never had either legal or practical control of nuclear weapons.

      Nevertheless they had the weapons, and in exchange for returning them, Russia (and the US and UK) signed the Budapest agreement, that guaranteed Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan), among other things, respect of their independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

      [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Nevertheless they had the weapons

      No they didn't. They were merely hosted on Ukrainian soil, but under control of the Soviet army and high command, not the Ukrainian army or government. Russia is the legal successor state of the USSR: Russia took on all of the debts and obligations of the USSR and inherited all of its legal possessions including the entire nuclear arsenal except for those it agreed to hand over to the break-away states.

      The USA has, or had, nuclear weapons in many NATO countries, including Germany, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. But the weapons are under legal and practical control of the USA not the host country. You cannot say that Belgium has nuclear weapons, or Germany. The situation with Ukraine was the same except that the Ukraine Soviet and the Russian Soviet were going through a national divorce at the time, and their divorce agreement merely acknowledged the reality that the nuclear weapons were Russian.

      It couldn't have gone any other way at the time. Both the USA and USSR/Russia were, and remain, vigorously opposed to nuclear proliferation. There is no way in hell that either the USA or Russia would have allowed Ukraine, Belarus or Kazakhstan to take possession of the nuclear weapons.

      I mean, just look at the fuss the USA is making now about Belarus merely hosting Russia nuclear weapons under Russian control. Not that they can do anything about it except cry.

      [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Russia (and the US and UK) signed the Budapest agreement, that guaranteed Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan), among other things, respect of their independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

      National agreements between nations are not a suicide pact. They only hold so long as all parties are willing to hold them. Agreement or no agreement, Russia was not going to meekly sit and allow NATO to eat into their security zone forever.

      The USA violated the spirit of the agreement in 2014 by instituting a "color revolution" (coup) in Ukraine and installing a government extremely hostile to Russia. Before that, their intentions were clear: they had already spent twenty years or so violating their promise to Russia that NATO would not move "one inch east" of Germany, and have never even tried to hide the fact that they still consider Russia an enemy and seek the destruction of the Russian state. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Russia was too weak to do anything about it but that's no longer the situation.

      Small, weak nations keep their sovereignty and borders by the good will of big, strong nations. That is the way of the world. If you are a small weak nation like Ukraine on the border of a great power, you should not antagonize them. (Not that weak: Ukraine had the second largest army in Europe, second only to Russia, trained to NATO standards. Had.)

      Imagine if Canada was taken over by a pro-China Francophone party that banned English, committed horrific crimes against civilians in Toronto, shelled civilians in Alberta for eight years, cancelled trade agreements with the USA, and promised to host Chinese nuclear weapons any day now. How long do you think the US would sit back and do nothing? They sure as hell wouldn't try negotiating for eight years. This is why the Russian people think that Putin is being too soft.

      While Ukraine was neutral, Russia was willing to honor the Budapest Memorandum, but as soon as the US interfered in their security zone, they took back Crimea. Realpolitik in action: you cannot expect a great power to do nothing when their neighbours actively conspire to destroy them.

      (Crimea should never have been put into the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic: the people there are majority Russian, not ethnic Ukrainian, and it was only by the efforts of Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, that the Russian Soviet transferred Crimea to the Ukraine Soviet in the first place.)

      Under the UN declaration of human rights, people have the right to self-determination, and even before the Ukrainian civil war, the majority of Crimeans considered themselves to be part of Mother Russia. The Donbas is similar: overwhelming majorities in Donetsk and Luhansk are ethnic Russian, and once the Ukrainian civil war kicked off in 2014 the majority of them preferred to join Russia. But the Russian Federation refused to officially recognize the two breakway republics while they spent eight years trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution that kept Ukraine neutral -- despite Ukraine breaking the peace accords over and over again and becoming a de facto NATO catspaw. Leading up to the events of 2022, when (1) Zelensky announced Ukraine would no longer recognize the Minsk II agreement; (2) Ukraine massed an invasion force just outside of Donbas and exponentially increased their shelling of Donetsk; and (3) only then did Russia officially recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk republics and accept their request for military assistance.

      Exactly what the countries of NATO did with Bosnia and Yugoslavia, all nice and legal. The Russian invasion and occupation of south and east Ukraine is legally a special police operation, just like NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. Except that unlike NATO, Russia isn't using depleted uranium weapons, nor have they deliberately bombed the Chinese Embassy.

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Agreement or no agreement, Russia was not going to meekly sit and allow NATO to eat into their security zone forever.

      Seems that we agree that there was an agreement and Russia broke it by invading Ukraine.

      The USA violated the spirit of the agreement in 2014 by instituting a "color revolution" (coup) in Ukraine and installing a government extremely hostile to Russia.

      Nothing to do with America. Ukrainians were impatient to see economic transformation and saw the elections as fraudulent.

      Yushchenko won a free and fair election, and Putin poisoned him.

      [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Seems that we agree that there was an agreement and Russia broke it by invading Ukraine.

      There was an agreement. It was broken by the US by instigating a coup that overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian government.

      Nothing to do with America.

      The US State Department spent five billion dollars on election observers and protest groups to accuse Yanukovych of election fraud. It didn't work: independent election observers, and Ukrainians, agreed that Yanukovych had won a fair election. But the US was going to give up.

      In 2013 and 2014, the US gave more money to the ultra-far right militias. Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy met with Svoboda’s leader. Victoria Nuland literally chose who would be in the new Ukrainian government.

      Ukrainians were impatient to see economic transformation and saw the elections as fraudulent.

      That's not even close to what happened in 2013 and 2014.

      The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) called the 2010 election "an impressive display" of democracy, fair and with no serious fraud. Denying that Yanukovych was the legitimate, democratically elected president of Ukraine is pure American propaganda.

      Yanukovych was backed by both pro-EU Ukrainian oligarchs and Putin. He had the support of ethnic Russians and also many of the western Ukrainians. For three years, Yanukovych walked a narrow line keeping neutral between Russia and the EU, keeping agreements with Russia while still strengthening ties with the EU. He refused to join a Russian-led customs union; refused to merge the Ukrainian and Russian gas companies (which would have put control of the gas pipeline into Russia's hands); he encouraged Western investment, and pursued EU membership and loans from the IMF and World Bank. The idea that he was a Kremlin puppet is idiotic.

      Yanukovych was the most trusted politician in Ukraine in 2013. And then he accepted an interest-free loan from Russia and cancelled a deal with the IMF, a deal which would have required Ukraine to cut pensions, sell off state assets, reduce taxes on the wealthy, and increase them on the poor. You know, the typical neoliberal globalist loan that makes millionaires into billionaires and impoverishes regular folks. And that's when the protests started, because of course there is nothing that ordinary folks want more than IMF loans that will make them poor, right?

      The Maidan protesters were committing huge amounts of criminal damage and most importantly they never had majority support in Ukraine. Think of them as the equivalent of BLM protestors in America, except right-wing instead of left, even less popular, and even more violent. The Maidan insurrection is an excellent case-study in how violent revolution by a minority can overthrow a government -- especially following the false-flag shooting of both police and protestors by Svoboda and Right Sector, which the media then blamed on the police.

      George Soros' Open Society Foundation claims that the Maidan revolution was completely peaceful except for government violence, which tells you everything you need to know about OSF.

      It was a mess: US backed far-right paramilitary forces, including Azov, Svoboda and Right Sector, were committing violence, the government couldn't stop them, while US funded NGOs and EU media blamed the government. A classic example of what the US has done dozens of times before in Africa and South America. The new government was anti-Russian and pro-US, and to this day has still not investigated who shot the Maidan protestors, ignoring eye witnesses and forensic evidence that the shooting came from a building held by Svoboda miilitia.

      Yanukovych and opposition parties came to an agreement, brokered by the EU, to reduced the president's power and hold new elections, but that wasn't enough for the far-right. They threatened more violence and threatened to murder Yanukovych. With the US openly supporting the far right, the Ukraine Parliament ratified the insurrection and stripped the presidency from Yanukovych, who then fled.

      Yanukovych was corrupt, and he cracked down on protestors. But he was more democratic and less corrupt than those who followed, including Zelensky who was in first place in the Panama Papers as just another corrupt oligarch.

      Yushchenko won a free and fair election, and Putin poisoned him.

      Yes, he won the previous election, probably fairly, but he too was a dirty politician and he broke Ukrainian laws as president and had many enemies. There is no good evidence that his dioxin poisoning was done by Russia, it could easily have been done by his Ukrainian enemies.

      [–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)