In light of the recent missile strike on Poland and the Ukrainian President’s latest effort to induce World War, it’s time to reassess whether this man was ever a champion of “freedom” or “Democracy.”
Should not one first understand, before removing any doubt about his understanding?
Same as the video in the main piece, in which Zelensky/comedian was making fun of Neo-Nazis, this one exhibits MOCKING idiocies of the Western culture.
He'll FLEE and have PROTECTION from the USofT & EU gang... unless the moron starts to cause problems to the PLAN the western terrorist have in relation to Russia & China.
I don't know who is qualified to assess these moves by Z. There are pro-Russian factions in Ukraine generally tied to some economic interest. Are these internal conflicts of interest to be tolerated as the Russians are working to annex sections of Ukraine? As it stands now few believe the Dombas want's anything to do with Russia. What is the purpose of informing we readers about events in Ukraine?
1. Nobody I quote is pro-Z. I made sure to give ample context and personal background to convey that.
2. The events of this article took place before the invasion and Zelensky campaigned on bringing peace to the disputed regions through nonviolent means - so there should have been room for tolerance.
3. The purpose is to show westerners who their “heroes” really are and show them that the US is not in Ukraine for humanitarian reasons so that hopefully they stop supporting our interventions. Similar reasons to my other article explaining how the US provoked this war:
I fully understand the POV in your articles. I just see it differently. My sense is that Russia's aggression must be stopped. We made agreements in 1991 that Russia has violated for some reason. Whether Ukraine is corrupt hardly matters. I see that the UK and US must abide by that 1991 agreement. I most certainly lament the awful loss of lives and the burdens on tax payers and wish Russia would declare victory and go home.
But the reality is the US would not hesitate to invade Mexico if Mexico were planning to join some anti-US security alliance or obtain nukes (analogous to Ukraine situation). The US simply needs to apply the golden rule and not push NATO to Russia’s border nor should we meddle in elections and intentionally stoke social unrest.
Had we done that, this war could have been avoided entirely - which should be everyone’s goal.
Russia’s aggression could’ve been stopped by nato stopping their aggression. NATO’s aggressive expansion over the last three decades is what caused this.
If nato hadn’t done this Russia would’ve felt no need to do what they did. This has been known and warned against regularly for three decades now. But nato and their war dogs didn’t care. Now we, and especially the Ukrainians, are paying for it.
We should have annexed Gernany, Japan, S Korea, Iraq as we agresssed our way around the worlds. Would really help in established that new world order. What about that?
The invasion started in 2014. Too bad the Ukrainians didn't want to give away any part of their territory. We all know that to avoid nuisance to our nice lives in the West, Russia should be appeased. 😜
You were warned, but your Russophobia wouldn’t let you consider reason. This has been three decades of western blundering.
John J. Mearsheimer, political scientist and international relations scholar, in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
George Kennan, American diplomat and historian, right after the US Senate approved NATO expansion all the way back in 1998: “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
CIA Director William Burns’s 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).
Last US ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock: “an avoidable crisis that was predictable, actually predicted, willfully precipitated, but easily resolved by the application of common sense”:
1997: “I consider the Administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.”
Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state, similarly described the Russian attitude. “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.”
Robert M Gates, Secretary of Defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993”.
Among other missteps, “US agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching”. That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.
No invasion started in 2014... The only thing that started in 2014 was that the modern moron slaves living in the Donbas region rejected the idea of living under the NN-Ukraine flag and decided to break from it! They receive military and other support from Russia.
Just a small fix, for your last paragraph: "Despite the Ukraine president's heavy-handedness in wartime, US officials and voters should consider the sharp contrast between Zelensky and Putin."
The international agencies mentioned exhibited their corrupt ways so many times that I am surprised that anyone honest would ever use their reporting in any truth seeking conversation.
That aside, I agree that US should have stayed out of the region going way back.
Imagine you are elected as a head of a state at war with the neighboring country. You find out that some of the parties/organizations are actively agitating for and adding and abating the mortal enemy, which annexed huge chunks of your country territory and aims for more.
What would you do about those parties/organizations? What does the US law/Constitution suggest you do in such circumstances?
There so many excellent points can and are made about Ukraine, Zelensky, and the US involvement. Yet, good people making so many preposterous points. 😢🤷♂️
"By campaigning on a promise to host peaceful referendums in the East, Zelenksy won handedly, earning as much as 89% and 87% of the votes in Luhansk and Donetsk, which together form the disputed Donbas region."
Modern moron slaves simply can't understand that "democracy" is a Tool of the Secular Ruling Families & Billionaires, and that their "vote" means NOTHING.
VOTING under this type of sub-system is just a declaration of Irresponsibility. And has that phrase clear shows voting for scoundrels and terrorists always ends up like this.
Bare in mind that today ANYONE that wants to participate in the terrorist organization labelled "government" can only be a scoundrel and terrorist. At worse they can only be classified as Idiots since they "think" they will be able to CHANGE the Tool!
For me, the behavior of this terrorist and neo-nazi is not at all a surprise. They are ALL the same. We just need to wait a little bit for their natural behavior to manifest.
KEEP VOTING! That might work to bring "peace"... eh eh eh!
I imagine the Biden Bunch has offered Zelensky lessons on how to restrict a formerly free press.
Did he also freeze bank accounts of the people he disagreed with?
Like J. Trudeau ?
Here’s the Ukrainian president displaying the noblest of behavior. A true world leader and someone who represent freedom and liberty!
https://youtu.be/mWvsZngCBsE
Should not one first understand, before removing any doubt about his understanding?
Same as the video in the main piece, in which Zelensky/comedian was making fun of Neo-Nazis, this one exhibits MOCKING idiocies of the Western culture.
Do you claim this is bad or what am I missing?
I sort of feel sorry for Zelensky, because by the time this war is over, either a Russian missile or his own people will put him in an early grave.
He'll FLEE and have PROTECTION from the USofT & EU gang... unless the moron starts to cause problems to the PLAN the western terrorist have in relation to Russia & China.
I don't know who is qualified to assess these moves by Z. There are pro-Russian factions in Ukraine generally tied to some economic interest. Are these internal conflicts of interest to be tolerated as the Russians are working to annex sections of Ukraine? As it stands now few believe the Dombas want's anything to do with Russia. What is the purpose of informing we readers about events in Ukraine?
1. Nobody I quote is pro-Z. I made sure to give ample context and personal background to convey that.
2. The events of this article took place before the invasion and Zelensky campaigned on bringing peace to the disputed regions through nonviolent means - so there should have been room for tolerance.
3. The purpose is to show westerners who their “heroes” really are and show them that the US is not in Ukraine for humanitarian reasons so that hopefully they stop supporting our interventions. Similar reasons to my other article explaining how the US provoked this war:
https://spaceworms.substack.com/p/the-us-is-culpable-in-todays-ukraine
I fully understand the POV in your articles. I just see it differently. My sense is that Russia's aggression must be stopped. We made agreements in 1991 that Russia has violated for some reason. Whether Ukraine is corrupt hardly matters. I see that the UK and US must abide by that 1991 agreement. I most certainly lament the awful loss of lives and the burdens on tax payers and wish Russia would declare victory and go home.
I don’t deny Russian aggressions.
But the reality is the US would not hesitate to invade Mexico if Mexico were planning to join some anti-US security alliance or obtain nukes (analogous to Ukraine situation). The US simply needs to apply the golden rule and not push NATO to Russia’s border nor should we meddle in elections and intentionally stoke social unrest.
Had we done that, this war could have been avoided entirely - which should be everyone’s goal.
Russia’s aggression could’ve been stopped by nato stopping their aggression. NATO’s aggressive expansion over the last three decades is what caused this.
If nato hadn’t done this Russia would’ve felt no need to do what they did. This has been known and warned against regularly for three decades now. But nato and their war dogs didn’t care. Now we, and especially the Ukrainians, are paying for it.
Only our aggression is acceptable!
We should have annexed Gernany, Japan, S Korea, Iraq as we agresssed our way around the worlds. Would really help in established that new world order. What about that?
Germany is annexed and occupied by the american terrorists!
"The mission of EUCOM is to protect and defend the US"
Same thing in Japan, after all if they used 2 beautiful nukes is the Past they can
always use them again and the japanese moron slaves know this very well.
S. Korea same thing unfortunately they didn't get the NUKE treatment!
Iraq... Well that was a huge success! Still is.
So clearly the WORLD CHAMPION of invasions and occupations is the USofT!
Clearly they are afraid of a little competition from the Russians and Chinese.
The invasion started in 2014. Too bad the Ukrainians didn't want to give away any part of their territory. We all know that to avoid nuisance to our nice lives in the West, Russia should be appeased. 😜
Yes, the invasion began in 2014 - again - because of the US:
https://spaceworms.substack.com/p/the-us-is-culpable-in-todays-ukraine
Within a year, Crimea preferred Russian leadership - even ethnic Ukrainians responding to western -sponsored polls:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/?sh=29d93c59510d
So actually, the Ukrainians that lived there had no problem giving their territory away. But even if you were correct, this is no business of the US.
Yes!!!! According to polls and NYT reporting For 70+ years Soviets preferred Communism to Capitalism ….
Hah?!?!?!?!
You were warned, but your Russophobia wouldn’t let you consider reason. This has been three decades of western blundering.
John J. Mearsheimer, political scientist and international relations scholar, in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
George Kennan, American diplomat and historian, right after the US Senate approved NATO expansion all the way back in 1998: “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
CIA Director William Burns’s 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).
Last US ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock: “an avoidable crisis that was predictable, actually predicted, willfully precipitated, but easily resolved by the application of common sense”:
1997: “I consider the Administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.”
Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state, similarly described the Russian attitude. “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.”
Robert M Gates, Secretary of Defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993”.
Among other missteps, “US agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching”. That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.
No invasion started in 2014... The only thing that started in 2014 was that the modern moron slaves living in the Donbas region rejected the idea of living under the NN-Ukraine flag and decided to break from it! They receive military and other support from Russia.
Nothing that we also don't do to other countries!
Just a small fix, for your last paragraph: "Despite the Ukraine president's heavy-handedness in wartime, US officials and voters should consider the sharp contrast between Zelensky and Putin."
That’s the thing… there isn’t a huge contrast:
https://spaceworms.substack.com/p/risking-nuclear-war-for-what
But even if there was, it’s not worth nuclear war nor should the US have provoked the invasion (which we did):
https://spaceworms.substack.com/p/the-us-is-culpable-in-todays-ukraine
The international agencies mentioned exhibited their corrupt ways so many times that I am surprised that anyone honest would ever use their reporting in any truth seeking conversation.
That aside, I agree that US should have stayed out of the region going way back.
I wonder, really wonder.
Imagine you are elected as a head of a state at war with the neighboring country. You find out that some of the parties/organizations are actively agitating for and adding and abating the mortal enemy, which annexed huge chunks of your country territory and aims for more.
What would you do about those parties/organizations? What does the US law/Constitution suggest you do in such circumstances?
There so many excellent points can and are made about Ukraine, Zelensky, and the US involvement. Yet, good people making so many preposterous points. 😢🤷♂️
"By campaigning on a promise to host peaceful referendums in the East, Zelenksy won handedly, earning as much as 89% and 87% of the votes in Luhansk and Donetsk, which together form the disputed Donbas region."
Modern moron slaves simply can't understand that "democracy" is a Tool of the Secular Ruling Families & Billionaires, and that their "vote" means NOTHING.
VOTING under this type of sub-system is just a declaration of Irresponsibility. And has that phrase clear shows voting for scoundrels and terrorists always ends up like this.
Bare in mind that today ANYONE that wants to participate in the terrorist organization labelled "government" can only be a scoundrel and terrorist. At worse they can only be classified as Idiots since they "think" they will be able to CHANGE the Tool!
For me, the behavior of this terrorist and neo-nazi is not at all a surprise. They are ALL the same. We just need to wait a little bit for their natural behavior to manifest.
KEEP VOTING! That might work to bring "peace"... eh eh eh!