Another ZeroHedge article about Ukraine - We weren't always at war with Eurasia.

[ajax]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

[ajax]

It seems my post has, perhaps predictably, divided us into two camps.

Non-intervention vs interventionist camps?

[Sarah]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

Full of them probably. But our constitution doesn't allow them to have unending abusive power as most want. So the US guys grab as much power as they can. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints, where it is a mob organization essentially, can take more power, control the press, control religious leaders, control the opposition, build up his propaganda and war machine all under cover, infiltrate their enemies, because no one is allowed to report anything other than praise (They stage a little opposition to make it look like there is freedom of press)

[Original_Intent]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

Full of them probably. But our constitution doesn't allow them to have unending abusive power as most want. So the US guys grab as much power as they can. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints, where it is a mob organization essentially, can take more power, control the press, control religious leaders, control the opposition, build up his propaganda and war machine all under cover, infiltrate their enemies, because no one is allowed to report anything other than praise (They stage a little opposition to make it look like there is freedom of press)

If you think the Constitution is restraining the psychopaths in power in the U.S, - well, yes, it is keeping our 2nd amendment to some degree. But largely the Constitution is trampled upon with impunity.

[ajax]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints,

The constraints that has led to bases all over the world policing, intervening and meddling in seemingly every conflict?
I'm sorry, but we are the biggest boy on the block with it tentacles everywhere. Nice constitutional constraints.

[Sarah]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

Full of them probably. But our constitution doesn't allow them to have unending abusive power as most want. So the US guys grab as much power as they can. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints, where it is a mob organization essentially, can take more power, control the press, control religious leaders, control the opposition, build up his propaganda and war machine all under cover, infiltrate their enemies, because no one is allowed to report anything other than praise (They stage a little opposition to make it look like there is freedom of press)

If you think the Constitution is restraining the psychopaths in power in the U.S, - well, yes, it is keeping our 2nd amendment to some degree. But largely the Constitution is trampled upon with impunity.

It's being trampled, I agree. Too much abuse of power. But at least we don't have the same party and guy in charge for decades at a time.

[ajax]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

Full of them probably. But our constitution doesn't allow them to have unending abusive power as most want. So the US guys grab as much power as they can. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints, where it is a mob organization essentially, can take more power, control the press, control religious leaders, control the opposition, build up his propaganda and war machine all under cover, infiltrate their enemies, because no one is allowed to report anything other than praise (They stage a little opposition to make it look like there is freedom of press)

If you think the Constitution is restraining the psychopaths in power in the U.S, - well, yes, it is keeping our 2nd amendment to some degree. But largely the Constitution is trampled upon with impunity.

It's being trampled, I agree. Too much abuse of power. But at least we don't have the same party and guy in charge for decades at a time.

Hasn't made any difference. The "war-party" is still intact and strong as ever. And Americans approve, as noted by their indifference to it own nations invasions, bombings etc over the last 20 years.

[Sarah]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints,

The constraints that has led to bases all over the world policing, intervening and meddling in seemingly every conflict?
I'm sorry, but we are the biggest boy on the block with it tentacles everywhere. Nice constitutional constraints.

Part of the communist strategy was to build up America under their influence, use, take advantage of that power and money, and then norish that collapse from within. Every time we get involved militarily, it ultimately fails in one way or another, which leads to the dictators gaining more control. It is part of the circus show to vilify the West, and make people believe that liberal style government leads to too much moral decadence, greed, and corruption. We've played that part just fine, and deserve what we're getting. I just think it's tragic how far the propaganda was aimed at constitution loving conservatives, to dupe them into focusing only on liberals.

[Original_Intent]

You don't think the bureaucratic machinery of the US empire is full of ambitious narcissists?

Full of them probably. But our constitution doesn't allow them to have unending abusive power as most want. So the US guys grab as much power as they can. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints, where it is a mob organization essentially, can take more power, control the press, control religious leaders, control the opposition, build up his propaganda and war machine all under cover, infiltrate their enemies, because no one is allowed to report anything other than praise (They stage a little opposition to make it look like there is freedom of press)

If you think the Constitution is restraining the psychopaths in power in the U.S, - well, yes, it is keeping our 2nd amendment to some degree. But largely the Constitution is trampled upon with impunity.

It's being trampled, I agree. Too much abuse of power. But at least we don't have the same party and guy in charge for decades at a time.

The two-party system is an illusion - the corporate powers and military-industrial complex have maintained power almost without interruption. And when they have been hampered, they either put a bullet in the hindrance (Reagan) or completely neutralize the presidency (Trump). Agreed that Reagan was largely not a great administration, but how much did things change after he was shot? I think Bush Sr. was largely calling the shots after that (and Reagan was informed he would quit breathing if he said boo about it.)

[Sarah]

Full of them probably. But our constitution doesn't allow them to have unending abusive power as most want. So the US guys grab as much power as they can. But the tyrants who don't have these constraints, where it is a mob organization essentially, can take more power, control the press, control religious leaders, control the opposition, build up his propaganda and war machine all under cover, infiltrate their enemies, because no one is allowed to report anything other than praise (They stage a little opposition to make it look like there is freedom of press)

If you think the Constitution is restraining the psychopaths in power in the U.S, - well, yes, it is keeping our 2nd amendment to some degree. But largely the Constitution is trampled upon with impunity.

It's being trampled, I agree. Too much abuse of power. But at least we don't have the same party and guy in charge for decades at a time.

The two-party system is an illusion - the corporate powers and military-industrial complex have maintained power almost without interruption. And when they have been hampered, they either put a bullet in the hindrance (Reagan) or completely neutralize the presidency (Trump). Agreed that Reagan was largely not a great administration, but how much did things change after he was shot? I think Bush Sr. was largely calling the shots after that (and Reagan was informed he would quit breathing if he said boo about it.)

Right. Both parties do the same things. I would attribute it to a communist/Russian/ Chinese campaign of subversion, infiltration, provocation, bribery, threats etc, while the Russian narrative would have you believe it was due only to bankster puppet-masters, rich guys like Soros. But they can only do so much, unless they have a secret service they run. I think many of these people are working together, including the Pope and his team.

[NeveR]

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.



Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.



Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.



It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.



If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.



Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

1. Where is the agreement? Agreements between countries get written down as treaties. They don't just take people's word for things. Which treaty says they won't expand?

2. How many members of Svoboda are even in the Rada? (Hint, it rhymes with fun). Every country, unfortunately, has ultra nationalist parties. Germany has the AfD, France has National Front/National Rally. Is Germany fair game because they have a few idiots in their country? Why does Ukraine having ONE member of Svoboda in the Rada make it lose it's sovereignty?

3. They absolutely did not ban the Russian language. The idea that they could ban a language is incredibly silly. What they did was make Ukrainian the only official language. It's like America making English the only official language (it isn't, but that's what people want). That doesn't ban anyone from speaking another language.

4. They're at war with a eastern factions that are being armed by the Russians. There's nothing genocidal about Ukraine trying to maintain it's borders.

5. If it's not a legitimate war, why defend Putin about his need for lebensraum? That's what the article is all about.

6. The idea of a genocide in Donbas is another Russian lie they're using to justify interfering in Ukraine, which they've been doing for decades. Their new justification is obviously just an excuse to continue doing what they have been doing.

7. The Nato thing is excuse 2 of 20. Ukraine hasn't ever asked to join Nato. It's an obvious strawman. Putin has made clear that he does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist and believes it belongs to Russia. That's what it's about. And no, he does not have a right to demand their neutrality. They're a sovereign country and they get to decide what defensive groups they join if they want.

1. Ask Matlock. Or do you think he's lying? There were several promises made and broken.

2. How many members Svoboda has in the parliament doesn't really matter when it has several well-armed battalions in the Ukraine military. Look up Azov and Aidar. Even our media has noted how extremely Nazi they are.

3. Well you can refuse to believe it, but Ukraine passed multiple laws over the years to limit or ban the speaking of Russian. This from 2014

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/do ... l?redirect

Others from 2019 and 2021.

4. The Ukraine govt launched a civil war on the ethnic Russian population in the east. When it began these people had no weapons. They acquired them from Russia as a means of defense. This is simply TRUE. I watched it roll out. At that point some US sources were telling the full story. Not now.

5. I'm not defending Putin, I'm trying to keep the facts straight.

6. The genocide is very real. There are genuine Nazis out there who treat Russians with the same contempt their ancestors showed to the Jews. These guys worship Hitler and wear swastikas. And they are not just a few nutcases, they are major battalions in the Ukie military.

They massacred unarmed Russian speakers in Odessa on May 2 2014. HORRIBLE. I can still recall the images.

7. Oh please. Really, this is just ridiculous. The possibility of Ukraine being in NATO has been on the table since 1990. 🤦‍♀️

1. Okay. Let's ask him:
"All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe."
"I personally opposed the way NATO was extended to Eastern Europe, but not because there had been a binding “promise” made earlier."
https://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-ex ... a-promise/

2. You seemed to care greatly about the number of Svoboda reps there were in the Rada, until the facts become inconvenient for your argument.

3. Your citation is an anonymous forum post? ... Okay.
What the bills actually did was require the use of Ukrainian in official communications and certain businesses, and things like that. None of it was a "ban" on Russian.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra ... SKCN1S111N

4. They absolutely did not launch a civil war. That's more Putin propaganda. Here is how it actually started:
"On 12 April, unmarked pro-Russian militants seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast, although they were repelled after an assault on the general prosecutor's office and failed to take a police office in the city of Shakhtarsk.[73] Following negotiations between the militants and those in the building, the chief of the office resigned from his post.[73][74] Officers from the Berkut special police force, which had been dissolved by the government following the February revolution, took part in the seizure on the separatists' side.[75] After having gained control of the Donetsk RSA and having declared the Donetsk People's Republic, pro-Russian groups vowed to fan out and take control of strategic infrastructure across Donetsk Oblast, and demanded that public officials who wished to continue their work swear allegiance to the Republic."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

5. You're defending him when you argue that Russia has the right to impose it's will on another country. It doesn't.

7. It's on the table for 32 years.... and hasn't happened? Yup. That sounds like a pressing concern for all involved.

1. So, you admit Matlock says there was an agreement not to extend NATO. Good. Of course it only concerned Germany at the time. Surely you're not arguing that, while Russia didn't want East Germany in NATO, they'd be absolutely fine with countries even closer to their borders joining up? What nonsense.

2. Oh please. The dodging is getting pitiful. Deal with the real point or stop 'debating'.

3. So, again, you admit what you formerly denied. There were bans on using the Russian language in businesses and schools and in formal documents.

4. You timeline starts a month too late.

In March the Donbass was sending petitions to the Uke parliament asking for their concerns about their language status etc to be addressed. This was at a time when the racist elements of the Maidan were screaming to deport the ethnic Russians. The parliament refused to address their issues. There were peaceful protests in the streets.

Members of Svoboda and Right Sector turned up. Fighting broke out. The Donbass locals began organizing themselves. They tried to occupy public buildings to get their protests heard (think the truckers of today).

Then, after a visit to Kiev from John Brennan, head of the CIA, the govt declared an "anti-terror operation" and sent tanks in against their citizens in the east.

Initially this operation failed because the Ukie army virtually refused to fire on their own people. There were mass desertions

The Kiev govt responded by conscripting new soldiers and by turning to the neonazi militias of Lviv and Mariupol for help - the Azov and Aidar battalions. These battalions had no problem firing on the ethnic Russians in the east. In fact they despised these people and called them "beetles". The towns of Donetsk, Lugansk and others began to be shelled.

In response Russia began arming the people in the region. And the "civil war" began, and is still going on eight years and 14,000 dead later.

This is the full and TRUE story.

5. Your avoidance and straw man arguments continue. I specifically said Russia DID NOT have the right to impose its will.

7. Yet another dodge. You previously said "Ukraine has never asked to join NATO" and now you try to dodge away and change the subject by saying the fact it's actually been asking for THIRTY YEARS shows it's not urgent!

🤦‍♀️

[EvanLM]

the article has lies in it . . there is also many assumptions demonstrated by these post on this line, that americans or american interests . . .called US interest? are being represented . . .represented by who ? . . . the president of the USA and many of his cabinet and friends are in a global secret combination . . .

secret combinations never work in the interest of their people or citizens . . .the president of Ukraine and most of his parliament are in the same secret combination . . . I've never seen such a poor article coming from zerohedge . . .this made up story of Ukraine being a "buffer" is such bull . . .

Ukraine is and always has been a major crime state . . .drugs, child trafficking . . .just google wikipedia for this information on Ukraine . . .Putin is blowing up their bio chemical labs which are supported by some of our tax dollars and were developed by the USA gads . . .Biden, Kerry, Romney , and McCaine all have sons on the boards of utilities in Ukraine or these biolabs . . . that's why you see Romney and other gads involved in this speaking bull through the news . . .

some of the labs are on the border of Ukraine and Russia . . .for four months, Russia has been telling the international community including UN that they want the labs gone . . . French newspapers have reported some of this . . .look it up on your own . . . so when there was no response then Putin sent a map of where he intended to blow things up . . . he warned citizens and the international commun ity . . . all of the chemical plants only

he has told UN that he has no intention of claiming Ukraine . . . all on utube in at least two of his international speeches to the world . . .you can google it . . . but the part about the chemical labs gets censored by americannews. . .

yesterday, the american embassy in Ukraine removed all of the information regarding the locations and descriptions and use of the labs . . . I think seargant news reported this . . .

your are being fed lies . . . .theres some truth in the article but once you are captured with truth . . .a few paragraphs . . then the lies begin . . .bs buffer zone is a new story I have never seen used before . . clever, I guess . . . .btw already pictures are being spilled across the utube with the crisis actors and photos that were used in other wars . . . more proof of lies that are being used to cover the truth

[EvanLM]

where do you people honestly think that our gad politicians have actually got all of their money? from corporations in the US? think real hard about why Nanci Peloscheme is worth 10 billion . . .

When I used to watch movies, I always wondered where their money came from . . .that has been the best psyop on the american citizen . . just watch the elites play and never, never, never, question who is paying their bill . . .like fairy dust . . .whoosh . . . money in the bank . . .and you never question it

They hated Trump because he went after their money source . . . he still is and so is Putin . . .his war is with the gads in Ukraines government and our government . . .not the citizens of Ukraine . . . just like the stories in the BofM

[EvanLM]

1. Where is the agreement? Agreements between countries get written down as treaties. They don't just take people's word for things. Which treaty says they won't expand?

2. How many members of Svoboda are even in the Rada? (Hint, it rhymes with fun). Every country, unfortunately, has ultra nationalist parties. Germany has the AfD, France has National Front/National Rally. Is Germany fair game because they have a few idiots in their country? Why does Ukraine having ONE member of Svoboda in the Rada make it lose it's sovereignty?

3. They absolutely did not ban the Russian language. The idea that they could ban a language is incredibly silly. What they did was make Ukrainian the only official language. It's like America making English the only official language (it isn't, but that's what people want). That doesn't ban anyone from speaking another language.

4. They're at war with a eastern factions that are being armed by the Russians. There's nothing genocidal about Ukraine trying to maintain it's borders.

5. If it's not a legitimate war, why defend Putin about his need for lebensraum? That's what the article is all about.

6. The idea of a genocide in Donbas is another Russian lie they're using to justify interfering in Ukraine, which they've been doing for decades. Their new justification is obviously just an excuse to continue doing what they have been doing.

7. The Nato thing is excuse 2 of 20. Ukraine hasn't ever asked to join Nato. It's an obvious strawman. Putin has made clear that he does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist and believes it belongs to Russia. That's what it's about. And no, he does not have a right to demand their neutrality. They're a sovereign country and they get to decide what defensive groups they join if they want.

1. Ask Matlock. Or do you think he's lying? There were several promises made and broken.

2. How many members Svoboda has in the parliament doesn't really matter when it has several well-armed battalions in the Ukraine military. Look up Azov and Aidar. Even our media has noted how extremely Nazi they are.

3. Well you can refuse to believe it, but Ukraine passed multiple laws over the years to limit or ban the speaking of Russian. This from 2014

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/do ... l?redirect

Others from 2019 and 2021.

4. The Ukraine govt launched a civil war on the ethnic Russian population in the east. When it began these people had no weapons. They acquired them from Russia as a means of defense. This is simply TRUE. I watched it roll out. At that point some US sources were telling the full story. Not now.

5. I'm not defending Putin, I'm trying to keep the facts straight.

6. The genocide is very real. There are genuine Nazis out there who treat Russians with the same contempt their ancestors showed to the Jews. These guys worship Hitler and wear swastikas. And they are not just a few nutcases, they are major battalions in the Ukie military.

They massacred unarmed Russian speakers in Odessa on May 2 2014. HORRIBLE. I can still recall the images.

7. Oh please. Really, this is just ridiculous. The possibility of Ukraine being in NATO has been on the table since 1990.

1. Okay. Let's ask him:
"All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe."
"I personally opposed the way NATO was extended to Eastern Europe, but not because there had been a binding “promise” made earlier."
https://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-ex ... a-promise/

2. You seemed to care greatly about the number of Svoboda reps there were in the Rada, until the facts become inconvenient for your argument.

3. Your citation is an anonymous forum post? ... Okay.
What the bills actually did was require the use of Ukrainian in official communications and certain businesses, and things like that. None of it was a "ban" on Russian.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra ... SKCN1S111N

4. They absolutely did not launch a civil war. That's more Putin propaganda. Here is how it actually started:
"On 12 April, unmarked pro-Russian militants seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast, although they were repelled after an assault on the general prosecutor's office and failed to take a police office in the city of Shakhtarsk.[73] Following negotiations between the militants and those in the building, the chief of the office resigned from his post.[73][74] Officers from the Berkut special police force, which had been dissolved by the government following the February revolution, took part in the seizure on the separatists' side.[75] After having gained control of the Donetsk RSA and having declared the Donetsk People's Republic, pro-Russian groups vowed to fan out and take control of strategic infrastructure across Donetsk Oblast, and demanded that public officials who wished to continue their work swear allegiance to the Republic."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

5. You're defending him when you argue that Russia has the right to impose it's will on another country. It doesn't.

7. It's on the table for 32 years.... and hasn't happened? Yup. That sounds like a pressing concern for all involved.

1. So, you admit Matlock says there was an agreement not to extend NATO. Good. Of course it only concerned Germany at the time. Surely you're not arguing that, while Russia didn't want East Germany in NATO, they'd be absolutely fine with countries even closer to their borders joining up? What nonsense.

2. Oh please. The dodging is getting pitiful. Deal with the real point or stop 'debating'.

3. So, again, you admit what you formerly denied. There were bans on using the Russian language in businesses and schools and in formal documents.

4. You timeline starts a month too late.

In March the Donbass was sending petitions to the Uke parliament asking for their concerns about their language status etc to be addressed. This was at a time when the racist elements of the Maidan were screaming to deport the ethnic Russians. The parliament refused to address their issues. There were peaceful protests in the streets.

Members of Svoboda and Right Sector turned up. Fighting broke out. The Donbass locals began organizing themselves. They tried to occupy public buildings to get their protests heard (think the truckers of today).

Then, after a visit to Kiev from John Brennan, head of the CIA, the govt declared an "anti-terror operation" and sent tanks in against their citizens in the east.

Initially this operation failed because the Ukie army virtually refused to fire on their own people. There were mass desertions

The Kiev govt responded by cond rioting new soldiers and by turning to the neonazi militias of Lviv and Mariupol for help - the Azov and Aidar battalions. These battalions had no problem firing on the ethnic Russians in the east. In fact they despised these people and called them "beetles". The towns of Donetsk, Lugansk and others began to be shelled.

In response Russia began arming the people in the region. And the "civil war" began, and is still going on eight years and 14,000 dead later.

This is the full and TRUE story.

5. Your avoidance and straw man arguments continue. I specifically said Russia DID NOT have the right to impose its will.

7. Yet another dodge. You previously said "Ukraine has never asked to join NATO" and now you try to dodge away and change the subject by saying the fact it's actually been asking for THIRTY YEARS shows it's not urgent!

NATO thing is being spewed by fake news, isn't it? fox news had a report a couple of days ago . . interviewed a member of parliament showed a picture of her with a gun for great effect . . a female who is a gad and doesn't represent the people of Ukraine . . . then showed a picture of two Ukrainian men with cardboard guns . . . I don't know what to say about the guns . . . lies from fox news . . .whatever

[EvanLM]

I'm not sure russia needs to have a civil war with guns . . . they turned off all of the natural gas to Ukraine to get them to cave on the Crimea thing and to force them to accept russian citizens in two states . . . so . . . uh . . .ummm . . .just turn off their natural gas again . . . . Putins goal is to bomb the chemo weapon labs now

[EvanLM]

I don't think Putin is working with the Soros gads since soros was kicked out of Russia years ago and Putin has shown his disdain . . .also, Soros hasn't gone near russia is years . . . there are at least two elite secret combination groups in the world and I think there is a third. . . .close study reveals who are a part of these groups . . . however, they are all fighting to keep what they already rule and want to control the economics of this world to their advantage . . ..

that's really what it is all about . . .economics . . .control of money . . . and that requires power . . .Putin is in a different gad group . . .

Trump was placed into the presidency to create a new economic model

right now, I see these three elite groups fighting for survival against each other and we are just the spoils or will be the spoils of the winners . . .

On one of the best websites that I follow, a guest finally claimed, among other political facts, that he knows there are at least 2 groups of opposing elites and possibly three . . .then on another trusted website, a woman guest said that there are two elite gad groups fighting each other . . . I have thought this for some time . . . these elites will lie to us or keep information from us . . .but good research and following truth tellers will reward you

btw: these gad groups have the control of our armies, the world money, etc. . . daaaaaang

[EvanLM]

afterthought: control of the world resources, as well, google the list of resources that Ukraine has . . . .and . . .russia has always been 2nd in the world for oil and gas production . . .I saw an article yesterday that claimed they were 3 . . .hmmmmm

[EmmaLee]

It seems my post has, perhaps predictably, divided us into two camps.

There are more than two camps.

This article is the closest thing I have found anywhere that makes sense/speaks truth -

Full article here - https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/th ... u-need?s=r

Excerpt -

There's nothing more satisfying than a good guy/bad guy narrative. We have so internalized this form of storytelling that for many it is almost impossible not to see the world in these terms. Two people are fighting. One of them is a bad guy. Therefore, the other one is a good guy.

The problem comes when we try to map that simplistic, binary, black-and-white storyline on to real-world events. What "guy" are you talking about? Do you still believe that Putin is Russia? That's as absurd as saying that Biden is NATO (or even the US). And can we jump from NATO bad to BRICS good that easily?

Well, if you've been listening to me over the last decade and a half you will know that it's not that easy. The BRICS are controlled opposition. Putin and Xi are both tyrannical thugs. The Chinese government and the Russian government both love controlling their citizens every thought and speech and action, and their supposed opposition to the globalist empire is a smoke-and-mirrors distraction hiding the fact that they are absolutely on-board with the ultimate agenda of world control.

Or are you the type of person who watches the clip of Schwab bragging about all the cabinets the World Economic Forum has "penetrated" around the world without noticing that the second person he lists in his stable of WEF acolytes is Vladimir Putin?

Good pals.png (1.13 MiB) Viewed 286 times

Are you the type of person who conveniently forgets how to read when Xi and Putin release documents extolling the creation of the New World Order that call on all states "to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture" and declare that "In order to to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," states will have to "take practical steps in key areas of cooperation" like "vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity"?

Are you the type of person who constantly forgets that Vladimir Putin is close personal friends with Henry Kissinger?

More good pals.jpeg (36.77 KiB) Viewed 286 times

Are you the type of person who believes that the Russian COVID vaccine is the good kind of vaccine and the Russian vaccine passports are the good kind of vaccine passports and the Russian COVID clown show is the good kind of COVID clown show?

Are you the type of person who believes that preemptive invasions of foreign countries are good when they're done by the good guys for good reasons and that the people who die in such operations are just collateral damage (who probably deserved to die anyway)?

I don't know about you, but I'm not that type of person. The sad truth for those who are still waiting for the White Hat on the White Horse to deliver them their fix of Hopium is that Putin is an "anti-globalist crusader" in the exact same way as Donald "Fill the Swamp" Trump is an "anti-globalist crusader," which is to say, not at all. Because if you are still waiting on the sealed indictments and the watermarked ballots and Vladimir the Great to upset the globalist apple cart, you have yet to understand the nature of the globalist system.

Conclusion

The uncomfortable truth, as always, is that the war has not just begun. It's been going on for generations. And it's not a war of nation against nation, or even valiant "anti-globalist crusaders" like WEF-connected, biosecurity-promoting, false flag-perpetrating, political opponent-assassinating Vladimir Putin against the global control structure. It is a global war against you. To the extent that wars are being waged between the elitists, they are only being waged to determine which group of elitists get to rule over you and in what way.

Now more than ever it is important for those of us who have escaped the mainstream narrative "Team NATO" trap to reject the "alternative" narrative "Team BRICS" trap and redeclare our personal sovereignty. A choice between the two wings of the same bird of prey is no choice at all. Or, to put it in a more familiar way: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

So, let's keep the real background of these events in mind as we watch this military spectacle play out on our computer screens and let's avoid getting caught up in cheerleading for the army of one branch or another of the global elitist class.

[Artaxerxes]

1. Where is the agreement? Agreements between countries get written down as treaties. They don't just take people's word for things. Which treaty says they won't expand?

2. How many members of Svoboda are even in the Rada? (Hint, it rhymes with fun). Every country, unfortunately, has ultra nationalist parties. Germany has the AfD, France has National Front/National Rally. Is Germany fair game because they have a few idiots in their country? Why does Ukraine having ONE member of Svoboda in the Rada make it lose it's sovereignty?

3. They absolutely did not ban the Russian language. The idea that they could ban a language is incredibly silly. What they did was make Ukrainian the only official language. It's like America making English the only official language (it isn't, but that's what people want). That doesn't ban anyone from speaking another language.

4. They're at war with a eastern factions that are being armed by the Russians. There's nothing genocidal about Ukraine trying to maintain it's borders.

5. If it's not a legitimate war, why defend Putin about his need for lebensraum? That's what the article is all about.

6. The idea of a genocide in Donbas is another Russian lie they're using to justify interfering in Ukraine, which they've been doing for decades. Their new justification is obviously just an excuse to continue doing what they have been doing.

7. The Nato thing is excuse 2 of 20. Ukraine hasn't ever asked to join Nato. It's an obvious strawman. Putin has made clear that he does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist and believes it belongs to Russia. That's what it's about. And no, he does not have a right to demand their neutrality. They're a sovereign country and they get to decide what defensive groups they join if they want.

1. Ask Matlock. Or do you think he's lying? There were several promises made and broken.

2. How many members Svoboda has in the parliament doesn't really matter when it has several well-armed battalions in the Ukraine military. Look up Azov and Aidar. Even our media has noted how extremely Nazi they are.

3. Well you can refuse to believe it, but Ukraine passed multiple laws over the years to limit or ban the speaking of Russian. This from 2014

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/do ... l?redirect

Others from 2019 and 2021.

4. The Ukraine govt launched a civil war on the ethnic Russian population in the east. When it began these people had no weapons. They acquired them from Russia as a means of defense. This is simply TRUE. I watched it roll out. At that point some US sources were telling the full story. Not now.

5. I'm not defending Putin, I'm trying to keep the facts straight.

6. The genocide is very real. There are genuine Nazis out there who treat Russians with the same contempt their ancestors showed to the Jews. These guys worship Hitler and wear swastikas. And they are not just a few nutcases, they are major battalions in the Ukie military.

They massacred unarmed Russian speakers in Odessa on May 2 2014. HORRIBLE. I can still recall the images.

7. Oh please. Really, this is just ridiculous. The possibility of Ukraine being in NATO has been on the table since 1990.

1. Okay. Let's ask him:
"All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe."
"I personally opposed the way NATO was extended to Eastern Europe, but not because there had been a binding “promise” made earlier."
https://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-ex ... a-promise/

2. You seemed to care greatly about the number of Svoboda reps there were in the Rada, until the facts become inconvenient for your argument.

3. Your citation is an anonymous forum post? ... Okay.
What the bills actually did was require the use of Ukrainian in official communications and certain businesses, and things like that. None of it was a "ban" on Russian.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra ... SKCN1S111N

4. They absolutely did not launch a civil war. That's more Putin propaganda. Here is how it actually started:
"On 12 April, unmarked pro-Russian militants seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast, although they were repelled after an assault on the general prosecutor's office and failed to take a police office in the city of Shakhtarsk.[73] Following negotiations between the militants and those in the building, the chief of the office resigned from his post.[73][74] Officers from the Berkut special police force, which had been dissolved by the government following the February revolution, took part in the seizure on the separatists' side.[75] After having gained control of the Donetsk RSA and having declared the Donetsk People's Republic, pro-Russian groups vowed to fan out and take control of strategic infrastructure across Donetsk Oblast, and demanded that public officials who wished to continue their work swear allegiance to the Republic."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

5. You're defending him when you argue that Russia has the right to impose it's will on another country. It doesn't.

7. It's on the table for 32 years.... and hasn't happened? Yup. That sounds like a pressing concern for all involved.

1. So, you admit Matlock says there was an agreement not to extend NATO. Good. Of course it only concerned Germany at the time. Surely you're not arguing that, while Russia didn't want East Germany in NATO, they'd be absolutely fine with countries even closer to their borders joining up? What nonsense.

2. Oh please. The dodging is getting pitiful. Deal with the real point or stop 'debating'.

3. So, again, you admit what you formerly denied. There were bans on using the Russian language in businesses and schools and in formal documents.

4. You timeline starts a month too late.

In March the Donbass was sending petitions to the Uke parliament asking for their concerns about their language status etc to be addressed. This was at a time when the racist elements of the Maidan were screaming to deport the ethnic Russians. The parliament refused to address their issues. There were peaceful protests in the streets.

Members of Svoboda and Right Sector turned up. Fighting broke out. The Donbass locals began organizing themselves. They tried to occupy public buildings to get their protests heard (think the truckers of today).

Then, after a visit to Kiev from John Brennan, head of the CIA, the govt declared an "anti-terror operation" and sent tanks in against their citizens in the east.

Initially this operation failed because the Ukie army virtually refused to fire on their own people. There were mass desertions

The Kiev govt responded by cond rioting new soldiers and by turning to the neonazi militias of Lviv and Mariupol for help - the Azov and Aidar battalions. These battalions had no problem firing on the ethnic Russians in the east. In fact they despised these people and called them "beetles". The towns of Donetsk, Lugansk and others began to be shelled.

In response Russia began arming the people in the region. And the "civil war" began, and is still going on eight years and 14,000 dead later.

This is the full and TRUE story.

5. Your avoidance and straw man arguments continue. I specifically said Russia DID NOT have the right to impose its will.

7. Yet another dodge. You previously said "Ukraine has never asked to join NATO" and now you try to dodge away and change the subject by saying the fact it's actually been asking for THIRTY YEARS shows it's not urgent!

1. You claimed Matlock said we agreed not to expand eastward. That's a lie. He did not say that. You do realize that Germany DID join Nato, right? They did not promise not to expand Nato at all.

2. I am dealing with the point. You are trying to recover your false point. You claimed that Svoboda was a part of the government and that Ukraine banned Russian. Neither is true in any real sense.

3. No. People can speak Russian and live their lives in Russian. But government documents and other important stuff has to be in Ukrainian. That doesn't ban anything.

5. If you don't think he was right, then why do you continue to argue for him and claim that Ukraine is at fault?

7. I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out how silly your false claim was. How can something continue to be so threatening and "on the table" for 32 years without anyone doing anything about it? It's a lie and silly that anyone could possibly believe it to begin with.

[NeveR]

1. Ask Matlock. Or do you think he's lying? There were several promises made and broken.

2. How many members Svoboda has in the parliament doesn't really matter when it has several well-armed battalions in the Ukraine military. Look up Azov and Aidar. Even our media has noted how extremely Nazi they are.

3. Well you can refuse to believe it, but Ukraine passed multiple laws over the years to limit or ban the speaking of Russian. This from 2014

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/do ... l?redirect

Others from 2019 and 2021.

4. The Ukraine govt launched a civil war on the ethnic Russian population in the east. When it began these people had no weapons. They acquired them from Russia as a means of defense. This is simply TRUE. I watched it roll out. At that point some US sources were telling the full story. Not now.

5. I'm not defending Putin, I'm trying to keep the facts straight.

6. The genocide is very real. There are genuine Nazis out there who treat Russians with the same contempt their ancestors showed to the Jews. These guys worship Hitler and wear swastikas. And they are not just a few nutcases, they are major battalions in the Ukie military.

They massacred unarmed Russian speakers in Odessa on May 2 2014. HORRIBLE. I can still recall the images.

7. Oh please. Really, this is just ridiculous. The possibility of Ukraine being in NATO has been on the table since 1990.

1. Okay. Let's ask him:
"All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe."
"I personally opposed the way NATO was extended to Eastern Europe, but not because there had been a binding “promise” made earlier."
https://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-ex ... a-promise/

2. You seemed to care greatly about the number of Svoboda reps there were in the Rada, until the facts become inconvenient for your argument.

3. Your citation is an anonymous forum post? ... Okay.
What the bills actually did was require the use of Ukrainian in official communications and certain businesses, and things like that. None of it was a "ban" on Russian.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra ... SKCN1S111N

4. They absolutely did not launch a civil war. That's more Putin propaganda. Here is how it actually started:
"On 12 April, unmarked pro-Russian militants seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast, although they were repelled after an assault on the general prosecutor's office and failed to take a police office in the city of Shakhtarsk.[73] Following negotiations between the militants and those in the building, the chief of the office resigned from his post.[73][74] Officers from the Berkut special police force, which had been dissolved by the government following the February revolution, took part in the seizure on the separatists' side.[75] After having gained control of the Donetsk RSA and having declared the Donetsk People's Republic, pro-Russian groups vowed to fan out and take control of strategic infrastructure across Donetsk Oblast, and demanded that public officials who wished to continue their work swear allegiance to the Republic."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

5. You're defending him when you argue that Russia has the right to impose it's will on another country. It doesn't.

7. It's on the table for 32 years.... and hasn't happened? Yup. That sounds like a pressing concern for all involved.

1. So, you admit Matlock says there was an agreement not to extend NATO. Good. Of course it only concerned Germany at the time. Surely you're not arguing that, while Russia didn't want East Germany in NATO, they'd be absolutely fine with countries even closer to their borders joining up? What nonsense.

2. Oh please. The dodging is getting pitiful. Deal with the real point or stop 'debating'.

3. So, again, you admit what you formerly denied. There were bans on using the Russian language in businesses and schools and in formal documents.

4. You timeline starts a month too late.

In March the Donbass was sending petitions to the Uke parliament asking for their concerns about their language status etc to be addressed. This was at a time when the racist elements of the Maidan were screaming to deport the ethnic Russians. The parliament refused to address their issues. There were peaceful protests in the streets.

Members of Svoboda and Right Sector turned up. Fighting broke out. The Donbass locals began organizing themselves. They tried to occupy public buildings to get their protests heard (think the truckers of today).

Then, after a visit to Kiev from John Brennan, head of the CIA, the govt declared an "anti-terror operation" and sent tanks in against their citizens in the east.

Initially this operation failed because the Ukie army virtually refused to fire on their own people. There were mass desertions

The Kiev govt responded by cond rioting new soldiers and by turning to the neonazi militias of Lviv and Mariupol for help - the Azov and Aidar battalions. These battalions had no problem firing on the ethnic Russians in the east. In fact they despised these people and called them "beetles". The towns of Donetsk, Lugansk and others began to be shelled.

In response Russia began arming the people in the region. And the "civil war" began, and is still going on eight years and 14,000 dead later.

This is the full and TRUE story.

5. Your avoidance and straw man arguments continue. I specifically said Russia DID NOT have the right to impose its will.

7. Yet another dodge. You previously said "Ukraine has never asked to join NATO" and now you try to dodge away and change the subject by saying the fact it's actually been asking for THIRTY YEARS shows it's not urgent!

1. You claimed Matlock said we agreed not to expand eastward. That's a lie. He did not say that. You do realize that Germany DID join Nato, right? They did not promise not to expand Nato at all.

2. I am dealing with the point. You are trying to recover your false point. You claimed that Svoboda was a part of the government and that Ukraine banned Russian. Neither is true in any real sense.

3. No. People can speak Russian and live their lives in Russian. But government documents and other important stuff has to be in Ukrainian. That doesn't ban anything.

5. If you don't think he was right, then why do you continue to argue for him and claim that Ukraine is at fault?

7. I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out how silly your false claim was. How can something continue to be so threatening and "on the table" for 32 years without anyone doing anything about it? It's a lie and silly that anyone could possibly believe it to begin with.

1. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

To quote US Secretary of State James Baker at the time:

"not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

2. The neo-nazi Svoboda party won THIRTY-EIGHT seats in the 2012 election. A few more than NONE. Svoboda also had at least TWO cabinet posts in the post-coup government. The prime minister Yatseniuk was also a Nazi sympathizer. Or is none of that "a real sense"?

3. You forgot about businesses and schools

5. I'm not arguing FOR anyone. I'm just telling the truth. You should try it some time.

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–N ... 1991–1994)

The 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership signed by representatives of both NATO and Ukraine. This document was a long-term agreement that Ukraine will move gradually into cooperation with NATO and eventually become a member. This is in direct violation of the assurances given above.

[Artaxerxes]

1. Okay. Let's ask him:
"All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe."
"I personally opposed the way NATO was extended to Eastern Europe, but not because there had been a binding “promise” made earlier."
https://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-ex ... a-promise/

2. You seemed to care greatly about the number of Svoboda reps there were in the Rada, until the facts become inconvenient for your argument.

3. Your citation is an anonymous forum post? ... Okay.
What the bills actually did was require the use of Ukrainian in official communications and certain businesses, and things like that. None of it was a "ban" on Russian.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra ... SKCN1S111N

4. They absolutely did not launch a civil war. That's more Putin propaganda. Here is how it actually started:
"On 12 April, unmarked pro-Russian militants seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast, although they were repelled after an assault on the general prosecutor's office and failed to take a police office in the city of Shakhtarsk.[73] Following negotiations between the militants and those in the building, the chief of the office resigned from his post.[73][74] Officers from the Berkut special police force, which had been dissolved by the government following the February revolution, took part in the seizure on the separatists' side.[75] After having gained control of the Donetsk RSA and having declared the Donetsk People's Republic, pro-Russian groups vowed to fan out and take control of strategic infrastructure across Donetsk Oblast, and demanded that public officials who wished to continue their work swear allegiance to the Republic."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

5. You're defending him when you argue that Russia has the right to impose it's will on another country. It doesn't.

7. It's on the table for 32 years.... and hasn't happened? Yup. That sounds like a pressing concern for all involved.

1. So, you admit Matlock says there was an agreement not to extend NATO. Good. Of course it only concerned Germany at the time. Surely you're not arguing that, while Russia didn't want East Germany in NATO, they'd be absolutely fine with countries even closer to their borders joining up? What nonsense.

2. Oh please. The dodging is getting pitiful. Deal with the real point or stop 'debating'.

3. So, again, you admit what you formerly denied. There were bans on using the Russian language in businesses and schools and in formal documents.

4. You timeline starts a month too late.

In March the Donbass was sending petitions to the Uke parliament asking for their concerns about their language status etc to be addressed. This was at a time when the racist elements of the Maidan were screaming to deport the ethnic Russians. The parliament refused to address their issues. There were peaceful protests in the streets.

Members of Svoboda and Right Sector turned up. Fighting broke out. The Donbass locals began organizing themselves. They tried to occupy public buildings to get their protests heard (think the truckers of today).

Then, after a visit to Kiev from John Brennan, head of the CIA, the govt declared an "anti-terror operation" and sent tanks in against their citizens in the east.

Initially this operation failed because the Ukie army virtually refused to fire on their own people. There were mass desertions

The Kiev govt responded by cond rioting new soldiers and by turning to the neonazi militias of Lviv and Mariupol for help - the Azov and Aidar battalions. These battalions had no problem firing on the ethnic Russians in the east. In fact they despised these people and called them "beetles". The towns of Donetsk, Lugansk and others began to be shelled.

In response Russia began arming the people in the region. And the "civil war" began, and is still going on eight years and 14,000 dead later.

This is the full and TRUE story.

5. Your avoidance and straw man arguments continue. I specifically said Russia DID NOT have the right to impose its will.

7. Yet another dodge. You previously said "Ukraine has never asked to join NATO" and now you try to dodge away and change the subject by saying the fact it's actually been asking for THIRTY YEARS shows it's not urgent!

1. You claimed Matlock said we agreed not to expand eastward. That's a lie. He did not say that. You do realize that Germany DID join Nato, right? They did not promise not to expand Nato at all.

2. I am dealing with the point. You are trying to recover your false point. You claimed that Svoboda was a part of the government and that Ukraine banned Russian. Neither is true in any real sense.

3. No. People can speak Russian and live their lives in Russian. But government documents and other important stuff has to be in Ukrainian. That doesn't ban anything.

5. If you don't think he was right, then why do you continue to argue for him and claim that Ukraine is at fault?

7. I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out how silly your false claim was. How can something continue to be so threatening and "on the table" for 32 years without anyone doing anything about it? It's a lie and silly that anyone could possibly believe it to begin with.

1. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

To quote US Secretary of State James Baker at the time:

"not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

2. The neo-nazi Svoboda party won THIRTY-EIGHT seats in the 2012 election. A few more than NONE. Svoboda also had at least TWO cabinet posts in the post-coup government. The prime minister Yatseniuk was also a Nazi sympathizer. Or is none of that "a real sense"?

3. You forgot about businesses and schools

5. I'm not arguing FOR anyone. I'm just telling the truth. You should try it some time.

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–N ... 1991–1994)

The 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership signed by representatives of both NATO and Ukraine. This document was a long-term agreement that Ukraine will move gradually into cooperation with NATO and eventually become a member. This is in direct violation of the assurances given above.

1. Okay. And then what happened?
“I may have been a little bit forward on my skis on that, but they changed it and he knew that they changed it,” Mr. Baker recalled of Mr. Gorbachev. “He never once again in all the months that followed ever raised the question of NATO expanding its jurisdiction eastward. He then signed documents in which NATO did expand its jurisdiction.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... r.amp.html

In other words, that was never part of any agreement, just like I said.

2. So? What does the 2012 election have to do with the current invasion to rid themselves of the one Svoboda member of Parliament?

3. Good! They should be teaching Ukrainian in schools. And businesses should be speaking in Ukrainian in Ukraine. How is that a "ban" on speaking Russian?

5. You're not telling the truth. You're prompting Russian propaganda about how scary Ukraine is based on fantasies and fairy tales.

7. Agreements to cooperate are not agreements to enter. Nice try. Nato allows members to join pretty quickly. If that were really "on the table" for 30 years, it would have happened by now.

[NeveR]

1. So, you admit Matlock says there was an agreement not to extend NATO. Good. Of course it only concerned Germany at the time. Surely you're not arguing that, while Russia didn't want East Germany in NATO, they'd be absolutely fine with countries even closer to their borders joining up? What nonsense.

2. Oh please. The dodging is getting pitiful. Deal with the real point or stop 'debating'.

3. So, again, you admit what you formerly denied. There were bans on using the Russian language in businesses and schools and in formal documents.

4. You timeline starts a month too late.

In March the Donbass was sending petitions to the Uke parliament asking for their concerns about their language status etc to be addressed. This was at a time when the racist elements of the Maidan were screaming to deport the ethnic Russians. The parliament refused to address their issues. There were peaceful protests in the streets.

Members of Svoboda and Right Sector turned up. Fighting broke out. The Donbass locals began organizing themselves. They tried to occupy public buildings to get their protests heard (think the truckers of today).

Then, after a visit to Kiev from John Brennan, head of the CIA, the govt declared an "anti-terror operation" and sent tanks in against their citizens in the east.

Initially this operation failed because the Ukie army virtually refused to fire on their own people. There were mass desertions

The Kiev govt responded by cond rioting new soldiers and by turning to the neonazi militias of Lviv and Mariupol for help - the Azov and Aidar battalions. These battalions had no problem firing on the ethnic Russians in the east. In fact they despised these people and called them "beetles". The towns of Donetsk, Lugansk and others began to be shelled.

In response Russia began arming the people in the region. And the "civil war" began, and is still going on eight years and 14,000 dead later.

This is the full and TRUE story.

5. Your avoidance and straw man arguments continue. I specifically said Russia DID NOT have the right to impose its will.

7. Yet another dodge. You previously said "Ukraine has never asked to join NATO" and now you try to dodge away and change the subject by saying the fact it's actually been asking for THIRTY YEARS shows it's not urgent!

1. You claimed Matlock said we agreed not to expand eastward. That's a lie. He did not say that. You do realize that Germany DID join Nato, right? They did not promise not to expand Nato at all.

2. I am dealing with the point. You are trying to recover your false point. You claimed that Svoboda was a part of the government and that Ukraine banned Russian. Neither is true in any real sense.

3. No. People can speak Russian and live their lives in Russian. But government documents and other important stuff has to be in Ukrainian. That doesn't ban anything.

5. If you don't think he was right, then why do you continue to argue for him and claim that Ukraine is at fault?

7. I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out how silly your false claim was. How can something continue to be so threatening and "on the table" for 32 years without anyone doing anything about it? It's a lie and silly that anyone could possibly believe it to begin with.

1. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

To quote US Secretary of State James Baker at the time:

"not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

2. The neo-nazi Svoboda party won THIRTY-EIGHT seats in the 2012 election. A few more than NONE. Svoboda also had at least TWO cabinet posts in the post-coup government. The prime minister Yatseniuk was also a Nazi sympathizer. Or is none of that "a real sense"?

3. You forgot about businesses and schools

5. I'm not arguing FOR anyone. I'm just telling the truth. You should try it some time.

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–N ... 1991–1994)

The 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership signed by representatives of both NATO and Ukraine. This document was a long-term agreement that Ukraine will move gradually into cooperation with NATO and eventually become a member. This is in direct violation of the assurances given above.

1. Okay. And then what happened?
“I may have been a little bit forward on my skis on that, but they changed it and he knew that they changed it,” Mr. Baker recalled of Mr. Gorbachev. “He never once again in all the months that followed ever raised the question of NATO expanding its jurisdiction eastward. He then signed documents in which NATO did expand its jurisdiction.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... r.amp.html

In other words, that was never part of any agreement, just like I said.

2. So? What does the 2012 election have to do with the current invasion to rid themselves of the one Svoboda member of Parliament?

3. Good! They should be teaching Ukrainian in schools. And businesses should be speaking in Ukrainian in Ukraine. How is that a "ban" on speaking Russian?

5. You're not telling the truth. You're prompting Russian propaganda about how scary Ukraine is based on fantasies and fairy tales.

7. Agreements to cooperate are not agreements to enter. Nice try. Nato allows members to join pretty quickly. If that were really "on the table" for 30 years, it would have happened by now.

Your trolling is unoriginal and tedious. I gave you the facts. It's up to you what you do with them. Be honest or dishonest, it's up to you and your conscience. But I'm done with you

[EvanLM]

Dmitry Orlov: Russia’s Incursion Into Ukraine Necessary for Security
CorruptionDeep StateNewsNWO TyrannyPolitics
March 1, 2022 0
from Geopolitics & Empire:


mostly true . . enjoy the listen . . .just google

[Ciams]

While you're deciding, answer if NATO oriented nations are generally better paces to live than Russia oriented places.

Without actually living a lifetime in any country can you truly judge how the people actually live is better or worse?

I have Russian friends who live in Russia. All of them come to the USA regularly. All of them would prefer to live here, despite various things about our culture etc. that annoys them.