The Real Zelensky

[gipper]

Actually, Zelensky could not have “easily avoided war.” By the time of his election — as one promising and seeking better relations with Russia after Poroshenko’s rightwing pro-Western government proved unpopular — it would have been almost impossible for him to adhere to Minsk2 or even abstractly recognize “Crimea’s right to self-determination” and still remain in power. Indeed, the logic of events and power of hard nationalists and Banderite elements (who opposed all compromise) meant that he could not backtrack. The consensus U.S. foreign policy, embodied by people neo-con like Victoria Nuland, and endorsed by Biden/Clinton etc, of course also utterly limited his room to maneuver.

Putin himself was a prisoner of his own authoritarian ultra-nationalist ideology and propaganda. He acted irrationally and fell into the Western trap, dreaming that shear military power and brutality could win out in this instance. Now, if he is not overthrown from within his own police and security state apparatus, Russia’s people will suffer terribly.

I expect Belarus will probably eventually be “liberated.” The West and its Wall Street version of democracy is winning. Autocracy is losing. But the threat of war, nuclear war, remains real, even if the far-flung Russian state is torn to pieces.

Gripper, your extreme libertarian views and hostility to the U.S. “Establishment” are not helping you to see reality here. Theorists like Mearsheimer (so-called “offensive realists”) can sometimes be helpful in analyzing real geo-politics, but of course they also are not the arbiters of events. Russia’s fundamental situation makes it uniquely unstable as a “great power.”

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.

Numerous experts have warned against expanding NATO eastward. Many have stated Ukraine mustn’t be allowed in, since it is in Russia’s sphere of influence. These experts warned war might result, if NATO accepted Ukraine. They were right, but you won’t find the corporate media telling Americans this.

Had Z sought dialogue and compromise with Russia, which condidering Putin’s multiple statements about his red line on Ukraine is an intelligent approach, since war with Russia would be terribly destructive for his country. Z chose war.

At no time have I supported Putin’s invasion. His warring actions are wrong, just as the US government’s multiple wars are wrong.

But unlike you, I can see the entire forest.

 

[Toro]

But unlike you, I can see the entire forest.

You can't see beyond your nose, conspiracy loon.

 

[Toro]

 

[Dr Grump]

Lol. Really?

You just admitted knowing nothing about Crimea. It has been part of Russia since Catherine the Great…ops, you don’t know who she is. Google her.

You didn’t know Russia has had a naval port in the Crimea for centuries. So much for the warm water port idea the corporate media lied to you about. You also didn’t know Crimea held a vote and 80% voted to RETURN to Russia rather than stay with Ukraine.

Bill Casey was right then and even more so now. GET INFORMED DUMB ASS!

No, it was part of the Russian Empire. As was the US part of the British Empire until the revolution. Which parts are you going to cede to the UK now? Um, those 80 per cent were Russian imports. Check out my Dearborn/Muslim analogy. Dumbarse.

 

[Dr Grump]

I’m sure you’re completely unaware of the many experts who've warned against NATO expansion and specifically against including Ukraine, FOR MANY YEARS.

It's none of Russia's business who joins NATO. What, you think Europe has designs on Russia? LOL....the reason NATO exists is BECAUSE of Russia. No sabre rattling from Russia, no need for NATO. End of story. It's a nice narrative for Putin to sell, and for Russian implants like you to sell. But know this Sparky, nobody has any designs on Russia. Why? Because it's a backwards shithole. That's why.

 

[gipper]

It's none of Russia's business who joins NATO. What, you think Europe has designs on Russia? LOL....the reason NATO exists is BECAUSE of Russia. No sabre rattling from Russia, no need for NATO. End of story. It's a nice narrative for Putin to sell, and for Russian implants like you to sell. But know this Sparky, nobody has any designs on Russia. Why? Because it's a backwards shithole. That's why.

Fool wants nuclear war over a nation no American gives a shit about. Fools do dumb things.

 

[gipper]

You can't see beyond your nose, conspiracy loon.

Right back at you loony toons.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[alang1216]

Who told him to provoke a war with Russia? My chips are on someone in the imperial capitol on the Potomac. Why would he scrap the Minsk Protocol at the last second?

Zelensky is not the wonderful peace loving patriot Americans are told by their fake news media. The following will help you get informed.

The Man Who Sold Ukraine​

By Mike Whitney
The Unz Review
March 8, 2022
Most Americans fail to realize that Zelensky’s rejection of Minsk was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russian officials had worked for 8 years on Minsk hammering out terms that would be agreeable to all parties. Then—at the eleventh hour—Zelensky put the kibosh on the deal with a wave of the hand. Why? Who told Zelensky to scrap the agreement? Washington?

Of course.

And why did Zelensky deploy 60,000 combat troops to the area just beyond the Line of Contact (in east Ukraine) where they could lob mortal shells into the towns and villages of the ethnic Russians who lived there? Clearly, the message this sent to the people was that an invasion was imminent and that they should either flee their homes immediately or take shelter in their cellars. What objective did Zelensky hope to achieve by forcing these people to huddle in their homes in fear for their lives? And what message did he intend to send to Moscow whose leaders looked on at these developments in absolute horror?

Did he know his actions would set off alarms in Russia forcing Putin to call up his military and prepare them for a possible invasion to protect his people from– what looked to be– a massive ethnic cleansing operation?

He did.

So, how are these actions consistent with Zelensky’s campaign promises to restore national unity and peacefully resolve Ukraine’s issues with Russia?

They’re not consistent at all, they are polar opposites. In fact, Zelenskyy appears to be operating off a different script altogether. Take, for example, his complete unwillingness to address Russia’s minimal security concerns. Did Zelensky know that Putin had repeatedly said that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was a “red line” for Russia? Did he know that Putin has been saying the same thing over-and-over again since 2014? Did he know that Putin warned that if Ukraine took steps to join NATO, Russia would be forced to take “military-technical” measures to ensure their own security? Does Zelensky know that NATO is Washington-controlled Alliance that has engaged in numerous acts of aggression against other sovereign states. Here’s a short list of NATO’s accomplishments:

1. The destruction of Yugoslavia
2. The destruction of Afghanistan
3. The destruction of Libya
4. The destruction of Iraq
5. The destruction of Syria

Does Zelensky know that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and regards Russia a serious threat to its expansionist ambitions?
The Man Who Sold Ukraine - LewRockwell

So Putin is the man of peace? You may trust and admire authoritarian governments but I don't. I could not find any reference to Zel abrogating Minsk but I did find this:

Putin says Minsk accords, which were meant to end war in eastern Ukraine, no longer exist​

 

[gipper]

So Putin is the man of peace? You may trust and admire authoritarian governments but I don't. I could not find any reference to Zel abrogating Minsk but I did find this:

Putin says Minsk accords, which were meant to end war in eastern Ukraine, no longer exist​

Just blaming Putin is dumb. Yes he certainly is to blame, but so are a lot of others. Unfortunately most Americans get their news in tidbits and sound bites from corporate media, so they know nothing. They want issues wrapped up nice and neat…like good guy and bad guy.

Fucking simpletons.

 

[gipper]

View attachment 616015

Agreed. However you need to add most of the R party too. Nothing is more bipartisan than war. Americans should know this by now. After over two decades of constant war.

 

[alang1216]

Just blaming Putin is dumb. Yes he certainly is to blame, but so are a lot of others. Unfortunately most Americans get their news in tidbits and sound bites from corporate media, so they know nothing. They want issues wrapped up nice and neat…like good guy and bad guy.

Fucking simpletons.

Please, impress us all with your grasp of the facts...

 

[gipper]

Please, impress us all with your grasp of the facts...

I’ve done that with every post. I can’t help it if you’re too stupid to comprehend.

 

[alang1216]

I’ve done that with every post. I can’t help it if you’re too stupid to comprehend.

If you're wondering what simpletons do, allow me to explain. They read and believe what is written on extremist web sites know for their bias and poor reliability. Take the Unz Review for instance:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Unz Review a Questionable Source due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and hate, as well as utilizing poor sources

---

Detailed Report​

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Hate Group
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History
Launched in 2013, The Unz Review is a political analysis website that defines itself as an ‘alternative’ to the ‘mainstream media.’ According to Ron Unz, who is the Editor-in-Chief and the owner of the site their mission is: “I would always prefer reading something disturbing than something dull.”
The Unz Review has a long list of columnist and bloggers, although we couldn’t go through all of the list, some known names are Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Ilana Mercer, and Ron Paul. Steve Sailer has been criticized as both a racist and an Islamophobe. He is also listed as a promoter of hate by utilizing primitive stereotypes to describe people of color. Ilana Mercer is also listed as a promoter of hate toward Muslims, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Further, Ron Unz has donated money to known hate groups and anti-Semite organizations.

Read our profile on United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
The website does not disclose funding information.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Unz Review publishes articles with loaded words such as “Trump’s Strategy Working—He’s Maneuvered Democrats, RINOS, Into Favoring Foreigners Over Americans.“ On this particular article, they utilize questionable sources such as vdare.com, which is classified as an extremist White Nationalist group. They also use a different approach in which they utilize minimally loaded emotional language in their headlines such as “’Shithole Countries’: What Makes a Country? the Place or the People?” However, in the body of the article one can find plenty of racism and hate under the disguise of a philosophical discussion. Further, they also utilize factually mixed sources such as Mises Institute and occasionally credible sources such as Consortium News and Politico, however they use them only to illustrate their far right views via questionable sources.

Overall, we rate The Unz Review a Questionable Source due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and hate, as well as utilizing poor sources. (M. Huitsing 2/12/2018) Updated (8/26/2018)

 

[gipper]

If you're wondering what simpletons do, allow me to explain. They read and believe what is written on extremist web sites know for their bias and poor reliability. Take the Unz Review for instance:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Unz Review a Questionable Source due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and hate, as well as utilizing poor sources

---

Detailed Report​

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Hate Group
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History
Launched in 2013, The Unz Review is a political analysis website that defines itself as an ‘alternative’ to the ‘mainstream media.’ According to Ron Unz, who is the Editor-in-Chief and the owner of the site their mission is: “I would always prefer reading something disturbing than something dull.”
The Unz Review has a long list of columnist and bloggers, although we couldn’t go through all of the list, some known names are Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Ilana Mercer, and Ron Paul. Steve Sailer has been criticized as both a racist and an Islamophobe. He is also listed as a promoter of hate by utilizing primitive stereotypes to describe people of color. Ilana Mercer is also listed as a promoter of hate toward Muslims, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Further, Ron Unz has donated money to known hate groups and anti-Semite organizations.

Read our profile on United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
The website does not disclose funding information.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Unz Review publishes articles with loaded words such as “Trump’s Strategy Working—He’s Maneuvered Democrats, RINOS, Into Favoring Foreigners Over Americans.“ On this particular article, they utilize questionable sources such as vdare.com, which is classified as an extremist White Nationalist group. They also use a different approach in which they utilize minimally loaded emotional language in their headlines such as “’Shithole Countries’: What Makes a Country? the Place or the People?” However, in the body of the article one can find plenty of racism and hate under the disguise of a philosophical discussion. Further, they also utilize factually mixed sources such as Mises Institute and occasionally credible sources such as Consortium News and Politico, however they use them only to illustrate their far right views via questionable sources.

Overall, we rate The Unz Review a Questionable Source due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and hate, as well as utilizing poor sources. (M. Huitsing 2/12/2018) Updated (8/26/2018)

Off topic. Please stop posting.

 

[Care4all]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.verifythis.com/amp/article/news/verify/global-conflicts/ukraine-agreed-to-give-up-nukes-in-exchange-for-safety-from-russia-invasion-attack-budapest-memorandum-treaty/536-8748a51f-10ee-47f0-be30-b4088750ee44&ved=2ahUKEwi3y_iisMj2AhUfSDABHXqaALQQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1dGc7ZSpWqeOO5JFJ5R3FT

THE QUESTION​

Did Ukraine agree to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion?

THE SOURCES​

• Text of 1994 Budapest Memorandum
• Arms Control Association
• The Wilson Center, a non-partisan policy forum on global issues
• U.S. State Department

THE ANSWER​

Yes, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for safety from a U.S. or Russian invasion

WHAT WE FOUND​

In 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. signed the Budapest Memorandum. The other three nations made six commitments to Ukraine: to respect Ukraine’s independence and existing borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine except for in defense, to refrain from economic coercion to gain advantages from Ukraine, to provide assistance to Ukraine if it becomes victim to an act of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, to not use their nuclear weapons on Ukraine or other non-nuclear-weapon states and to consult one another in the event these commitments are put into question.

Ukraine, in return, committed to eliminating “all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time.”

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the country’s nuclear arsenal was split between four different countries: Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Much of that arsenal ended up in Ukraine, which inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the Arms Control Association says.

The Wilson Center, a non-partisan policy forum on global issues, said in an issue brief that Ukraine was reluctant to give up its nuclear weapons without security guarantees. By 1992, the Russian parliament had already passed a resolution that said Crimea — the peninsula later annexed by Russia in 2014 — should never have been given to Ukraine. Ukraine’s own parliament therefore demanded that security guarantees be provided in a legally binding treaty, the Wilson Center said.

In the final version of the deal, Russia promised not to attack Ukraine. While the U.S. and the U.K. assured Ukraine they would aid if it was attacked by Russia, that promised aid did not guarantee military support like a NATO country would receive.

In 2009, Russia and the U.S. announced that the assurances in the Budapest Memorandum would continue to remain in effect in the future.

But Russia first violated the memorandum in 2014, when it sent its military into Crimea and annexed it. The other three nations named in the Budapest Memorandum invoked the treaty’s sixth assurance, or the agreement to consult each other in the event the treaty’s commitments came into question, and met in Paris to discuss the invasion. Russia did not attend the meeting.

The Arms Control Association said a Russian foreign ministry official argued for Russia’s right to disregard the Budapest Memorandum by claiming “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.” In the months prior to Russia’s invasion of Crimea, Ukrainian citizens ousted the country’s authoritarian president through protests.

In 2016, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov claimed in a press conference the treaty contained only one obligation: Not to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. But the text of the agreement shows that claim was false

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who told him to provoke a war with Russia? My chips are on someone in the imperial capitol on the Potomac. Why would he scrap the Minsk Protocol at the last second?

Zelensky is not the wonderful peace loving patriot Americans are told by their fake news media. The following will help you get informed.

The Man Who Sold Ukraine​

By Mike Whitney
The Unz Review
March 8, 2022
Most Americans fail to realize that Zelensky’s rejection of Minsk was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russian officials had worked for 8 years on Minsk hammering out terms that would be agreeable to all parties. Then—at the eleventh hour—Zelensky put the kibosh on the deal with a wave of the hand. Why? Who told Zelensky to scrap the agreement? Washington?

Of course.

And why did Zelensky deploy 60,000 combat troops to the area just beyond the Line of Contact (in east Ukraine) where they could lob mortal shells into the towns and villages of the ethnic Russians who lived there? Clearly, the message this sent to the people was that an invasion was imminent and that they should either flee their homes immediately or take shelter in their cellars. What objective did Zelensky hope to achieve by forcing these people to huddle in their homes in fear for their lives? And what message did he intend to send to Moscow whose leaders looked on at these developments in absolute horror?

Did he know his actions would set off alarms in Russia forcing Putin to call up his military and prepare them for a possible invasion to protect his people from– what looked to be– a massive ethnic cleansing operation?

He did.

So, how are these actions consistent with Zelensky’s campaign promises to restore national unity and peacefully resolve Ukraine’s issues with Russia?

They’re not consistent at all, they are polar opposites. In fact, Zelenskyy appears to be operating off a different script altogether. Take, for example, his complete unwillingness to address Russia’s minimal security concerns. Did Zelensky know that Putin had repeatedly said that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was a “red line” for Russia? Did he know that Putin has been saying the same thing over-and-over again since 2014? Did he know that Putin warned that if Ukraine took steps to join NATO, Russia would be forced to take “military-technical” measures to ensure their own security? Does Zelensky know that NATO is Washington-controlled Alliance that has engaged in numerous acts of aggression against other sovereign states. Here’s a short list of NATO’s accomplishments:

1. The destruction of Yugoslavia
2. The destruction of Afghanistan
3. The destruction of Libya
4. The destruction of Iraq
5. The destruction of Syria

Does Zelensky know that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and regards Russia a serious threat to its expansionist ambitions?
The Man Who Sold Ukraine - LewRockwell

It wasn't DC giving orders, it was the people giving DC their orders

 

[gipper]

It wasn't DC giving orders, it was the people giving DC their orders

Yes most likely, but that’s almost always true. Likely the fuckers in the WEF and CFR.

 

[LilOlLady]

Who told him to provoke a war with Russia? My chips are on someone in the imperial capitol on the Potomac. Why would he scrap the Minsk Protocol at the last second?

Zelensky is not the wonderful peace loving patriot Americans are told by their fake news media. The following will help you get informed.

The Man Who Sold Ukraine​

By Mike Whitney
The Unz Review
March 8, 2022
Most Americans fail to realize that Zelensky’s rejection of Minsk was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russian officials had worked for 8 years on Minsk hammering out terms that would be agreeable to all parties. Then—at the eleventh hour—Zelensky put the kibosh on the deal with a wave of the hand. Why? Who told Zelensky to scrap the agreement? Washington?

Of course.

And why did Zelensky deploy 60,000 combat troops to the area just beyond the Line of Contact (in east Ukraine) where they could lob mortal shells into the towns and villages of the ethnic Russians who lived there? Clearly, the message this sent to the people was that an invasion was imminent and that they should either flee their homes immediately or take shelter in their cellars. What objective did Zelensky hope to achieve by forcing these people to huddle in their homes in fear for their lives? And what message did he intend to send to Moscow whose leaders looked on at these developments in absolute horror?

Did he know his actions would set off alarms in Russia forcing Putin to call up his military and prepare them for a possible invasion to protect his people from– what looked to be– a massive ethnic cleansing operation?

He did.

So, how are these actions consistent with Zelensky’s campaign promises to restore national unity and peacefully resolve Ukraine’s issues with Russia?

They’re not consistent at all, they are polar opposites. In fact, Zelenskyy appears to be operating off a different script altogether. Take, for example, his complete unwillingness to address Russia’s minimal security concerns. Did Zelensky know that Putin had repeatedly said that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was a “red line” for Russia? Did he know that Putin has been saying the same thing over-and-over again since 2014? Did he know that Putin warned that if Ukraine took steps to join NATO, Russia would be forced to take “military-technical” measures to ensure their own security? Does Zelensky know that NATO is Washington-controlled Alliance that has engaged in numerous acts of aggression against other sovereign states. Here’s a short list of NATO’s accomplishments:

1. The destruction of Yugoslavia
2. The destruction of Afghanistan
3. The destruction of Libya
4. The destruction of Iraq
5. The destruction of Syria

Does Zelensky know that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and regards Russia a serious threat to its expansionist ambitions?
The Man Who Sold Ukraine - LewRockwell

F**K Zalensky andF**K Ukraine....If they do not have a military to defend against invasions, where is all the US aid going????

The US pledged $1.8 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2001— 30.8% of total foreign aid to the country. This is consistent with the international average for US foreign aid with 30% of foreign assistance spent on the military. The US spent $284 million on military foreign aid to the country in 2020.
Since 2001, economic aid was $4.5 billion or 68% of total foreign aid to Ukraine. In 2020, the US spent $395.9 million on economic aid to the country. According to the Greenbook data, judicial system development, control of sexually transmitted diseases, and material relief assistance were the three biggest programs to receive economic aid. Together, they constituted about 30% of the 2020 economic obligations to Ukraine.

 

[LilOlLady]

It wasn't DC giving orders, it was the people giving DC their orders

“The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.” -- Malcolm X

If the white man took his foot off the black man's back, he would get up and do something to better himself.

“It is small comfort to a mouse, if an elephant is standing on its tail, to say 'I am impartial.' In this instance, you are really supporting the elephant in its cruelty.”​

― Desmond Tutu