A blast hit a Russian ammunition depot in the northern Dzhankoi district of Crimea on Tuesday, injuring two people, in an incident the Russian Defense Ministry described as an act of “sabotage.”
“On the morning of August 16, as a result of an act of sabotage, a military warehouse near Dzhankoi was damaged,” the Russian Defense Ministry said, according to the Russian news agency Tass. Russian authorities said that a fire broke out at the depot, causing the ammunition to detonate.
A senior Ukrainian official speaking on the condition of anonymity to The Washington Post said the blast was a Ukrainian special forces operation. Last week, Ukrainian officials speaking to the media made similar claims about a blast at a Russian airfield in Crimea, an incident Moscow downplayed and insisted was the result of an accident.
Officially, Kyiv has not taken credit for Tuesday’s blast, but Ukrainian officials celebrated the incident and hinted that Ukrainian forces were responsible. “Morning near Dzhankoi began with explosions,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to President Volodymyr Zelensky, wrote on Twitter.
“A reminder: Crimea of normal country is about the Black Sea, mountains, recreation and tourism, but Crimea occupied by Russians is about warehouses explosions and high risk of death for invaders and thieves. Demilitarization in action,” Podolyak added.
The apparent Ukrainian attacks inside Crimea mark an escalation in the war and come after Ukraine threatened to start attacking the peninsula, which Russia has controlled since 2014. The US does not want Ukraine using US-provided arms to launch attacks on Russian territory, but the ban doesn’t appear to apply to Crimea since Washington doesn’t recognize the peninsula as Russian.
Yes there will be clandestine efforts supported by the criminal English. Russia will ramp up security and use deadly force when the gloves come off. Any NATO / British captured will never survive to see the light of day.
Do you think that NATO forces would risk direct confrontation with Russian forces in a daylight action deep in Crimea just to destroy a fairly insignificant amount of ammunition and equipment?
The idea that we would risk giving Putin the very gift he most desires for such small gains when the same results could be achieved by simply supplying the Ukrainians with a few ATACMS for their HIMARS is hardly credible.
Yes I do!
Well not so critical a thinker then.
He is constantly insulting his own avatar name.
There are already rumors that British Intelligence is responsible for the special forces raids in Crimea. I’m not sure that SAS had its own people on the ground there. But I am certain that Ukraine personnel are being trained in England.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-england-british-army-government-and-politics-28c34fa010b4ba33afdbc344cfda3ef3#:~:text=British%20trainers%20are%20putting%20the,in%20a%20matter%20of%20weeks.
I agree that the destruction was “fairly insignficant.” Thus, I wonder why Antiwar.com feels the need to play it up so much. The Western MSM propaganda effort to find some “good news” for the Kiev Neo Nazi regime is obvious. The Western media are all-in on this war, and desperately want to preserve the consensus in favor of it. But Antiwar.com? It should take a much more critical, skeptical approach to any claim of success of the Kiev Neo Nazi regime. And it should not report smug, ridiculous comments of that regime, like those here, at least not without context and criticism.
As for who is responsible, meh. It is already well known that the territory controlled by the Kiev Neo Nazi regime is crawling with NATO “advisors,” “intelligence officers,” “consultants,” “contractors,” mercenaries, “special forces,” and the like. The notion that some of these NATO offical, quasi official, crypto official, and unofficial personnel might be involved in these pin-prick, made for propaganda attacks behind the lines in Crimea does not seem at all far-fetched to me.
I’m also not at all convinced that Putin “desires” direct conflict with NATO. Quite the opposite, I should think.
You complain about the Western MSM propaganda and yet, you embrace the Russian MSM one with your continued “Kiev Neo Nazi Regime,” The only one acting Nazi in this war is Russia with its scorched earth like invasion.
And remember, Russia has way more Neo Nazis than Ukraine so adjust your BS propaganda.
“Scorched earth invasion” = Completely false Western propaganda. Also, you really don’t know what you are talking about, as “scorched earth tactics” are employed by defending/retreating forces, to deny the advancing forces the value of the territory that they take. It is the Kiev Neo Nazi regime which is in fact engaging in scorched earth tactics.
The Neo Nazi domination of the Kiev regime was well documented prior to the SMO, as has been shown repeatedly, but is now conveniently forgotten/overlooked/denied by the same media that reported it then. https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/azovreplist.html
And, AFAICT, the Russian regime is not dominated by Neo Nazis.
So, yeah, no.
It seems to me that Kyev forces intentionally prepared trenches and fortifications in urban area in the Donbass. Perhaps it made sense to do this to protect their supply lines. Regardless, the strategy requires Russian forces to obliterate entire towns to drive them out. It is not uncommon for Russian forces to drive them out of the trenches with flamethrowers. I can see why Don Julio calls it “scorched earth”.
Sorry, but that’s not what “scorched earth tactics” mean. That term refers to the deliberate, extra operational destruction of crops and structures (the original meaning, as these were burned), transport facilities, and other assets by the retreating forces to deny their use by the attacking forces. “Don” Julio either doesn’t know this, or is being deliberately false. Moreover, his entire approach is to mindlessly repeat anti Russian, Western propaganda. The truth is that the Russians have gone out of their way to minimize civilian casualties and the destruction of civlian infrastructure, while the Kiev Neo Nazi regime has done the exact opposite.
“That term refers to the deliberate, extra operational destruction of crops and structures (the original meaning, as these were burned), transport facilities, and other assets”
Like “shock and awe”.
Exactly. The msm disparaged the Russians for NOT wrecking as much as possible in the initial invasion on Ukraine.
NATO wrecked as much as possible in it’s unprovoked assault on Serbia and Libya. Neither of those countries threatened any NATO country.
As clearly evidenced by the large numbers of such people taken by the Russians – oh wait a minute there has so far been less than a handful of mercenaries taken so perhaps more of that critical, sceptical approach would be in order here.
So you are just as gullible as you think Antiwar is – you have not provided one sound reason to employ NATO forces in such an operation – just that you have no problem believing it.
Always good to know that you do not even apply but an ounce of brain matter to contemplating costs versus the benefits of different options available to NATO, but that you are just happy to believe what ever makes least sense if it paints NATO as the guilty part.
Seriously? I mean, are you denying the presence of the NATO intelligence officers, special forces, etc, in the territory held by the Kiev Neo Nazi regime? Because it is not as if NATO is denying it.
From that hotbed of pro Russian propaganda, the NY Times:
…some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials…At the same time, a few dozen commandos from other NATO countries, including Britain, France, Canada and Lithuania, also have been working inside Ukraine…. commandos from these allies either remained or have gone in and out of the country since then, training and advising Ukrainian troops and providing an on-the-ground conduit for weapons and other aid, three U.S. officials said…Few other details have emerged about what the C.I.A. personnel or the commandos are doing, but their presence in the country — on top of the diplomatic staff members who returned after Russia gave up its siege of Kyiv — hints at the scale of the secretive effort to assist Ukraine that is underway and the risks that Washington and its allies are taking…
And that is basically just choosing one such report at random. Again, it is well known that there are numerous NATO personnel of various descriptions (“intelligance officer,” “commando,” “special forces,” etc.) in country, going about these various “secret” misions.
The notion that included therein might be participation in commando raids does not seem at all unlikely to me. NATO is openly bragging about training Neo Nazi Kiev regime forces, about providing “intell” to them on a battlefield basis, of engaging in unnamed “secret” operations on their behalf, and the like. And, of course, NATO and the USA in particular have a long history of “covert” war, stretching back at least as far as the early days of the Vietnam War. And the “sound reason” for suspecting as much is, as I alluded to earlier, the need for the West to show some kind of success, some “good news” for their client, Neo Nazi regime. These pin prick commando attacks do just that. I have no problem thinking that the CIA and “special forces” of the USA, the UK, Canada, etc, might perhaps be better at that kind of thing than the Neo Nazi regime forces. Better armed, better trained, better officered, with better intel, etc. At the least, they might be assisting in such raids.
And thanks for the personal insult, I guess that is OK under the “rules of debate” that you are always bleating on about…
No I’m saying that they would not be employed in a direct fire mission behind Russian lines – for a philadelphialawyer when there are so much easier options available – was this not clear from my comments???
No, it wasn’t clear. Quite the contrary, actually.
But, in any event, you have no basis for your certaintly that they weren’t involved. We agree that that they are there. There is also no doubt that what they are doing, at the least, what they admit to, is already pretty close to crossing the line, in terms of direct engagement. Again, given that, and the history of Western “covert” war, there is nothing remotely far fetched about the idea that they are involved in the raids. As usual, you are simply wrong.
How was it not clear you answered to:
I did not say that I was certain that they were not involved, just that it is exceedingly unlikely that NATO would do this with very little to be gained very much to be lost and easier alternatives.
No I have just not bothered to argue either way as it is not relevant to the point of whether they would be used in such a mission.
I have not seen any evidence that NATO special units are in Ukraine.
Only if you believe that it is NATO’s preferred option to risk forces for very little gain but huge risks when they have better options available – but do not let logics interfere with your reasoning.
Verbosity, self contradiction, contradiction (or demands for “evidence”) of admitted facts, and repetition of unsubstantiated claims does not equal persuasiveness.
To take just the most obvious of the above, as an example.
You:
I have not seen any evidence that NATO special units are in Ukraine.
See here and here, for example, as to why you are either not looking, or are posting in bad faith:
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-special-forces-operating-in-ukraine-new-york-times-reports
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-special-forces-dont-deny-new-york-times-report-that-commandos-are-in-ukraine
Seriously, what do you think “commandos” (mentioned in the NY Times article) are? They are special forces. And, duh, of course they are being used in country.
Again, you are simply wrong. And, once again, you are trolling.
Which facts have I admitted and here contradicted – don’t just assert prove your case.
And what unsubstantiated claims have I repeated?
Yes you are right and there are NATO special forces in Ukraine – I should have specified that they are there to train and gather intelligence not confront the Russians directly – which your sources actually supports:
But yes you are right and what I wrote was wrong, I should have been much more specific and specified that I have seen no evidence of them being there to act as spearheads for the Ukrainians – my bad.
I think they are there to train and gather intelligence, not to risk getting caught in unnecessary operations behind the Russian lines.
You really seem to have a problem with a normal debate – dare I suggest you withdraw to some safe space where people do not have diverging opinions?
“Yes you are right and there are NATO special forces in Ukraine….”
Indeed. So stop claiming otherwise.
“I should have specified that they are there to train and gather intelligence not confront the Russians directly – which your sources actually supports…”
The New York Times article (my “source”) also says, besides the training and intelligence, that:
Few other details have emerged about what the C.I.A. personnel or the commandos are doing, but their presence in the country — on top of the diplomatic staff members who returned after Russia gave up its siege of Kyiv — hints at the scale of the secretive effort to assist Ukraine that is underway and the risks that Washington and its allies are taking…
Did you not see that part? Or just choose, in bad faith, to ignore it? Nobody knows the nature or the extent of what the special forces are doing. Only that it is “secretive,” on a large scale, and, most tellingly, is apparently “risky.” Again, given all that, and the history of US secret war, it is simply not a stretch to believe that they might be taking part in these raids.
No matter how much you spin, evade, back pedal, etc.
I suggest you troll elsewhere.
You have to up your reading skills – I never claimed that there were none there just that I was not aware of them being there – as it happens I was wrong and had no problems admitting so.
CIA not NATO special forces – so really not the same, granted CIA have before been carrying out missions behind enemy lines, but not when less risky and better means to achieve the same mission were easily available.
I saw it, but again this does not suggest that they would risk direct confrontation with the Russians – why do a thing in a very dangerous and risky way when they have the means to do it without risk – you fail to argue this point – is that bad faith?
I do not see the big risk in operating somewhat behind the front lines – sure you can step on a mine, but not risky in the sense of being captured.
Secret wars are an entirely different thing – there is no secret here – the US is supplying weapons risking men where an ATACMS would do the work better simply makes very little sense – so that is why you believe they would do it!?
No spin ne evasions no back pedal.
I suggest you go somewhere that is less likely to have people contradicting your narrative – or some site where you are able to argue your points more persuasively – here you are failing.
You are completely, and, I have to assume, deliberately, misinterpretting everything in the NY Times article, and in my posts.
You are trolling. And I am not going to get into a back and forth, fruitless, endless, exchange with you, in which you operate in utter bad faith, and I am left to point out where you are full of it, only to have you go on to the next phony claim, lather, rinse and repeat. Just no.
Again, you are simply a troll. You use all the tactics of a troll, and your whole purpose on this website is to act as an advocate for war. In direct contravention of the ethos here.
Assertions without explanation or justification – so very much like a troll.
If you do not have the arguments then I agree it is better to protest that your opponent is full of it – so still true to the template I see.
No I’m one of the few who is advocating against the war as in advocation that we can’t allow this kind of war to be met with success – otherwise we will see a great many more wars like this – you on the other hand seems happy to have a new world order where relative strength will allow any power to annex the territories of weaker neighbors.
Last wording, war mongering, and trolling.
That is what you are, but what am I 🙂
Last word.
Are you sure?
deleted
So not sure – good to know.
Covering the news is what Antiwar.com does. Covering a story of interest with one short article is hardly “playing it up so much.”
While you would obviously prefer Antiwar.com to just copy and paste Russian Ministry of Defense press releases about the “special military operation,” that’s not going to happen.
It is the first article on the front page. That is more than just “reporting the news.” And the quote from the Kiev Neo Nazi regime official is not set in context, nor is it counterposed with other possible interpretations. Again, reporting the fact of the pin prick raid is not per se engaging in MSM-like propaganda, but it is MSM-like to trumpet it as if it were earth shattering, and to do so without providing context, and without providing scepticism of the claims of the Kiev Neo Nazi regime’s spin on it.
As for Russian claims and press releases about the special military operation, as a matter of fact, they should get much more play here than they do, because they are not reported at all in the MSM. Of course, they should be not be reported without scepticism and context either.
There’s always a “first article on the front page.”
And you’ve made it quite clear over time that you wouldn’t recognize scepticism and context if they walked up behind you and whacked you across the ass with a bass fiddle.
But why does the first article on the page have to mirror the MSM phony take du jour? Your first sentence is unresponsive to the point of being bizarre.
And I would be happy to see the Russian view of things presented here more fully, with scepticism and context. As it is, the Russian view is rarely presented at all, and so, far from it being “quite clear,” your speculation as to what I would or wouldn’t “recognize” in terms of scepticism and context is just that, idle speculation.
Indeed, on this very thread, you don’t hear me echoing the claim of the Kremlin spokesman re partition of the Ukraine. I am glad that at least some posters, since the front pagers won’t do it, actually present the Kremlin view. But that hardly means I endorse that view.
It is not the first article any more and has not been so for some hours, so either you have a special sorting going on or you have just missed out on the apparent workings of the site where articles are at the top while they are the newest article.
Still first as I view the website. First under “Breaking News” and first in list of articles.
OK but not on
https://news.antiwar.com/
or on:
https://www.antiwar.com/latest.php
But on:
https://antiwar.com/
My guess on why it has top billing under the Breaking News title is that it is the only breaking news news that concerns an actual ongoing conflict –
The two other headings while important are not about actual wars though calling the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians a conflict seems at times as underselling what is going on.
Dude. I’m not gonna argue with you or click your links. Suffice to say it was given top billing here for quite some time, in both places, and still has it on my view of the page. I really don’t give a damn about your picayune nonsense to the contrary.
So you cant even spot it when people agree with you – taking things to a new low.
Huh? If you are agreeing with me, fine.
Yes the third link I showed you – the article you mentioned has top billing – I even speculated as to the reason that this might be.
So yes I agreed that you were right in saying that the story had top billing at least at one of the antiwar ‘landing’ pages.
The article starts off by quoting the Russian Ministry of Defense. Far from “the Russian view” rarely being “presented at all,” it’s the first thing presented.
Only after citing/quoting “the Russian point of view” is the “MSM phony take du jour,” mentioned — with an explicit notation that that take relies on anonymous sources.
What kind of “context” do you want? A picture of a shirtless Vladimir Putin riding a bear with the caption “your argument is invalid?”
Please. The Russia “POV” is merely the Russian official stating the fact of the attack, not similar at all to the boastful BS of the Kiev Neo Nazi regime official. IE:
“A reminder: Crimea of normal country is about the Black Sea, mountains, recreation and tourism, but Crimea occupied by Russians is about warehouses explosions and high risk of death for invaders and thieves. Demilitarization in action.”
So your objection is that the story quoted the Russian side first and accurately, and noted the alleged Ukrainian response while pointing out that it was from anonymous sources, so that the reader could judge whether it was reliable?
Once again, what “context” are you looking for here? Something happened. Antiwar.com ran an accurate and balanced story on it, noting who said, or allegedly said, what about it. Do you want egg in your beer? Dressing on the side?
What I am objecting to is presenting the following BS Twitter, quote, which was not anonymous, but fully attributable, to one “Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to President Volodymyr Zelensky,”
“A reminder: Crimea of normal country is about the Black Sea, mountains, recreation and tourism, but Crimea occupied by Russians is about warehouses explosions and high risk of death for invaders and thieves. Demilitarization in action,” Podolyak added.”
This is the second time now that I have quoted it back to you.
Stop pretending you don’t get it. Antiwar.com provided a front page, first article forum for a full of crap, Zelensky spokesentity to voice his bragging, boastful, snotty, and snarky (not to mention war mongering) take on the explosion. As if it were gospel. As if it were news worthy in and of itself. Without context, criticism, scepticism, or rebuttal.
Yes, because anything but cutting and pasting from Russian MoD press releases is “without context, criticism, sceptisicsm, or rebuttal.”
You’re reading the news portion of the site. “Criticism, scepticism, or rebuttal” are for the opinion side of the site.
The “news portion of the site” should not feature this kind of pro war propaganda. At least not without context and scepticism. In my opinion. No matter how much you try to deflect and change the subject, no matter how much you do the ipse dixit re what you claim my reaction to pro Russian propaganda would be, you have no real answer to my complaint. Again, the MSM is ready to jump at and amplify any BS statement that Zelensky and Co make. Does Antiwar.com really need to do the same? I think not.
“I think not.”
True.
And that seems to be the problem.
While it is too soon to be certain, it is apparent to me that these special forces ops indicate a profound change in Ukraine’s strategy. That’s worth reporting.
Also, It seems to me (and to the people involved in these ops) that the impact is not at all insignificant.
It’s also apparent that Zelensky thinks he can use fear to enlist the people of Crimea to put pressure on Russia to leave. That notion did not originate in Ukraine. Almost everyone in Ukraine knew that Ukraine would be coming for Crimea as soon as they seceded. That is 𝐰𝐡𝐲 Crimeans overwhelmingly voted for annexation.
The significance is as you describe it. A sophisticated appraisal of what they are doing, and why. What we are getting here instead is breathless regurgitation of the Kiev Neo Nazi regime spin on the raids. A buy in as to their military, as opposed to propaganda, significance.
I doubt, though, that Zelensky belives that he can scare folks in Crimea into putting pressure on the Russians to leave. The Crimeans overwhelmingly support Russia, and Russian annexation, and even the little comedien understands that. If anything, as you imply, they only solidify that support. Rather, the purpose of these attacks is to grab headlines in the West. To divert Western public attention from the bad news, from the non existent, after much hyped, “Kherson counteroffensive,” from Russian gains in the Donbass, from reports of Neo Nazi regime troops being left without ammo, food, and leadership, and the like.
Ukraine doesn’t have a strategy, only the US, and by extension NATO, has a strategy. After we overthrew the last democratically elected government of Ukraine (elected by all of the eligible voters of Ukriane) with the violent coup we helped carry out, no one should be under an illusion that Zelensky isn’t getting paid off by the United States and he does exactly what we tell him to do. If he didn’t, a fatal accident would befall him.
RIA Novosti. Western curators have practically written off the Kyiv regime and are already planning the partition of Ukraine, Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Colonel-General Volodymyr Matveev said at the Moscow Conference on International Security.
“Obviously, the West is not concerned about the fate of the Kyiv regime. As can be seen from the information received by the SVR, Western curators have almost written it off and are in full swing developing plans for the division and occupation of at least part of the Ukrainian lands,” he said.
However, according to the general, much more is at stake than Ukraine: for Washington and its allies, it is about the fate of the colonial system of world domination.
Do you actually think this is even remotely true? The idea that any countries in EU would annex territory in violation of a firm tradition since WWII strikes me as utterly absurd.
The best argument for the sanctions is exactly that the alternative is that we will again see widespread wars of territorial conquest – which would make any costs insignificant as they would the economic gain from acquiring any Ukrainian territory!
Not “de jure” of course, but “de facto”, like Washington does with its hundreds of ‘sick man’ satraps over the globe.
How is this an answer to my reply that EU neighbors of Ukraine are to say the least very unlikely to have territorial ambitions in Ukraine as these would cost more than they would ever be worth?
If you are replying to the comment that Western powers would be unlikely to send in troops when ATACMS could do the trick then my answer is:
Sure Washington may have ‘sick man’ satraps all over the globe, but hardly enough in Crimea to carry out large scale sabotage actions – but perhaps equally importantly then this would be agents of the West not NATO or US troops.
The reference was to “annexation” , incorporation into the Washington/Wall St system.
OK so by “Western curators have practically written off the Kyiv regime and are already planning the partition of Ukraine…” you say that the commenter actually means “…incorporation into the Washington/Wall St system.“, if that is/was the case, was Ukraine not already incorporated as was Russia? By which I mean in what way were these entities not tied to the Washington/Wall St system?
In 2013(?) Kiev was in default. They appealed for a bridge loan to Russia and the IMF. Yevtushenko saw that Russia’s was the better offer. He submitted the two proposals to a popular referendum. And the Ukrainian people voted in favor of Russia. So, but for the timely intrusion of VIctoria Nuland and her Nazis, Kiev would be within the Russian system.
thanks for sharing. -did not know this…
There was no Yevtushenko in Ukraine in power in 2013 – there had been a Viktor Yushchenko but he was out by then so it must be Viktor Yanukovych Robert is thinking about.
As far as I know Viktor Yanukovych never got a chance to get a referendum on the matter of the Russian bailout – which is why you may not know ‘this’
thanks. I figured he probably meant Yanukovych. I didn’t know Ukraine was in default in 2013 or that they had asked for a loan from both Russia and the IMF. I think i remember Yanukovych was overthrown twice in Ukraine by U.S. backed coups (one around 2004 or 2005 as well as, of course, the 2014 coup). Which seems to say no matter what the Ukrainian people vote for, the U.S. will force its will, and proxy leaders, upon them.
Given that he was overthrown by a very large group of people and that the elections were held within a fairly short time after the ousting of the legally elected president, it gets difficult to support the idea that it was a coup imposed by a foreign power against the wishes of a majority of the people.
In the elections following 2014 the rightwing got a substantial amount of the votes and influence, this they lost again by the 2019 election – again, had this been a foreign established government then all prior examples tells us that they either do not have elections or the falsify the results to keep themselves in power.
The people of Ukraine showed in 2014 that they have no problems showing their discontent – so you are left with a big problem to explain if you maintain that the people were not happy about the election results in 2019.
It is this constant use of Nazi especially when it comes levelled at people of Jewish background that kind of undermines your arguments.
Who is this Yevtushenko if you are referring to Viktor Yushchenko then he was out of office by then, if you are talking about Viktor Yanukovych then it was his rejection of a pending EU association agreement, choosing instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia.
As far as I know he never got a chance to get a referendum on the matter of the Russian bailout – if you can find any link with the results of a referendum on this ‘deal’ it would be much appreciated.
It is this constant use of Nazi especially when it comes levelled at people of Jewish background that kind of undermines your arguments.
Who is this Yevtushenko if you are referring to Viktor Yushchenko then he was out of office by then, if you are talking about Viktor Yanukovych then it was his rejection of a pending EU association agreement, choosing instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia.
As far as I know he never got a chance to get a referendum on the matter of the Russian bailout – if you can find any link with the results of a referendum on this ‘deal’ it would be much appreciated.
Could he mean Yanukovych?
That was my guess – I made a longer reply to him, but it got held up in moderation – maybe because it had a certain religion in it together with the word Nazi where I was making the point that this combination spoils the credibility of his argument.
1. You’re failing to see the distinction between Zionism from Jewishness.
2. It’s all Cyrillic, but clearly meant the regime in office in 2014.
3. You’re right, but the history of the 2014 “bailout” is so vastly more discreditable to the IMF and EU, and favorable to the Kremlin that it’s easy to see why Nuland and her Nazi gang hurried the sloppy abortion.
No what distinguishes Nazi’s from Rightwing white supremacists is their racial theory – so without hate of people with Jewish background and without a theory of Aryans being superior to sub humans like Slavs there simply is no basis for calling people Nazi’s.
No what distinguishes Nazi’s from Rightwing white supremacists is their racial theory – so without hate of people with Jewish background and without a theory of Aryans being superior to sub humans like Slavs there simply is no basis for calling people Nazi’s.
Cyrillic Yevtushenko does not translate into Yanukovych but something more like Yushchenko – so still wrong, but not a point of significance as I also assumed you were thinking of Yanukovych
So the claim that Yanukovych put his proposal to a referendum was without any basis in any real event you could dig up – good to know – and no it was not a Nazi gang they tend not to gather around people of Jewish origin.
1. I concede the chicken shit.
2. Zionism is cognate and structurally identical to Nazism, defined essentially as an hyperaggressive militarized race-state.
3. As stated the Nuland & Nazi gang rushed abortion precluded intended referendum.
OK
Not even close Zionism is not too remote from how you explain it, however it is not regarding other races as sub human and worthy of extermination insofar as they cannot serve the master race.
You may characterize them as Zionists but not Nazis – and even that is a fairly absurd statement as they have not advocated a racially pure Ukraine – nor could they as Ukrainians are Slavs just as many Russians are.
re: #3. And Palestinians are semitic, same as Jews, … mutatis mutandis, Zionists and Nazis are identical.
“Racism” (properly, “racial chauvinism”) is not, except mythologically, genetically founded. It’s a cultural, not biological, homogeneity along with a primitive cultic understanding of divinely ordained destiny and promise of ultimate glorification in return for absolute loyalty. Anthropologically it’s the triumphalist (nationalism) stage succeeding tribalism.
Have the Zionists tries to exterminate the Palestinians living in what is now Israel, have the Zionists tried to occupy and subjugate territories many times the size of Israel and to enslave/bleed out the inhabitants?
Seeing as we both know that the answer to those questions are no, we know why Zionism is not identical to Nazis in the areas that matter, i.e. the areas that made the Nazis remarkable.
Racism was racially justified by the Nazis so if the Ukrainians issues with some Russians are not racially justified then the Ukrainians are nothing like the Nazis.
There is no significant difference between Zelenskyy’s family background and that of very many people living in Russia holding Russian citizenship – the same goes for a lot of other Ukrainian families – the idea that the Ukrainians issues with Russia is racism is not justified on any level.
I do not know which Europe you live in, but it is not the one I know. Europe has diismembered Yugoslavia, once it was no longer needed as a spoler in Cold War. It was not natives that tore it apart, but feeble Europeans pushed by US. Having created chaos by zeeding nationalists militancy in Croatia, among both Croatian and Moslem extremists in Bosnia, as well as the old irredentism among Albanians of Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia — it was mighty easy to demonize their victims and insure control of dwarf governments in its wake. Who do you think took Kosovo out of Serbia? The wonderful, rule obiding West. Who rules there today? NATO, as buikt actually in the “constitution” of Kosovo. Who do you think rules Bosnia? West appointed High Representative — a person who can ban politicians or parties. And whose rule , until recently has not been questioned. Romania is litterally a colony. North Macedonia that rejected NATO entry in a referendum — was
made a member by crooked politicians. Who do you think is trying to “redesign” Montenegro, contrary to the wish of its population? Ukraine, its West part, has a similar history to Croatia, and no wonder NATO tried to implement Croatian ethnic cleansing method.
But it iis too big a bite — one fourth of populace cannot control 2/3. No, I am
wrong. It is done by Israeli occupation of Palestine. Sure, anything coukd be done, given enough time. Ukrainian Russians were the first target — Ukrainian Christian Othrodox, its Rusdian speaking majority — next.
Who are we kidding? Ourselves.
All Eastern European Catholic states have
forever been cinditioned to forget their Slavic roots, even its bistory and culture. They have been “Westernized” by the cross or by fire. Which does not mean they are not aware of this cultural genocide.
No, I do not buy for a blinking second the piety of Western propriety and rule of law. There are no principles among colonial powers — only their naked violence in the struggle to maintain its global dominance.
I have worked in Bosnia both the federation and Republika Srpska – and I can tell you that you are just flat out wrong on this – these people needed but the smallest excuse to be at each others throats – so no this was not started by the US but by Slobodan Milošević need for repairing his political image.
This is not a kind of hate you can just create – it was there since at least 1912.
The Kosovars have a government – but admittedly they probably only exist thanks to UN peace mission.
Sure that however is ostensibly because the country would otherwise descend into violence again – much of my personal experience there would indicate that this is indeed likely – but I’ll grant you that this does look very undemocratic and comes dangerously close to taking over the place, that however depends on how much and in what way the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina exercises his/her authority.
In what way?
No they were against changing the name of their country to join which was the demand of the Greeks to end their Veto on them joining, the people of (North) Macedonia were for joining NATO since the war in Kosovo
From wikipedia on the relations
I have no idea, the Greeks if I had to guess.
I think you live in an alternate reality – the Croatians did horribly things in WWII, but in the break up of Yugoslavia they were more often the victims than the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing AFAIK.
The government in Kyiv was not elected by only 1/4 of the population so, and since the start of Putin’s invasion it has gotten much more popular – so care to back up the assertion that the opposition to the invasion is supported by only a quarter of the population?
Hardly likely when the leader is a Russian speaking person of Jewish background – but do not let that confuse you.
You certainly seem to be.
I think you are very wrong or have a completely different perspective on what it is to be of Slavic origin, because nothing I have seen suggests that they should be against a Westernized life style – but could you say why you think this is the case?
Well more often than not we could agree on this – but in this case the principle at stake is if we are going to allow wars of territorial conquest to be profitable – if we do so then we can expect a lot more of this kind of wars – not a thing that I’m for.
Do you honestly think they wouldn’t? Watch and learn, i was saying this in 2014.
Most of the neighbors of the Ukraine would benefit from such an outcome. For Russia it makes the Ukronazi problem somebody else’s issue. The rump Banderastan would be reduced in size, population and resources, ie a threat to no-one. The EU would get the best possible “out” for them.
As for “Biden”, assuming he is still alive, it would make it possible for “him” to remove the topic during the mid-terms.
Ukraine is clearly an unsustainable drain on the economies of the West. This war of attrition is bleeding out the Western economies, resources and weapons.
That you were saying this in 2014 hardly makes it more likely to be true – or do you think that Russia annexing Crimea with the resulting sanctions made Poland, Hungary or Rumania think they too wanted some of that?
Partitioning doesn’t necessarily mean that EU countries would annex parts of Ukraine. Partitioning could mean that EU countries are preparing to accept that Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk are no longer part of Ukraine.
That said, there is some evidence that Poland is interested in parts of Ukraine and that Ukraine is encouraging this.
https://visitukraine.today/blog/656/ukraine-adopts-law-granting-special-rights-to-polish-citizens
Biden would be thrilled if parts of Ukraine became Poland because it automatically bring those parts of Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.
Does not in anyway imply that EU countries are prepared to accept Russian ideas of carving up Ukraine.
Your link only suggests that the Ukrainian government is proposing to grant Polish citizens EU like Freedom of Movement rights in Ukraine – that is nothing like encouraging a partition.
This is Doom Sternz, Reporting live from the Kremlin,
Is it wrong to report from the Kremlin? Here, and, of course, in the MSM, we get plenty of reports directly from Kiev, from DC, from London, from the Baltic States, from Warsaw, etc. That being the case, why is it wrong for Doom Sternz to report what a Russian spokesman, “live from the Kremlin,” is saying? Some folks just can’t stand that, even here, even in this one little dissenting corner of the internet, an alternative, dissident voice contrary to the USA/NATO/Kiev Neo Nazi regime/MSM narrative is to be found.
Pretty telling that you consider it an insult to state that someone is reporting from the Kremlin. As if that, per se, was an abomination that you just can’t stand, nor should anyone else! Even during the Cold War it was not considered outlandish to at least report the Soviet view (“live from the Kremlin”). Now, apparently, even that is verboten!
Not much going on here, is there?…