[Guns N' Coffee]

Originally Posted by WonderMomma ↗

This clergyman is clearly angry with Ukraine. This video is from Zelenskyy's motorcade passing by in Bulgaria during his visit.

He's possessed

[duntez]

Originally Posted by scorpion9 ↗

Hmm, from what parallel universe did you get that "fact" from ?
From Russian history books?

Go read about how Ukraine( or any other soviet state ) joined the "union".
Hint: in almost 100% of the cases, Russian tanks and soldiers are involved.

Ukraine was invaded by Russians and they fought years for their independence and only after losing, they were forced to give their independence to Russians.

The same shit happened to all the other states that "joined the union".
There was always an armed conflict, partisans fighting back, Russian threats of "we will destroy you if you don't surrender" and so on.
The Soviet Union wasn't a "union" like the European Union or The United states, where States agree to accept someone into the union on some conditions, and candidates apply to join after going through some vetting process.
The process of joining the Soviet "Union" was:
Russia: "Hey, look at all the tanks and soldiers amassed close to your border. Look at what we did to the neighboring country that reduced to join. Look at the army groups attacking your cities. Cool...eh? Now, let me ask you a question. Would you like to join our "union" under our rule? Think twice"
Any ex-soviet country: "Oh, if you put it that nicely, sure. We will give up the independence that our ancestors have fought for thousands of years...just because you are so nice.

The soviet union was just another name for the Russian occupation. Thats why the thing called "the iron curtain" was necessary. Thats why the Berlin wall was necessary.
Thats why people weren't allowed to leave the "union". Thats why any non-state information was banned. It was just like North Korea is now. Actually, North Korea simply remained what the Soviet "union" always was.


And lets debunk the shitty argument of:

It keeps coming up one way or another. Usually...if the SU was so bad, then go and get rid of all the buildings built during that era too.
The answer to that is simple. Why should ex soviet countries get rid of the buildings built during the SU times? Would the ex-SU countries not have built homes/factories/power plants whilst being independent and open to western investments?
The answer is yes. ex-SU countries would have had more factories and powerplants built without being in the SU. Germany wasn't in the SU and it has factories. France wasn't in the SU and it has shit tons of nuclear power plants. The claim that "ex soviet countries owe their infrastructure" to the soviet union is just flat-out wrong. They would have had better infrastructure by this time without being occupied.

Dude, you and other baltics hate SU. I got that. You don’t have to jump in any time you hear something good or decent about SU. FFS we’ve talked about it before here like a year ago, you and me. This is my family experience, people that I know overthere and my wife’s parents has nothing to say about being occupied by Russians. What you are saying is an absurd to my years. Keep you Estonian experience with SU to yourself. I know what I’m talking about, since I’m talking about my country. You won’t prove me otherwise. UA was occupied, yeah right

[WonderMomma]

Originally Posted by WonderMomma ↗

Ever loyal "Putin's Troops"

I would like to know if Biden sees these videos.

"Speaking of the ruble getting weaker: Putin's battalions suggest implementing a new global currency and global stock exchange in Russian Krasnodar.

(Jokes aside - the Russian government worked hard to have people believe propaganda slogans rather than basics of economy. That is the result)"

[kellyhound]

It is possible that Putin took inspiration from another, long-forgotten piece of Ukrainian history, and from the playbook of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks represented a left-wing faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. Under Vladimir Lenin’s leadership, they seized control of the government in Russia in November 1917 and subsequently became the ruling party in Soviet Russia and, later, the Soviet Union.

In December 1917 in Kharkiv, the second largest Ukrainian city, the Bolsheviks declared Ukraine a Soviet republic and formed a government. This government lacked legitimacy – earlier that year, Ukraine had already established the highest national authority, the Central Rada (council). The Rada enjoyed broad societal support and had been recognised by the provisional government in Russia that came to power as the result of the Russian Revolution of February 1917.

The problem was that the Central Rada did not recognise the Bolsheviks’ authority over Ukraine after the coup in November 1917. This was reflected in a solemn proclamation, the Third Universal. Adopted by the Rada, this document established the Ukrainian People’s Republic as an autonomous part of the federation with Russia. Ukrainian autonomy was not in Bolshevik plans, but they knew that directly denying the Ukrainian people’s choice would have been met with fierce opposition. So they decided to create a puppet government in Kharkiv.

It is important to note that the creation of the Kharkiv government was made possible by the prior occupation of Kharkiv by the Bolshevik troops. The existence of two governments in Ukraine appeared to external observers like local infighting, while in reality the Kharkiv government was controlled by the Bolsheviks from Russia.

That's how they roll. More: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-...laybook-178060

[duntez]

you can throw any historical document you want at me. I know the history ( well at least main events). Don’t you realize how funny or stupid sometimes it looks that you are trying to prove me that I was some sorta slave or something? Me, who lived there? Ridiculous. In the end, there are people who accept one given fact and people who dosnt. In civil war there is one winner. Does that mean that they love their country more than the side that lost? Does it mean that their point of view is the right way? Does it mean that they are more patriotic than the other side who was willing to die for what they believe the same way as the others? It don’t matter if RADA accepted it, fact is not everyone did. Plus it wasn’t that ez anyway, read deeper if you are interested. What I’m trying to say here, we lived together, we loved each other, together built that country achieving big accomplishments, and together were in charge of that country, millions mix family, millions family relatives for people on both sides and millions of UAs who didn’t and still dosnt think they were EVER occupied by SU. No sense.
Now I kind of see that working with Baltic countries. Nothing in common, different people etc.

[scorpion9]

Originally Posted by duntez ↗

Dude, you and other baltics hate SU. I got that. You don’t have to jump in any time you hear something good or decent about SU. FFS we’ve talked about it before here like a year ago, you and me. This is my family experience, people that I know overthere and my wife’s parents has nothing to say about being occupied by Russians. What you are saying is an absurd to my years. Keep you Estonian experience with SU to yourself. I know what I’m talking about, since I’m talking about my country. You won’t prove me otherwise. UA was occupied, yeah right

Dude, you and other baltics hate SU. I got that. You don’t have to jump in any time you hear something good or decent about SU.

Yes, yes I do. Because it's morally right thing to do, to point out lies and propaganda. You didn't just say that "oh, the SU wasn't that bad" or "Some older people liked the SU".
No, you made a factual claim

Ukraine wasn’t occupied by SU, it was a part of it

And I pointed out that you were wrong. The SU was founded by Russia occupying its neighbors. Including Ukraine. Why were there years of war and conflict in Ukraine when Russian armies entered Ukraine?
Why was Russian army present whenever someone "joined" the SU ?
Why did everyone leave the SU the first chance they got?

Also, the fact that "some people liked The SU" doesn't mean shit.
There are probably millions of simpletons in North Korea, who are starving and still worship their leader and would not want to live anywhere else. The amount of daily propaganda fed to the SU generation was immense. They never had a chance to experience a childhood outside the SU.

Also, you forget an important fact

This is my family experience, people that I know overthere and my wife’s parents has nothing to say about being occupied by Russians.

A Russian descendant wouldn't see SU as an occupation. Why should they? Do you think the Russians living in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania see the SU as an occupation? No. Why? Because they were the ones who were occupying another country. They didn't lose anything by occupying someone else's country. So, why would they see it as an occupation?

What you are doing here is that you are helping Putin and his nazi army rewrite history. Just go and read about the history of the SU, its leaders and so on. It was never a union. If you understand history, then you understand the conflicts Russia is part of. Why Ukraine fought along side of the germans in the second world war. Why the baltics fought on the german side...and so on. The "Bandero"vites didn't fight alongside germans so that they could join germany. They fought along side germans so they could get rid of the occupants. The same happened in the baltics.
If you understand the history, then this whole conflict makes sense.

[SDI]

Soviet Union was a monster. Glad it collapsed in the early 90ties. Won't be missed.

[DrKGSmiff]

Originally Posted by duntez ↗

you can throw any historical document you want at me. I know the history ( well at least main events). Don’t you realize how funny or stupid sometimes it looks that you are trying to prove me that I was some sorta slave or something? Me, who lived there? Ridiculous. In the end, there are people who accept one given fact and people who dosnt. In civil war there is one winner. Does that mean that they love their country more than the side that lost? Does it mean that their point of view is the right way? Does it mean that they are more patriotic than the other side who was willing to die for what they believe the same way as the others? It don’t matter if RADA accepted it, fact is not everyone did. Plus it wasn’t that ez anyway, read deeper if you are interested. What I’m trying to say here, we lived together, we loved each other, together built that country achieving big accomplishments, and together were in charge of that country, millions mix family, millions family relatives for people on both sides and millions of UAs who didn’t and still dosnt think they were EVER occupied by SU. No sense.
Now I kind of see that working with Baltic countries. Nothing in common, different people etc.

No one is denying that there were Ukrainians living under Soviet occupation, nor would anyone deny that lots and lots of people lived happy, fulfilling lives as serfs in one of Russia’s slave states. That’s not the point. Of course life “went on” for many.

The point is that Ukraine was not a willing member in the Soviet “Union” like they are in western multi-state unions. Hell, it could be argued that, since 1865, the veil has been lifted on the claim that United States membership is voluntary, but the mechanism is at least there to secede, and the UK recently PEACEFULLY left the EU. That was never an option for Ukraine or any of the other slave-states of Russia.

The Holomodor happened because it COULD. Russia had that power over its slave states, and chose to demonstrate that power. And, worse, they could do it again, today, in Chechnya, Crimea, North Ossetia, or any other of the “member” states of Russia’s plantation.

Russia has NEVER changed. The Soviet Union did not die- it just hit an economic collapse and had to hand over most of its slave states to the pawn shop while it tried to gets its economic affairs in order, at which point its now trying to reclaim its “property”.

The Russian people haven’t known life without a king for hundreds of years. Even in 1919, they didn’t change, they just started calling their king/tzar a Secretary/chairman instead. Now they call their king a president, but his power is no different than was that of the tzar or general-secretary.

The reality of a monarchy, oligarchy or any other totalitarian regime is that the king/chairman/president has to support such a lifestyle for himself and his dukes/secretaries that the resources of the subject state can’t allow for a suitable lifestyle for the king’s subjects without bringing other nations and peoples under heel.

Under Soviet occupation (and future Russian occupation if Chairman Putin is allowed to succeed), that’s all Ukraine was or ever could be: a resource farm to allow the king of Russia to offer his dukes the lifestyle necessary for them to allow him to remain in power.

If Russia wins, another Holomodor could happen again at any time. The only reason it didn’t happen again, when you were there, is because the Soviet king chose not to. It wasn’t exactly ancient history, after all. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that they wouldn’t have done it again in the 80s if it would have suited Russia or its king’s whim.

[DrKGSmiff]

Originally Posted by SDI ↗

Soviet Union was a monster. Glad it collapsed in the early 90ties. Won't be missed.

The Soviet Union didn’t collapse. Its economy did. That forced it to put its slave states into hock, which it’s now trying to take back.

The SU releasing its slaves was a calculated move. It knew that it could stop paying the bills for forcibly occupying its empire, and that the west would foot the bill for rebuilding it, while they got their affairs back in order to be able to once again afford occupying it.

That’s why there was all the posturing over NATO expansion. Russia knew that western humanitarianism would keep their slave states healthy while Russia was sorting through its bankruptcy, but it couldn’t tolerate any of those slaves joining NATO because that made it much more difficult for Russia to take them back once it was ready.

[WonderMomma]

"Chmobs who were recently kicked out of Novodarivka

They lost more than 60% of their company. They complain that they are forced to fight without art. support, provisions and water. And they also say that they have not received a salary since January."