Where is Lysychansk? Where is Bahkmut? You know unless you are an idiot. But you are not that dumb, you are just a liar and a lousy propagandist.
Bahkmut:
Lysychansk:
Druzhkivka:
Posted on 07/26/2022 5:03:37 AM PDT by ToxicMasculinity
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Sunday that the fact Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish does not negate his country's Nazi elements, claiming that Nazi Germany's leader Adolf Hitler also "had Jewish blood."
According to an interview with Italian media, Lavrov said: âSo what if Zelenskyy is Jewish? The fact does not negate the Nazi elements in Ukraine. I believe that Hitler also had Jewish blood. It means absolutely nothing. The wise Jewish people said that the most ardent antisemites are usually Jews."
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
Where is Lysychansk? Where is Bahkmut? You know unless you are an idiot. But you are not that dumb, you are just a liar and a lousy propagandist.
Bahkmut:
Lysychansk:
Druzhkivka:
However, none of what you have offered counters my claim that Russia came in soft at the beginning of this "Special Operation".
The Crimea, was the result of the coup of an elected President of Ukraine. That coup was totally responsible for the current problems there that has just been an extension of the coup action. The Democrats along with NATO fomented that coup.
And just like we have Antifah on our streets and other bad actors there is a bastion of Nazi lovers in Ukraine (call them what you will)
Funny you should mention Antifa, because they are in the habit of calling anyone they don’t like “Nazis,” too.
” that can’t be denied either, with their own agenda as well as without one...it is a mixed bag.”
Except that the allegation MUST be quantified and substantiated, and neither you nor Lavrov even attempt to do so. If you spray a crowded room with a shotgun that has a wide choke, you’ll hit somebody, but that doesn’t make you a crack shot. So in the absence of any substantiation on your part, it can and must be denied in Zelensky’s case. It’s called “burden of proof”.
Poroshenko, who arguably MIGHT have been a “Nazi,” though I
think he was just a thug, was rejected by the voters in favor of Zelensky on a platform of anti-corruption and peace in Donbas. He failed in both counts, but the fact that the Ukrainian public preferred him by a wide margin indicates that they did not like Poroshenko’s program of unrestrained bombarding of their fellow Slavs in Donbas, or his corruption. You can’t then turn around and call Zelensky Hitler. That’s just a leftard trope. Lavrov is Putin’s Baghdad Bob. He says what he’s told to say. But like or hate Zelensky, in the absence of any proof or even substantiation, he can’t be compared to Hitler. That’s pure rhetorical overkill.
Allende or Marcos maybe. He is suppressing dissent and such, and stupidly telling the US whom he wants black-listed among American opinion makers. That’s certainly obnoxious and certainly not democratic, even for a war-time environment. But this is not about him or democracy. It’s about Putin invading a neighboring country, and the repercussions of that action, which are huge.
Because that was in 2014, and he was elected once by ballot fraud and that election was invalidated, and the second time based on a promise to sign a commercial agreement with the EU, which he reneged on and instead signed an agreement with Russia. I wouldn’t call that a “legitimately elected president” any more than Brandon was legitimately elected. Yes, there was a coup. Just like the coup in 1789 in Paris. When people get really PO’d they revolt against oppressive regimes.
And because that was in 2014, and Zelensky was elected in 2019.
Enough facts for you, or are you still mourning for the defunct presidency of Yanukovich, and demanding a do-over. The world has moved on. Russia is nothing more than a gas station with nuclear bombs and dreams of past grandeur. The world has moved on.
There was no coup in 2014. And even if there was, there was no justification for invading Ukraine then.
Nice Job Freeze and Toxic...putin ‘g’ in their place!
Yet, you probably think we were justified invading Iraq. I once thought that also, even though the overwhelming evidence pointed to Saudi Arabia.
If you think I hate my country you are dead wrong, but I am not happy with the way we have exerted our so-called hegemony.
Say it again, Russia invaded Ukraine to seize land, nothing more. Everything else is pretext.
If Iraqs WMD did actually exist, as I believed at the time, then we were justified in restarting the war against Iraq that they started by trying a land grab of Kuwait. Get the picture? Agression for territory in not acceptable. Not by Hussein, not by Putin. That said the WMD did not exist so the war wan not necessary.
First off, Russia was already in Crimea. So, they didn't invade at all in 2014. They did move in reinforcements when they decided to take Crimea back, that Nikita gave them in 1954, to celebrate the 300th anniversary since Ukraine's unification with Russia. The Presidium of the Supreme Council gathered for a session on February 19, 1954 - only 13 of 27 members were present. There was no quorum, but the decision was adopted unanimously.
The Supreme Council of Russia ruled in 1992 that the Crimean region had been delivered to Ukraine illegitimately.
Then you claim he waited 8 years to invade Ukraine, because all he wanted was to seize their land. Tell me why he waited 8 years? I would be interested in your thinking on that.
Actually, Putin tried for those 8 years to get Ukraine to live up to the Minsk agreements.
If anyone doubted that the Minsk Package was anything but yet another fake, Petro Poroshenko dispelled this myth by saying on June 17, 2022: “The Minsk Agreements did not mean anything to us, and we had no intention to carry them out… our goal was to remove the threat we faced… and win time in order to restore economic growth and rebuild the armed forces. We achieved this goal. Mission accomplished for the Minsk Agreements.”
The people of Ukraine are still paying the price of this fake.
The truth is, you have no clue as to what this conflict is about or why it even happened.
Instead your pea brain focuses only on "Russia invaded Ukraine". That's because that is all you desire to see, for some strange reason. These things are often times much more complex than what the average person actually knows or cares to know. Mainly because the corrupt press only gives most people what they want them to know, and nothing else.
When russia gave it to ukraine. It was then ukraines, not russias. Quite simple really.
Russia tried to get ukraine to give in to demands of their puppets in the donbas, outside of what the minsk accords called for.
This back and forth just gave the russians time tp gear up as they realuzed at the tome their current land grab wasnt within their capabilities.
If its not a land grab why is russia prep for some bs referendum to join russia, handing out russian passports and having citizens take russian citizenship pkedges? Wouldnt do that if it was not a land grab
It was not Nikita’s to give to Ukraine. Just like Biden could not give California back to Mexico
Please provide me with a link that confirms what you state. Lot’s of BS runs rampant on both sides of a conflict. Like the Ghost of Kyiv, for example.
Ir was legal per soviet lae.And russia waited 60 yrs to take it back? Please....
Perhaps they feared Nikita, while simultaneously feared the U.S. However, Ukraine was still a part of the U.S.S.R., up until the Ukrainian parliament declared independence, pending a referendum on December 1, 1991.
You are so busy trying to deflect and cover up for the Russians that you are making a fool of yourself. Note that you complained a couple of posts ago that the image I showed of destruction from Russian shelling was from near Kyiv, which was where there was fighting in the early days of the war.
So was destroying Bucha and Irpin "coming in soft"?
And then you complain that there were not necessarily many Russian speaking people there, and it wasn't from the Donbass. Given a few images from the Donbass now you say there is "no context". But the very article from the Daily Mail has pictures of Ukrainian firemen trying to put out a burning house caused by Russian shelling.
There are literally thousands of still images of destroyed houses as a result of Russian shelling in the Donbass. There are also hundreds of videos of active shelling in cities, towns, and villages in the Donbass. And you are trying to argue that all of that shelling was "friendly fire".
Do you realize how stupid that is? Do you really think that anyone but you would believe that all the damage done in places where the Russians are attacking Ukrainian defenders was a result of "friendly fire"?
Are you sure you haven't had a stroke or something?
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.