Posted on 08/13/2026 10:24:42 AM PDT by adorno
Kazakhstan's president might be inviting Putin to shove him off an open window
shove it along commie. you are not wanted here.
So you're afraid to think and share those thoughts.
Got it.
Let's address the facts in the Ukrainian situation then.
Did a violent mob kill police and storm and take over government buildings to overthrow the elected president in Ukraine?
Yes. They did.
What is the word for that?
Coup.
noun
a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power
How many votes did the Ukrainian constitution require to remove an elected president?
338 - 3/4 of the 450 seats
How many votes did the resolution to remove the Ukrainian president from office in 2014 receive?
328, less than the requirement in the Constitution.
That's why I asked you if a murderous mob wouldn't be committing a coup if they violently chased off our duly elected President from his a residence, and only 60 Senators voted for his removal from office.
But you're afraid to answer that, because you don't really want mobocracy here, even if you've been tricked into cheering for it somewhere else.
what I did post completely debunked your posted lies about what occurred in Ukraine
You cut and paste some AI slop (why don't you feed it the hypothetical you're afraid to answer - don't like the result?) about an event in Odessa I never mentioned. You didn't address the fact that contemporary international election observers called it a fair and free election.
If you're dumb enough to confuse the death of over 40 ethnic Russians with ethnic Ukrainians because they weren't Russian citizens, I'm not sure you can actually hold up your end of this conversation anyway.
Your last sentence is the money point.
Zeepers are not capable of critical thinking about the situation and are consequently uneducable.
And if they can’t think and can’t learn, they will just revert to blurting out tropes others have posted.
“Putin wants a buffer between Russia and NATO.”
Either that’s just one of the many cards in his rolodex of manufactured excuses that don’t hold up to scrutiny, or Putin’s judgement is so impaired that he shouldn’t be trusted to in charge of a bagel stall let alone a country.
Take your pick.
Before Putin even entered politics the Soviet Union as well as over a dozen countries in Europe had already settled the borders between Russia and its neighbors, underpinning “détente”. The Helsinki Final Accords achieved this in the seventies; the Belovezha Accords (drafted by a triumvirate of Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian presidents) OFFICIALLY reaffirmed not just the borders, but also the principle that the Russian Federation was the successor to the Russian Republic, not the whole USSR. In effect, Putin knows Russia has no valid claim or jurisdiction over Belarus, Ukraine, or any of the Warsaw Pact countries.
The proof of this is literally there in the top line of the Belovezha Accords - at the behest of the Russian leader, it declared the “geopolitical reality” of the USSR “no longer exists”.
Putin himself, in his first term as president, publicly admonished Russian revanchists who argued that Russia should be the boss of its “little brother” Ukraine - and in at least one televised response he even went as far as saying explicitly that if Ukraine wanted to join NATO or the EU then that was for Ukraine to decide, not for Russia.
Yanukovych, Azarov, and all of Poroshenko’s other predecessors, had repeatedly said they weren’t interested in joining NATO at all. EU NATO, Germany and France especially, made it abundantly clear that if Ukraine ever applied to join NATO, they’d veto it. If even one NATO member vetos an application to join, the application is dead in the water.
So Putin LITERALLY had nothing rational to worry about, unless he gave the likes of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, an existential reason to join NATO that they’d never have if Russia wasn’t being the aggressor.
This is why the “don’t poke the Russian bear” anti-NATO-expansion stuff was utter nonsense on stilts. It’s only because Russia kept poking EU NATO and Ukraine with serial political interference, stirring up dissidents, Cyber attacks and fuel blackmail, that eventually forced even die-hard “don’t poke the bear” merchants like Angela Merkel to wake up. Since the bear insisted on poking the honey badger, you can’t keep on telling the honey badger not to poke the bear back.
It isn’t just Merkel who had to rethink her fawning capitulation to Russian “sensitivities”. Zelensky was a Russian speaking anti-Azov moderate who was treated as an ally by the Muscovy media before he entered politics. Zelensky might not have been Moscow’s preferred candidate but he presided over a near-complete end to state-sponsored hostile actions against Russian interests between 2019 and 2022. By Jan 2022, under ten casualties a month (on both sides) were being recorded even by the FSB in the Donbas - and they were almost all combatants. That wasn’t even close to being an “ongoing genocide”. It was barely even big enough to be called a turf war between two rival gangs.
Zelensky NOW wants NATO membership, but the only reason for that is Putin has literally forced him into wanting something that he never wanted and not even the hardline nationalists in charge in Ukraine before he became President hadn’t wanted.
Putin’s irrational fear of NATO is literally only given a figleaf of rationality as a result of Putin’s serial aggressions eventually forcing even pro-Russian actors like Merkel and Zelensky into recognising that under its current leadership, Russia IS threatening eastern Europe and being in NATO is the only effective defence.
“Finnland joined NATO (on the Russian border). Sweden joined NATO (not on the border but close). It used to be neutral. Poland is arming up. Nato has become much stronger. Europe is much more afraid of Russia.”
Exactly. NATO expansion isn’t the cause of Putin’s irrational fears; NATO expansion in the 21st Century is entirely the effect of Putin’s irrational fears creating a rational, credible threat to their security.
Hilarious meme! Well done!
You are personally present over many of the ganeemead threads going back years defending that utter nonsense as credible.
He has years of posting absolute total nonsense that time has proven to be completely false time and time again. Even defending Scott Ritter on threads of obviously false information. Also finds it hilarious that people find supporting terrorism to be problematic and mocked them - he used that 'zeeper ping list' on the threads about the summits held with multiple terrorist organizations and made fun of people for have the audacity to believe there was anything wrong such organizations. Someone who would say things like that is not someone you can possibly expect to have.
It is far more than a lack of intelligence - it is a lack of integrity.
Indeed - he also finds terrorism hilarious:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4220823/posts?page=2#2
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4220823/replies?c=4
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4220823/replies?c=5
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4220823/replies?c=8
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4220823/replies?c=10
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4220823/replies?c=15
Why did Germany and France oppose Ukrainian admission to NATO? Because they accurately predicted the consequence. There's no other reason.
So Putin LITERALLY had nothing rational to worry about, unless he gave the likes of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, an existential reason to join NATO that they’d never have if Russia wasn’t being the aggressor.
That was still true until the coup, and the coup government then put NATO ascension into their constitution. Even that wouldn't be a particularly nasty problem for the Russians, except that NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union was no longer simply a defensive alliance. It was used as an international imprimatur to attack and partition Serbia (coincidentally, a historical Russian ally) and to assist jihadists in regime change in Libya. In neither case was NATO involvement the consequence of 'defense' of the members.
This is why the “don’t poke the Russian bear” anti-NATO-expansion stuff was utter nonsense on stilts.
There are hundreds of thousands of people now dead who might characterize the dangers of provoking Russia differently, if they could still speak.
The neocon NATO expansion has only achieved the war NATO was supposed to prevent. Utter foreign policy failure.
This CSPAN clip from June 18, 1997 better than anything highlights how poorly neocons predict the outcome of their actions:
In the clip then Senator Biden mocks Russia and says of their opposition to eastward NATO expansion, 'what are you gonna do, ally with China and Iran? That's not an option.' Well, here we are...
Freerepublic has turned into Yookrepublic
I also fail to see the reason for the strange devotion towards Ukraine by so many people. Liberals who would never dream of flying an American flag in their front yard or porch (in fear of being confused with those awful conservatives) happily fly Ukrainian flags. Perhaps they ought to consider relocating to Kyiv?
Ukraine is a decrepit Third World country whose pre-war per-capita GDP was the lowest in Europe with the exceptions of Kosovo and Moldova, roughly on par with Guatemala in economic terms. If Mexico invaded Guatemala, would anybody really care? No, except insofar as it might result in a flood of refugees headed our way.
But if people want to treat Ukraine as though it's America's 51st state and flying Ukrainian flags like idiots, let them have at it. Just don't go around claiming that Ukraine's side is "our side".
Remember in 2022, when this was a Democrat majority issue? When Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi were leading the charge?
Yookrepublic, you write. Posted on 12/3/2025, 3:44:41 AM by AdmSmith Now with over 3,900 comments across about nine months. A veritable PR machine tucked away in an old thread.
talk about an endless war...the dems are cheering on.
It isn’t devotion, it is support, as the European underdog that was struggling to come out of the dark ages of Soviet domination and into modernity somehow manages to fight off the Russian/North Korean Army forces being trained by Red China and armed by Iran, it is pretty impressive and unexpected.
Americans also like to support our side in wars against our evil enemies, obviously not all Americans, as we see from the Vietnam war and the Ukraine war, Russia always has its supporters.
If their goal was modernity, they weren't doing a very good job of it. Even backwards, Muslim, war-torn Bosnia managed a (slightly) higher per-capita GDP in the 2010s than pre-war Ukraine did.
LOL, look what you picked out of that post, ignoring the important parts answering your supposed puzzlement.
Yes, and it reminds me of the Balkans wars in the late 1990s, when liberals and neocons rallied support for Bosnia and Kosovo, as though Bosnia and Kosovo were enlightened, American-style countries. You see the same thing with the people waving Ukrainian flags around (including by liberals who, as I noted above, would never dream of flying an American flag).
Some fly their flags, and some announce their intentions. Remember among those who led the "intelligence" attempt to impeach President Trump over a twisted account of a half an overheard phone call with Zelensky? A Vindman twin sits in Congress for the Democrats, and another Vindman wants in to the Senate....
You seem to have a rather thick skull. Show me one post where I say anything favorable about Russia or Putin. I don't support Russia - I simply despise Ukraine. There's a difference.
Here's a simple analogy for you: if the town drunk decided to beat up a homeless panhandler in a fit of drunken rage, I wouldn't really mind. Not because I really like the town drunk, but because I despise the homeless panhandler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.