|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
There has been considerable concern since before the start of the war in Ukraine about the influence of National Socialists, or Nazis, there, and now it has gotten considerably worse. Rather than apologize for or at very least ignore the nation’s past ties to National Socialism, the city council in the nation’s capital of Kyiv is reportedly considering naming a street after a National Socialist collaborator who actually served in the SS during the Holocaust, Volodymyr Kubiyovych. Apparently the Ukrainian government is so certain that Western aid will continue that it feels no hesitation about flaunting its openness to National Socialism.
The Jerusalem Post reported recently that according to Eduard Dolinsky, director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, “a street in the Ukrainian capital will be renamed following a motion passed by the city council, and will bear the name of Volodymyr Kubiyovych, who during the Holocaust was heavily involved in the formation of the Waffen-SS Galizien, a Nazi military force made up of Ukrainian volunteers.”
This startling move comes after a “historical expert commission within the council had put forward several options for the renaming of what is currently Przhevalsky Street in Kyiv,” and several names were put to a public vote. “The option to rename the street after Volodymyr Kubiyovych has so far received a majority, with 31% of the vote, with the second and third highest options receiving just 18% and 10% respectively,” although this could change, as the voting remains open until Sunday. Then, “once the public vote is closed, the Kyiv City Council will then vote to approve renaming the street after Kubiyovych.”
This is an astonishingly bad idea for a number of reasons. Before the National Socialist invasion of the USSR, Kubiyovych “requested the creation of an autonomous state within Ukraine in which Poles and Jews would not be allowed to live.” Then, once the National Socialists had occupied much of Ukraine, Kubiyovych “took on a key role in the formation of the Waffen-SS Galizien, publicly announcing his willingness to take up arms and fight for the Nazi cause.”
Is this the hero Zelensky’s Ukraine needs? Is this the hero Zelensky’s Ukraine wants?
None of this comes as any surprise to longtime Ukraine watchers. The independent journalism site Kanekoa News reported as long ago as last June that “on October 16, 2019, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee’s counterterrorism subpanel, Rep. Max Rose (NY), led a letter signed by forty Democrats asking the State Department why they had not placed Ukraine’s Azov Battalion on the U.S. list of ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ (FTOs).” The irony couldn’t be richer, for in October 2022, the New York Times, that reliable organ of far-Left opinion, refers to “Ukraine’s celebrated Azov Battalion,” and claims that “the group’s defense of the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol — the southern port city decimated by Russian forces in the first months of the war — has become a powerful symbol of the suffering inflicted by Russia and the resistance mounted by Ukraine.”
Every last Democrat who condemned the Azov Battalion likely reads and respects the Times, and every last one of them also would likely prefer us all to forget that they once likened the Azov Battalion to the Islamic State (ISIS) and noted that it “openly welcomes neo-Nazis into its ranks.”
The Democrats’ 2019 letter added that “the 115th Congress of the United States stated in its 2018 omnibus spending bill that ‘none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.’” But that was when Volodymyr Zelensky was widely regarded as some kind of ally or tool of the Left’s Emmanuel Goldstein of the day, Donald Trump; after all, the first Stalinist show trial impeaching the America-First president took place over a phone call to Zelensky. So it was in the Democrats’ interest to play up the Nazi element in Ukraine, just as it is in their interests now to pretend that element doesn’t exist.
The Democrats’ letter even declared “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Yet now it seems as if there is no limit to the taxpayer billions that must be funneled to these gallant Ukrainian defenders of freedom. Is anyone exercising any kind of oversight at all? Is Azov still “recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens”? Is our taxpayer money now being used to fund such activities?
One thing is certain: the full extent of the ties between Ukraine and the posturing, self-righteous, desperately corrupt, hypocritical and self-serving U.S. Democrat establishment is not publicly known, and may never be known. But what we do know should have brought that entire establishment crashing down years ago.
Volodomyr Kubyovych Street? In the U.S. we put Warner von Braun on a postage stamp. What was Klaus Barbie doing when they caught him?
The United States defeated Japan and Germany in World War II. The National Socialists did not lose. They were welcomed into several western nations, not only scientists, but SS officers and high-ranking party members. One thing we all can be certain of, the Nazi elites did not arrive in the West to take janitorial or food service jobs. They and their descendants became politicians and CEOs of major corporations. So, why is anyone surprised that Nazis rule both Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy? Or that the Nazis threatened Zelenskyy that any negotiation to end the war in Donbass would mean the end of him?
The Fourth Reich wants the war to continue and to escalate. War has always been good business.
Part 1
“The United States defeated Japan and Germany in World War II. The National Socialists did not lose. ”
Yes, they very obviously did. Which becomes crystal clear if one notices that the most ideologically fanatical and sincere of the senior leadership – with Hitler and Goebbels being prime – committed suicide in a petty act of defiance, even when neither were under immediate risk of capture or death at the hands of their enemies.
The others generally had to migrate underground or into what positions they could get while living on the fringes.
“They were welcomed into several western nations, not only scientists, but SS officers and high-ranking party members.”
Only “several Western Nations”? Forgetting somebody, Robert?
Why yes, yes you are.
Because the Soviet Union and its many vassal states like Nasser’s Egypt not only recruited unrepentant Nazis they in fact went so far as to finance the first avowed Neo-Nazi Party in existence, in the form of the Socialist Reich Party, headed up by unrepentant Nazi fanatic Major Otto Remer (the guy who saved Hitler’s regime during Operation Valkyrie), who promised to show Soviet tanks the way to the Rhine while seeking to destroy the West German Republic.
Now, why are you not mentioning the Soviets in spite of how it is no longer seriously denied that they happily recruited Nazis and if anything aggressively synthesized their ideology even more than the West did? I think we know why.
Part 2
” One thing we all can be certain of, the Nazi elites did not arrive in the West to take janitorial or food service jobs. ”
Actually many of them did, in part because they had no choice. Take a casual look at what Josef Mengele did during his last misbegotten years on Earth. The fact is that a vast majority of “the Nazi elites” had no skills or resources either the West or the Soviets found desirable, which is why many of them had to go work menial jobs and many more were reliant on protection by pro-Nazi regimes such as Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Peron’s Argentina, and De Valera’s Ireland, and many others had to conceal their past history. Ever hear of Demjanjuk?
“They and their descendants became politicians and CEOs of major corporations.”
Ok. Got any examples?
Because I do, and I could probably cite more of them than you can (and on both sides of the Iron Curtain) but I want to see if you can actually put up.
” So, why is anyone surprised that Nazis rule both Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy?”
This is stupid on a massive scale.
Firstly: Ukraine was former Soviet Space. Which does not jive with your narrative of the Nazis only emigrating West.
Secondly: Even Ukraine’s resident Neo-Fascists have at best a strained relationship with Neo-Nazis because of how Hitler betrayed their spiritual liege and tried to wipe them out (a fact that was admitted into evidence at Nuremburg).
Part 3
Thirdly: The Neo-Fascist parties in Ukraine currently hold a grand total of One seat in the Rada (their parliament). Unless you have a theory as to how that one Rada member is controlling the entire Ukrainian government, you are out to lunch.
” Or that the Nazis threatened Zelenskyy that any negotiation to end the war in Donbass would mean the end of him?”
Got any evidence for that?
Because considering how Zelenskyy openly campaigned on a possible peaceful negotiations only for Putin to not even bothering to respond to his proposals (such as A plebiscite to divide the Donbas), the idea that “the Nazis” (who mostly do not exist, at least on the Ukrainian side, as opposed to Banderaists) threatened Zelenskyy doesn’t fit.
“The Fourth Reich wants the war to continue and to escalate. War has always been good business.”
This is stupid and evil projection on two grounds.
A: “War has always been good for business.” No, no it hasn’t been. Just ask IG Farben.
B: While your quote about “the Fourth Reich” is somewhat true, it isn’t in the way you want.
The truth is, Putin’s government has outright recruited Neo-Nazis for the war. His Vice President Medvedev had a public history as a Neo-Nazi, and so are many of the “PMCs” like Wagner and Rusich (ever see Dmitry Utkin’s tattoos?) and other groups like the Russian Imperial Movement.
Funny how those so obsessed (and understandably so) with Neo-Fascists in Ukraine ignore those.
Thank you for saving me the trouble. This is so tedious. You’ve got actual Ukrainian Nazis fighting for Russia, and actual Russian Nazis going to Ukraine to fight for Russia. This lovely Ukrainian Nazi is quite happy to kill millions of Ukrainians if they don’t submit to Putin.
Interesting. I used to brawl with nazi skinheads. Same mentality and tactics(they wouldn’t attack without a decisive-or so they thought-advantage in numbers), but low as they were, they were superior to antifa in that they weren’t chickenshit to show their faces.
Why exactly are American taxpayers funding a war to save the most corrupt country in Europe ; what exactly is the vital national interest at stake ?
In 2020 eighty-one million American voters specifically decided upon this state of affairs. And Joe Biden, our heroic leader, is making it happen with the ease of that which William Boroughs described as “velvet rubbers”.
Plus we don’t even have to pay him for this service. That tab for that has already been provided. Sort of like a charitable vivisection and we are the patient awaiting non anesthetized disarticulation.
Its hard to express adequate thanks.
except that 81 million Americans did not vote for the demented root vegetable who was obama’s ” point man” in Ukraine, up to his squinty eyeballs withe Cookies Nuland, Geoffrey Pyatt and George Soros et all since the Maidan riots and coup ousting democratically elected President Yanukovych. This Nazi collaboration, genocide in Donbass and now US/NATO’s proxy war against Russia has all gone on behind a wall of uniparty propaganda.
If Hitler were alive now it seems America would be its ally.
Part 1
“except that 81 million Americans did not vote for the demented root vegetable who was obama’s ” point man” in Ukraine, up to his squinty eyeballs withe Cookies Nuland, Geoffrey Pyatt and George Soros et all”
Agreed, and this is something people need to remember. more. 2020 was undermined and fatally tainted by fraud, and the idea Biden got more votes than Obama is risible.
” since the Maidan riots and coup ousting democratically elected President Yanukovych”
SIIIGh. God help me….
Firstly: It astounds me how people obsess with calling the violent, thuggish gangster Yanukovych democratically elected (Which he was…. Same as Danny Ortega in Nicaragua and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela), while pointedly ignoring the fact that the “coup” was his removal from office by the just-as-democratically-elected Ukrainian Rada dominated by his own coalition. And in large part because of his violations of the Ukrainian constitution, inflaming of what had been mostly peaceful protests into riots by use of repression, and demonizing of Jews (to the point where Berkut was caught conflating Jews with Nazis in their official propaganda).
Apparently the democratically elected legislature isn’t supposed to be able to hold a Head of State accountable for abuses? Especially when he refuses lawful summons?
Part 2
“. This Nazi collaboration,”
Which Nazi collaboration? Because Nazis are fairly thin on the ground in Eastern Europe, and especially in Ukraine, less because there aren’t nationalist, fascist nutjobs (there absolutely are), but because the nationalist, fascist nutjobs in Ukraine have never forgiven Hitler for backstabbing them.
” genocide in Donbass ”
Oh for for the Love of GOd.
No, there isn’t a “genocide in the Donbas.” And I challenge anybody to present evidence otherwise.
It’s telling that even the likes of Right Sector and other “Banderaists” (the people who idolize the WWII era Ukrainian Insurgent Army and SS Galicia) are openly recruiting Ethnic Russians and Russophones (indeed, that’s one reason why scum like Azov are so hated, because they can actually infiltrate the lines).
This isn’t really a sectarian war like what we saw in Georgia (which is another thing that annoys me with the “Donbas Genocide” meme, because it screams as projection from those trying to ignore the Kremlin’s role in genocide in Prigodny, Ossetia, and Abkhazia). It is a bitter civil war though.
“and now US/NATO’s proxy war against Russia”
There’s something remarkable about how a war that was started by Russian invasion in 2014 is framed as “US/NATO’s proxy war.” While we are also apparently supposed to ignore things like the Georgian War of 2008?
Part 3
” has all gone on behind a wall of uniparty propaganda.”
Which is a major problem, and I hate the Uniparty even more than I do Putin and would be willing to abandon Ukraine if I thought doing so was necessary to regain our sovereignty.
But I’m not going to shill for the Islamic State “merely” because the Uniparty’s propaganda condemns IS. The Uniparty can’t be trusted, but why on earth people think Putin (who has been its avid collaborator for most of his life; anybody remember the Steele Dossier frameup or the Reset Button) is trustworthy is beyond me.
‘If Hitler were alive now it seems America would be its ally.”
No, he absolutely would not have.
But do not believe ME. Read his unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, usually referred to as the “Second Book.”. It was the US, not Russia , that was his “Great Satan” and why he was willing to at least consider cooperating with the latter in order to destroy the US.
If he could look around now, what would he see?
Russia has its Vice President be Medvedev, a man with a proven history as a Neo-Nazi (and I don’t say this lightly, but he actually LARPed with Swastikas).
A Russia that employs Neo-Nazis like the Russian Imperial Movement and Wagner (along with Utkin, he of the Swastika Tattoos).
Hitler would hate Putin as a hypocrite and a “liberal” but he would be willing to consider cooperation with him against the US and the West, much as he considered with Molotov-Ribbentrop.
The goal is not to save a corrupt government.
It’s to save innocent victims of Putin’s Hitlerian invasion.
“Why exactly are American taxpayers funding a war to save the most corrupt country in Europe ; ”
Firstly, because in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 committed us to supporting Ukraine against any aggression towards it and recognition of its sovereignty within the borders of the former Ukrainian SR in exchange for Ukraine surrendering its nukes. So if you think it’d be a bad thing for “the most corrupt country in Europe” to have nuclear weapons, you can thank the Budapest Memorandum for that.
Secondly: Because on the off chance that Ukraine is the “most corrupt country in Europe” it is being attacked by two dictatorships that are scarcely less corrupt and are significantly more anti-Western, in the form of Putin’s Russia and Lukashenko’s Belarus. Their victory would hardly make Ukraine likely to be less corrupt, as the attempts to polish the corrupt, oppressive Mafia like turd that was Yanukovych,
“what exactly is the vital national interest at stake ?”
Let’s start with the fact that Ukraine is one of the great bread baskets of the world and that screwing with it is liable to send shockwaves for global hunger, which we do NOT need while still knee deep dealing with Brandon,
Let’s further underline that it is probably not good for Putin – an important strategic ally of the CCP and Iran – to gain more power in Europe.
That is complete B S ..only an educated idiot could write it, or worse, actually believe it
“That is complete B S ..only an educated idiot could write it, or worse, actually believe it”
If that is complete BS, why don’t you bother to explain how it is so?
Chcuo, please do some actual research for a change. And stop the overreliance on ALLCAPS>
Part 1
“a. Neither Ukraine nor Kazakhstan surrendered ANY nuclear bombs, they were property of the Soviet state,and later its successor in RUSSIA.”
What you’re “conveniently” ignoring is that every former member state of the Soviet Union was recognized as a successor to it, not just Russia. Moreover, Ukraine was recognized ass ONE OF THE PRIMARY SUCCESSORS ON PAR WITH RUSSIA, due to its size and the fact that it was the only other Soviet Republic admitted into the UN alongside Soviet Russia.
As such, the SRs had a legal claim to former Soviet assets. This is blindingly obvious if you follow things such as the military partition of Soviet assets among its member states, and particularly the Black Sea Fleet Partition.
What GENERALLY happened is that (under the moderation of NATO members) Ukraine and other non-Russian successor states agreed to sign away their rights to most or all of the Navy/Air Fleet/Nukes in question in exchange for massive financial support from the West and/or Russia, and explicit acknowledgement of their interests and rights elsewhere. THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT THOSE NATIONS WERE NOT LEGAL SUCCESSORS OF THE USSR OR DID NOT HAVE LEGAL CLAIMS TO THE ASSETS, MERELY THAT THEY WERE WAIVING THEM.
Anybody claiming otherwise has very obviously not read the legal agreements such as the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 or the 1997 Black Sea Fleet Partition.
Part 2
“The Russian government had the CODES to ACTIVATE them.Without the codes they could not be used.”
The problem is that there were copies of MANY of the Codes in Ukraine and elsewhere, so this falls apart. The reason Russia owns ALL the nukes now is not because it was the only legally recognized successor state of the Soviet Union (it very blatantly is not), or that it was the primary successor state of the Soviet Union (that would only explain why it’d get the overwhelming majority, not all) but because of the negotiations brokered by the US and UK between Russia and Ukraine over the fate of the former Soviet nuclear stockpile.
AND NOTABLY, THE TERMS FOR THAT AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH UKRAINE GAVE UP BOTH PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE FORMER SOVIET NUKES AND ITS LEGAL CLAIMS TO THEM *INVOLVED ALL PARTIES INVOLVED RECOGNZIING UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE FORMER SOVIET SR AFTER 1954.*
Of course the Kremlin proceeded to violate this agreement very blatantly in 2014 and has doubled down on it, so the pressure to try and change the interpretation in order to claim that Oh No, Ukraine NEVER had a legal right to those nukes isn’t that surprising. Dismaying and blindingly ignorant, but not that surprising.
Part 3
“b. Ukraine gained independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union dissolved, and declared itself NEUTRAL, that was the condition of the BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM. The Ukrainian CONSTITUTION had written on it that Ukraine was a neutral country,”
Except nations can and do change their constitutions, especially as situations change. That doesn’t give Russia the right to unilaterally violate agreements like Budapest, especially without consideration.
And on some level you and the Russian government KNOW this is true, which is why for the duration of 2014 the Russian Government endlessly lied and claimed it had not sent troops to illegally partition Crimea and the Donbas.
“like SWEDEN (till recently) and AUSTRIA and FINLAND (till recently) and MOLDOVA and SWITZERLAND.”
Again, YOU THINK THIS ACTUALLY HELPS YOUR GODDAMN CASE?!?!
IT DOES NOT.
Because *AS FINLAND AND AUSTRIA AND SWEDEN ATTEST*, neutrality is recognized as a choice nations have, not one foisted upon them. Austria initially had no choice since its declaration of neutrality was necessary to get Soviet acceptance of an end of occupation (not that it really helped the Austrians) but Russia can scarcely prevent it, and Finland and Sweden have both pointed out the obvious flaw with your logic: that genuinely free nations have AN INHERENT RIGHT to choose their allignment.
And Moldova almost certainly wishes it could join NATO, but can’t because of the Russian occupation of part of its territory..
Part 4
Which brings us back to the inherent point. If Russia wishes these countries to remain neutral or align with it, it might help to not treat them like dirt or take its power over them for granted. IT’s telling that even Lukashenko’s Belarus – BY FAR the most pro-Russian government on Earth, possibly even moreso than Putin himself- has regularly complained about Moscow’s high handedness in this like tariffs.
“c. Then in 2014 the Globalists carried out a COUP d’ETAT and overthrew the legitimate president. There had been a VOTE in PARLIAMENT to DEPOSE him legally,”
You’re “conveniently” ignoring the fact that the “Coup d’etat” was primarily carried out by parliamentary vote by the legitimate parliament (which indeed was dominated by said “legitimate president””s coalition), and came after a long string of abuses by Yanukovych’s government, culminating in Yanukovych’s refusal to answer legal summons by the Rada about his government’s conduct.
You’re also ignoring how the globalists had supported the political opponents of most of the Blues that would go on to actually vote Yanukovych.
Because it makes a mockery of your simplistic morality tale where Putin is somehow entirely justified.
Part 5
“”but it fell SHORT by 10 votes. So Obama and Hillary and Nuland contracted the BANDERISTAS to overthrow the president.”
A: So you’re claiming Yanukovych’s parliamentary coalition had “Banderistas” in i
B: The Rada then tabled a different vote, and one I find a hell of a lot more legally and constitutionally dodgy, where they claimed Yanukovych had removed himself from government (as he objectively had, by fleeing Kyiv and even the country and refusing any appeals to return) and declaring him stripped of office by grounds of incapability to carry out the office (which is a concept in the Ukrainian constitution, but wasn’t worded to include those who were incapable due to reasons other than physical incapacity). You want to complain about this legally, by all means.
But you’re also ignoring that IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS, the Rada appointed a caretaker government AND BEGAN IMMEDIATE STEPS FOR A NEW ELECTION. Which is one reason the Russian government had to scurry, to try and take advantage of the flux before a new, legal, legitimate government could be voted in.
“And in they took OUT from the CONSTITUTION the neutrality of Ukraine.”
As the legally elected government of Ukraine has every right to do.
Russia has no right to demand Ukraine maintain neutrality, especially not by threat of terror or violence. Period. This is explicitly spelled out in things like the Helsinki Accord and Astana Declaration.
Chcuo, I’ve been incredibly patient in responding to you but your hypocrisy, ignorance, gullibility, and apparent lack of research is jarring.
I’m going to be responding to some of the comments you made through here, because I can’t otherwise.
Part 1
“I would say ETHNIC CLEANSING of the Russians in the DONBASS.”
I’D SAY NO SUCH THING IS HAPPENING!!
Hell, there are even ethnic Russians in explicitly Neo-Fascist Ukrainian Nationalist organizations like Right Sector. That’s NOT what you’d expect if the Ukrainian Government was ethnically cleansing Russkiy. Which is doubly ironic considering the Putin government has begun deporting people from the occupied Donbas for Russification.
But it amuses me that you have absolutely no explanation for why Kharkhiv has been staunchly loyalist the entire war in spite of being overwhelmingly Russophone and heavily ethnically Russian.
“a. From 2014 to 2022 and into 2023 the Banderistas have deliberately shelled,continuosly,into purely civilian regions, in order to scare the population into leaving the Donbass.Shelling”
This is simply bull. Even the DNR and LNR have estimated their civilian casualties per annum between 2016 and 2021 to be in the hundreds or lower, WELL within the ranges we’d expect from heavy urban fighting. Protip: When Perun on Youtube can beat the pants off of you using your own side’s documents, you should quit while you’re behind.
Part 2
Secondly: This ignores the fact that the most identifiably “Banderaist” units like Azov have been LIGHT INFANTRY, usually with minimal artillery support (and usually with the need to call for that). So the idea that they could randomly call in artillery shelling independently is farcical.
It also ignores the other side of the equation: that it is the Russian government and its separatists that usually had firepower and artillery superiority, and they used them to devastating effect in things like the sieges of inner city Luhansk and Donetsk. But of course you don’t want to acknowledge that (in spite of it being heavily admitted and even more heavily documented) because it undermines your narrative.
“Hospitals,and schools and homes.”
Welcome to war. Are you surprised?
” This SUNDAY was the Orthodox EASTER,and they bombed the Donetsk CATHEDRAL and killed a woman and wounded five.”
Got any evidence for that?
And no, I will not be counting the likes of TASS as sources, given their proven track record of lying (such as overclaiming the entire Ukrainian Air Force a few times over).
Part 3
“And from 2014-2022 , 1.5 million of the 5 million went to live in Russia”
Except this isn’t true. You tried to pull this game on me and I BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH HOW YOU WERE MISREADING YOUR SOURCES and claiming that people *the source CLEARLY POINTED OUT WERE FLEEING INTO UKRAINIAN TERRITORY* were instead going to Russia.
And you wonder why I am running out of patience with you? You wonder why I am increasingly inclined to believe you are dishonest?
“.Ethnic cleansing, is a CRIME against HUMANITY.”
Correct, WHICH IS WHY VLADIMIR PUTIN DESERVES TO BE IN THE DOCK FOR HIS ACTIONS In PRIGODY, GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, CRIMEA, AND THE DONBAS.
Or are we supposed to pretend that those other cases don’t exist and cannot be used as indicators of his conduct?
“b. The Banderistas have also used ethnic Russians as HUMAN SHIELDS,like HAMAS and HIZBULLAH. And that is a war crime.”
Again: Got any proof of that? And again, I mean actual proof.
“Or as you going to deny that?”
I don’t have to deny. The onus is on you to prove. And considering how I’ve routinely shown you rely on totalitarian propaganda from the CCP and often couldn’t even read your own sources properly (such as misreading the UN’s report on displaced people from the Ukraine War), the onus is on you
Part 4
“WAGNER as being NAZI,that is nonsense, ”
I’m sorry, but the organization was founded by Utkin, a man who literally tattooed a swastika and lightning bolts onto his body and who chose his callsign (and the name of his organization) after Hitler’s favorite composer.
We also have plenty of evidence of them parading with explicitly Nazi iconography, including the old NSDAP flag.
“reliable journalists like Russian LIU SIVAYA have studied it and have said it is false.”
OOOOOH, so the words of a journalist can conveniently ignore the oodles of documentary evidence (often self-documented by Wagner itself) and mean you don’t have to address? Sorry Chcuo, that’s not have argumentation or evidence WORK.
Also “Liu Sivaya” is not a reliable journalist. She’s been proven to not only be a dishonest Kremlin propagandist, but a remarkably psychopathic and dishonest one. Being party to obvious stagemanaged events is one thing, but being caught peddling lies that were contradicted by DNR and LNR (in particular hugely elevating the supposed civilian deaths during the Donbas War by a couple orders of magnitude) is quite another.
“You have to verify.”
I’m sorry Chcuo, but you don’t seem to understand. If Wagner being Nazi (as its leader quite obviously is) is “nonsense”, you don’t need me to verify, you can simply debunk it.
If it isn’t nonsense, you had no right to call it so. In any case, I linked you evidence you waved off.
Part 5
In any case, what sort of “verification” would fit according to you, who often cannot even vet or read your own sources?
“I disagree,according to ICAN ( International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons)
https://www.icanw.org/did_ukraine_give_up_nuclear_weapons?locale=en”
Completely and utterly irrelevant from a legal position, and utterly contradicted by the ACTUAL legal preceden.
And it’s worth noting that even your own source does not say what you want it to (unsurprising but fitting in a pattern for you).
“Ukraine never had an independent nuclear weapons arsenal, or control over these weapons, but agreed to remove former Soviet weapons stationed on its territory. In 1992, Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol and it joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1994.”
This underlines that Ukraine had full justification and right to decide its status as either a nuclear state or a non-nuclear state, and that even with strong anti-nuclear sentiment in Ukraine the Russian government (and others) had to negotiate for their removal and enough payment and assurances to make the deal stick.
Part 6
The idea that Russia was the only successor state to the USSR and thus had sole right to the nuclear weapons is blatantly false and easily to debunk by reference to other factors such as the Black Sea Fleet and other organizations and equipment, which were usually partitioned among the successor states in accordance to commitments, location, and the outcome of negotiations.
As again, your source’s source shows.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0043820016673777
“Although the nonnuclear clause was a unilateral declaration of intention, not an international legal commitment, it came to haunt Ukraine when it became less eager to disarm. Right after the unsuccessful Soviet coup d’état in August 1991, it became clear to Ukraine’s pro-independence leaders that the Soviet Union would not endure, and that severing nuclear command and control links was no longer a necessary condition for attaining full independence from Moscow.”
“.This compensation was important not only in pecuniary terms, although Ukraine received upward of $1 billion in compensation, but also in principle: effectively, it meant the acceptance of Ukraine’s claim that it was the rightful owner of the nuclear weapons on its territory.”
Once again Chcuo, ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH AND VETTING OF YOUR SOURCES. Because this one gave me all the ammunition I needed to destroy your claims that Ukraine never gave up its nuclear weapons and had no claims to them.
Part 7
But in case anybody was overly naive about ICAN as a source, this should end all doubts.
“While some may ask if Russia would have invaded Ukraine if it still had Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on its territory, there is little convincing historical evidence that the possession or presence of nuclear weapons definitively prevents conflict, when many other variables may be considered, including the prohibition of the use of force under the UN Charter or even just luck.”
This is so shamelessly dishonest and utterly stupid I am astounded ICAN thought to claim it (though I am not surprised), and it doesn’t deserve the rebuttal I would attest. But we now know the existence of nuclear deterrence is the reason why no Third World War broke out due to Soviet fear of the West’s nuclear arsenal being enough to get even Stalin to pause. We also can attest that wars are much less likely to break out between nations possessing nuclear weapons (even if those nuclear weapons are on loan) and that if they do break out, they tend to be much shorter or more limited (see: Kargil).
But please Chcuo, take ICAN’s posturing at face value and don’t bother looking at their own sources. It makes my task easier.
Part 8
“Although Ukraine had thousands of nuclear weapons stationed on its territory, these weapons did NOT really belong to Ukraine.”
Again, your own source’s source beats your head in and repudiates this BS.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0043820016673777
“Yet, due to Ukraine’s tough negotiating stance and the support of the United States, all non-Russian nuclear heirs managed to obtain compensation for their HEU. For Ukraine, this came in the form of Russian nuclear fuel assemblies for its nuclear power stations and the forgiveness of a portion of Ukraine’s energy debt to Russia. (How this debt was accrued, who ultimately benefited from its forgiveness, and thus from the sale of Ukraine’s HEU, is the subject of a separate discussion.) This compensation was important not only in pecuniary terms, although Ukraine received upward of $1 billion in compensation, but also in principle: effectively, it meant the acceptance of Ukraine’s claim that it was the rightful owner of the nuclear weapons on its territory.”
So yes, Ukraine was the rightful owner of the nuclear weapons on its territory, or at least a portion. It sold them to Russia for compensation.
“Command and control is a core feature of an effective nuclear deterrent, but Kyiv did NOT have it.”
Because Soviet Ukraine was subject to a totalitarian state and did not have true self-government. Same with Soviet Russia (as Yeltsin pointed out). They negotiated what to do afterwards.
Part 9
“According to the official history written by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, “The preplanned launch codes remained in the rocket army’s underground command and control centers…No one denied that authority to launch the nuclear forces, the third largest in the world, remained in MOSCOW.””
Again, because Moscow was the capital of a transnational, totalitarian Empire that ruled over both Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine as non-sovereign administrative regions. After the USSR collapsed its successors had to negotiate. And while Russia’s role as the largest and most powerful of the SRs as well as the historical center of the USSR gave it certain rights, it did not give it the right to own everything in the USSR. This was and is acknowledged by all sides, which is why following the breakup the new national governments had to negotiate over them. This is evident everywhere you look in the former USSR.
Ukraine just opted to sell its claims and stakes in the nuclear arsenal to Russia.
“In other words, RUSSIA retained effective command and control over the nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory.”
Correct, but that did not mean it had a right to own them all. Your source’s source admits this.
“Ukraine could NOT launch the missiles or use the warheads, and therefore the arsenal could not be used as a deterrent. “
You’re assuming Ukraine couldn’t buy or negotiate for the launch codes, but it clearly could have. It FREELY opted NOT to.
Part 10
Oh also Chcuo, you THINK that the Ukrainian leadership at the time MIGHT have acted differently if they were told that Russia was likely to invade them in violation of the treaties negotiated at the time, seizing Crimea, much of the Ukrainian Navy, and much of the Donbas through absolutely no legal justification save force of arms?
Yeah, I think that would likely prompt them to negotiate differently. At a minimum demanding more assurances in exchange for surrendering the nuclear weapons and complying with the other terms.
@Chcuo
Part A
“Perhaps you are not aware but-”
You need to stop acting like you have done anything that would justify condescending to me like this. No “perhaps.” Full Stop.
I showed how you have regularly failed to read your own sources thoroughly and have been fanatically biased in what sources you did deign to read to the point where you would ignore evidence that contradicts them, even when that evidence was Dmitry Utkin’s tattooed chest showing the Nazi paraphernalia as well as a host of other things.
The idea that you are better informed about Euromaidan or the Ukraine War than I am is laughable, and I have shown it is laughable by routinely understanding your own sources better than you do.
Now, let’s move on.
” the MAIDEN protests,the “Revolution of Dignity” in KIEV in 2014 were mostly led by: 1. The far-right SVOBODA party ”
Sorry but no. While Euromaidan was around the peak of Svobda’s power and they did have representatives in Kyiv, their main power base was in Galicia, and even there they were a distinct minority. When you top out at 38% of the vote even in your home territory, you are not capable of “mostly leading” the Euromaidans that popped up across the country.
@Chcuo
Part B
This punctures the narrative both the Kremlin and Svoboda itself like for different reasons (the Kremlin to delegitimize Euromaidan as a coup like you are, and Svoboda to claim they were the “muscle” behind Euromaidan in an attempt to recapture their “glory” and power back when they actually had two Rada members that could headbutt each other), but it is also closer to the truth.
“2. They were also more likely to take part in VIOLENT actions than any group but one: RIGHT SECTOR, ”
Got any evidence for that?
Because the actions of Berkut that have been turned up seem to indicate otherwise.
“far-right activists that traces its lineage to genocidal Nazi collaborators,the BANDERISTAS.”
This is true, though frankly the Banderistas were just one genocidal group against many unfortunately (given Stalin and Hitler) and Bandera obtained his fame fighting against both in an attempt to create a new, dystopian Ukrainian dictatorship after Hitler betrayed them.
All of this is besides the point. Take a look at the Rada representation of all the parties, as well as the number of protests. And I mean ACTUALLY do so rather than relying on Kremlin mouthpieces you insist are “reliable” or “trustworthy.”
@Chcuo
Part c
“We have the VIDEO evidence and interviews with Donbass civilians who show the effects of shells on purely civilian targets,”
Oh, VIDEO evidence you say?
Then show it.
Because it’s TOTALLY not like people don’t lie on interviews or are unwilling to relabel artillery shelling from other sources (such as the Russian Army or misplaced targeting) as both Ukrainian Loyalist and the product of a direct terror attack!
You. Credulous. Moppet. There’s a reason why I put very little stock into most “grassroots footage” accounts from the war, precisely because both sides are well versed in manipulating this. And the Kremlin moreso than most, since they can tap into decades of institutional knowledge doing this and can observe similar totalitarian states doing it like “Pallywood” in Samaria and the Gaza Strip.
“some 6,000 killed.”
Again, got any evidence?
“You don’t understand,there were NO soldiers,none,”
You don’t understand; the entire existence of the DNR and LNR is predicated upon lies and has been since 2014. Often down to lies about where fighting broke out. That doesn’t mean everything they report or claim is a lie, but it DOES Mean that I’m not going to believe them without damn solid proof.
It ALSO means that when they or those sympathetic to their cause put out claims that blatantly contradict what they’ve claimed before, I’m going to hold their feet to the fire.
@Chcuo
Part D
So I’ll say it again. Perun cleaned the clock of those claiming that the Ukrainian government was engaged in ethnic cleansing against ethnic Russians using the DNR and LNR’s sources. As have many others.
Also the 6,000 killed figure over the course of nearly a decade of conflict points out how goddamn ABSURD the claim that the Ukrainian government was ethnically cleansing its “ethnic Russians” is. Even IF we pretended that figure was rock solid (dubious), that ALL of those deaths were actually civilians (even more dubious), and ALL of those deaths were caused by Ukrainian Loyalists (laughable) Intentionally (even more laughable), it amounts to an average of 750 per year.
That’s in contrast to something like the Kosovo War, where you had about 2-3 years of major conflict and a minimum of about 9,000 Albanian and 2,000 Serbian civilians dead or missing. in spite of the conflict being much smaller. In comparison to the more comparable Bosnian War (52,000 Civilians in 4 years) and Croatia (10,000 civilians in about 4 years).
Or Georgia in 1992-3 (about 3,000 Civilian dead in around a year’s time).
And that’s AGAIN assuming the 6,000 civilian dead were all caused by Ukrainian Loyalists, which is again laughable to the extreme if you’ve studied things like the siege of inner city Donetsk and Luhansk or Mariupol. You’re gesticulating wildly to distract from how weak your case really is, on both evidentiary and statistical merits.
@Chcuo
Part E
“And what,do you consider HUNDREDS of civilians killed at places where there were NO soldiers to be ok?”
It’s not ok, but it is War. And we’ve had a long, LONG time to come to terms with outcomes in war that aren’t good but also are hard to avoid and weren’t the product of malice. Called Collateral damage.
And FUNNILY ENOUGH we have a proven track record of Russian military doctrine killing thousands of soldiers far away from Ukraine, as the Chechen Wars and Syrian Civil War attest. Turns out that the nation that has done more to normalize the use of heavy shelling by conventional artillery in urban areas is Russia. Imagine my shock at the nation with the largest artillery park on God’s Green Earth and a ruler who made his fame by sieging Grozny returning to form
But you don’t address any of that because it would punch a hole in your Blame Ukraine Train by pointing to how blaming Ukraine for all the misery of Donbas is absolutely indefensible and how they are not even the most prominent in the artillery game.
“And explain the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL codemnation of the Ukrainian army using civilians as HUMAN SHIELDS ( August 2022 report)
Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians”
Firstly, Amnesty International never accused the Ukrainian government of using them as human shields. As even reading the article or Cntrl+Fing points out.
@chcuo
Part E
Secondly: Amnesty International is ANYTHING but perfect and admits its investigation was at best incomplete.
Hence
“Most residential areas where soldiers located themselves were kilometres away from front lines. Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas. In the cases it documented, Amnesty International IS NOT AWARE that the Ukrainian military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians.”
Emphasis mine. Note the weasel words.
Thirdly: Amnesty International is famously a group of self-righteous, incompetent rules lawyers, especially when it comes to urban warfare. Which is why FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT I am generally willing to give the combatants ON BOTH SIDES much more leeway than they do.
Which is why the main reason I keep bringing up Russia’s provably poor track record in humanitarian damage during urban combat is because of the hypocritical black legend they have of Ukraine shelling urban areas (…..During a predominantly urban war) while ignoring their own track record and arty superiority. Which underlines how they aren’t actually concerned about civilian casualties but demonizing the other side.
@Chcuo
The last part should have been labeled Part F. God I hate FPM’s scummy comment policy.
Part G
“Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals”
Gee, it’s almost like war changes urban centers. And it’s totally not like Russia and the “Separatists” have done the same….
Oh wait. They largely have.
That’s unfortunate but it also doesn’t indicate they are using them as human shields (Which is again you puttingwords into AI’s mouth).
“Attacks launched from populated civilian areas”
Again: Because trench warfare plus rust belts does nasty things to people. And it’s not like this was one sided, as even a cursory look at the Sieges of Luhansk and Donetsk in 2014-2015 showed.
But that doesn’t fit in with your narrative, because the sides launching those attacks were Russia and the “Separatists.”
“Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians”
I’m almost surprised you decided to quote this given your biases, but you apparently don’t realize this indicts the Russians.
“Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.”
See above.
@Chcuo
Part H
“Here is the link to the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL condemnation of the Ukrainian army’s use of civilians as HUMAN SHIELDS, just like Hamas and Hizbullah,so the Ukranian army is a terrorist group.”
This is gratuitously STUPID even by your standards.
Unfortunately for you, I actually read the report. It nowhere accuses the Ukrainian army of using human shields (IE preventing civilians from evacuating), though it DOES claim they violate the rights of those civilians by not expediting their evacuation or notifying them.
I also note it’s rich you ignore how the AI report indicts the Russians for similar actions.
I’ll further note it is ironic you are trying to use AI as your standardbearer given how their myopic idiocy against Israel is legendary, as is their lack of empathy or compassion for Israel in urban warfare.
But apparently you’re happy to embrace any source so long as it superficially soothes your biases.
If anything I’ve been much kinder to the combatants and leadership of both sides on this count than AI has, and that includes on the Russian government. Which is also why I condemned things such as the Kremlin boasting about targeting water filtration (because it is both essential to urban life and militarily of scant benefit).
I have Christian friends in Ukraine and support a Christian ministry to orphans. They had to hide their orphans in Kherson from the Russians who wanted to kidnap them and take them to Russia – the world considers that genocide. One of their orphans who came of age was drafted in Crimea by the Russians to fight against his countrymen. Not to mention the Russians routinely murder, rape, torture, kidnap, loot – it’s what Russians have always done. Your question is like asking, “Why should we help a woman who is being raped – look how she is dressed.”
Is our interest “vital”? That depends how you define “vital.” One way of looking at it, for 5% of our defense budget, with zero of our own combat troops involved, Russia’s military is being destroyed. I’d say that’s quite a bargain.
Ummm, no they’re not doing this. Because the mayor stepped in last week and overruled it.
But I guess the column was already written so he had to post it as it this was really going thru.
Ukraine=Burisma=FunnelingMoneyToTheBidens. Or so the Trump folk believe.
The most horrific unspeakable war crimes are being committed there by Putin’s savages. Is Ukraine perfect? Hell no, and neither are we.
But amazingly, they might just be able to defeat the resurrected Evil Empire. Much to the chagrin of the Lindbergh wing of Trump’s party.
This doesn’t change the statistics that 31%, the majority, of ordinary Ukrainians voted to name it after nazis.
Plus, more to the point, the government in the midst of a terrible war has the time to rename a street?
“This doesn’t change the statistics that 31%, the majority, of ordinary Ukrainians voted to name it after nazis.”
Agreed, or “at a minimum” a Fascist collaborator with the Nazis (who mostly turned against them not out of ethical concerns but because the Nazis betrayed them). This is something that a lot of people ignore about the UPA/OUN. I can understand why.
“Plus, more to the point, the government in the midst of a terrible war has the time to rename a street?”
It’s actually more important than you might think. Ukraine, like many post-Soviet states, has been trying to De-Sovietize (and more ominously in my opinion, “Derussify”) its landmarks and streets. So going through the list and renaming states named after Soviet tyrants and assorted Russian figures. For instance, “Karl Marx Street” in Kyiv became “Johann Wolfgang Goethe Street.” And so went with a Dostoyevsky Street. What disturbs me more is talks of renaming all streets or locations named after anybody Russian, regardless of the politics.
I am a supporter and defender of Ukraine, even given the corruption of the left, but I’d be lying if this couldn’t be used by cancel culture nutjobs. And it’s telling a historical display regarding to Pushkin had to be removed to prevent vandalism.
So I can understand why it’s being done (to assert independence and as a morale boost mid-war, much as the US and others did during its various major wars), but it could be overdone.
31% a majority?
why are you posting such long comments … no one is reading them ?
Checked his Bio on Wiki. Seems he did more than enough during WWII to have a street named after him. Where there is a will there is a way – sounds like he was a “double agent” in todays parlance.
“Throughout the war, Kubijovyč used his German contacts to shield the western Ukrainian population from Nazi policies. In 1943, as Ukrainian peasants in the Zamość region were accused of resistance, Volodymyr Kubijovyč successfully intervened with Hans Frank to prevent reprisals.[18] At other times, he was reduced to writing in protest to the German authorities against the impact of their rule of terror on the Ukrainian civilian population, which included unprovoked public abuse, arbitrary killings and mass shootings. Some of this material was later brought up as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials.[19]”
It should be understood that the Russian/NATO conflict in the Ukraine has resulted in war crimes committed by both sides. All those replying bringing up incidents going all way back to World War II has no bearing on the current conflict in progress in the Ukraine. The issues are entirely different.
Have a nice evening.
Nailed it. I was scanning the comments to see if anyone was going to get us where we are right now. You did.
1) The SS Division Galizien was a military formation that had zilch to do with killing Jews, and was not “Nazi” in any productive sense. It was formed to fight communists, fought one battle, got wrecked, and spent the rest of the war retreating. Waffen SS was not the same as the regular SS.
2) Azov an international terrorist organization? Absurd. Literally all it has done since its formation was to fight Russians.