Why is Xelensky treated as a villain by some ?

The womenz want out of Ukraine.


 
Last edited:
Much of it has to do with the right’s long-term love affair with Putin – conservatives are attracted to illiberal, authoritarian despots and dictators.

The anti-Zelensky rhetoric from the right is in defense of Putin.
Do not think this is a long affair, this is current extreme right propaganda, The only real purpose is to discredit 'The other party.
Republicans ALLWAYS support what ever war we are in, until it becomes a disaster.
 

We know that Zelensky has become a bug bear to the more extreme elements of the GOP. Not all of them. The majority understand the importance of what he is doing in Ukraine..In the UK there is universal support for Ukraine. Mirrored across Europe,

We are told that he is a Nazi and that Ukraine is a nazi state. Echoing claims made by putin to justify his invasion.I am not sure that those claims hold water and that they are being used as a cover for an illegal invasion.

But I would appreciate clarity on the issue. I dont understand the stance on Ukraine by the likes of Tucker Carlson and his friends. The history of Ukraine is invoked mostly but also its current political situation. This is not as prominent but just as puzzling.

Right wingers damn Zelensky but revere Orban. They invite him to their conferences and visit Budapest to sit at his knee. This is puzzling. Hungary had a poor war record an was an ally of the nazis.They were knee deep in the holocaust as well.

Orbans policies revive echoes of the nazis with his racist rhetoric and targetting of minorities. Try livinf a gypsy lifestyle in Hyngary, or even a gay one.

Whilst he doesnt have death camps his poliicies put him firmly on the nazi spectrum . Blood and soil is central to nazi philosophy.

So why is the distinction made between Zelensky and Orban ? Zelensky cant be a liberal if he is a nazi. And Orban is definately not a liberal.

Is it their attitude to Putin ? Is it a niche American thing ? Does it go back to quid pro quo ? Why are the two leaders viewed so differently ?

I don't like the policies or the ties to the US that got us to this point. Whether it was the Biden admin, or the Trump admin, it is all corrupt. We, and the folks in Ukraine, all seem to be pawns of the WEF, who in turn, to me at least, from my reading of things, seem to be pawns of the international bankers and the crown. This fiasco, is no different than WWI, WWII, the Crimean Wars, or the orchestrated Napoleonic garbage.

IOW, it is, and has been, none of the business of the U.S.

As previously posted, and here are THE RECEIPTS;

"It was revealed in the Wikileaks cabals. Everyone that has followed the story, and watched when Tory Nuland orchestrated a coup, said the EU could pound sand, everyone knows this. You are either ignorant, or gaslighting the forum and yourself. I'd like to think you are a decent fellow, but we all know, when it comes to stuff like this, you are an out and out liar.


US gov’t knew NATO expansion to Ukraine would force Russia to intervene​


WikiLeaks-Ukraine-NATO-Russia-intervene-William-Burns.jpg


WikiLeaks-Ukraine-NATO-Russia-William-Burns.jpg


". . . Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.. . .

Burns’ warnings came true just a few years later.. . ."




The CIA knew what it was doing. . . it wanted war, and it got one.

iu



NATO should have never have been expanded. . . guarantees were given to Gorbachev, the west was NOT to be allowed to, and Putin is right. Nor were they allowed to place missiles in any of the new NATO members, which they have, since talks about the unification of Germany occurred.

quote-war-is-not-merely-a-political-act-but-a-real-political-instrument-a-continuation-of-carl-von-clausewitz-5-77-21.jpg


WAR IN EUROPE AND THE RISE OF RAW PROPAGANDA​

". . . Setting aside the manoeuvres and cynicism of geopolitics, whomever the players, this historical memory is the driving force behind Russia’s respect-seeking, self-protective security proposals, which were published in Moscow in the week the UN voted 130-2 to outlaw Nazism. They are:

- NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missiles in nations bordering Russia. (They are already in place from Slovenia to Romania, with Poland to follow)
- NATO to stop military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.
- Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.
- the West and Russia to sign a binding East-West security pact.
- the landmark treaty between the US and Russia covering intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be restored. (The US abandoned it in 2019)


These amount to a comprehensive draft of a peace plan for all of post-war Europe and ought to be welcomed in the West. But who understands their significance in Britain? What they are told is that Putin is a pariah and a threat to Christendom.. . . "

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev Told NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border​

". . .Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

Indeed, as late as March 1991, the British were reassuring Gorbachev that they could not foresee circumstances under which NATO might expand into Eastern and Central Europe. As former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union recounted in March 5, 1991, Rodric Braithwaite, both British foreign minister Douglas Hurd and British Prime Minister John Major told the Soviet that NATO would not expand eastwards.

“I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding,” Major had told Gorbachev. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”



". . The 2+4 negotiations were talks in 1990 that allowed for the reunification of Germany, featuring capitalist West Germany and socialist East Germany (the 2) along with the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and France (the 4).

Chrobog’s comments in the notes, therefore, confirm that the Western powers had promised the USSR in 1990 that they would not expand NATO eastward after German reunification.

Further clarifying this fact, the document adds that there was a “general agreement that membership of NATO and security guarantees [are] unacceptable” for countries east of Germany.. . ."

NATO-expansion-document-promise-UK-US-Germany.png
"
 
That is not the case.

Cognitive rigidity

Two people believe some fifth rate Checking Service that Puppet man does not have offshore wealth and does not own property in Florida , despite the evidence of the Pandora Papers expose .

Guess Impure Ones are potentially dangerous people .
 

Forum List

Back
Top