Sign In or Create an Account
No they’re not. They have some qualms that have been said will be addressed.
Pro-Putin comments are everywhere on just about any post that has to do with Russia. Anti-GEOTUS comments are on just about any post where he mentions that he supports Ukraine.
Can we at least agree that bombing other countries is bad?
Yes, really. Both NATO and CSTO are supranational organizations (collective security organizations for NATO and CSTO) -- and this community commonly thinks of supranational organizations as "globalism" e.g. the UN, EU, WHO, WEF, etc. And if NATO is "expansionist" then so too is CSTO because both have "open door" policies. It's just more countries have wanted to join NATO than CSTO, so CSTO members tend to be pretty insecure and butthurt about this fact.
And, by your logic, if you support a "globalist" (supranational) organization like NATO (or conversely CSTO) then you must be a "communist". Which then would make any CSTO supporter (like Putin) a "communist" by your own retarded logic. Good job, you played yourself.
What does that make CSTO?
How about nobody invade anybody?
Nah Turkey said they won’t once Sweden addresses Turkey’s conditions which Sweden said they will.
Sweden explicitly said they will not station nukes in their country or any bases as a self-imposed prerequisite for joining.
Russia has a lot of shills pushing pro-Russian propaganda on the web. This site is a huge target for them. Overnight the site turned from pro-Trump to pro-Putin.
For real. I used to frequent this site daily since the very day it was made. I now have large suspicions it's owned by somebody / people actually in Russia and in support of Russia. It's unsettling to say the least.
The Azov Battalion among other neo-Nazi Ukrainian groups (https://unherd.com/2022/03/the-truth-about-ukraines-nazi-militias/) have been targeting provocative Russian separatists that Putin has been enabling for 8 years. These neo-Nazi groups constitute a very small population-wise, yet very vocal and militarily valuable force that Ukraine has been enabling in a tenuous relationship to help protect the larger Ukrainian armed forces which are in no way neo-Nazi.
Then you have Russia with their draftee army of rural untrained hicks acting like neo-Nazis raping and murdering civilians (Ukraine’s neo-Nazi’s somewhat doing this too) and then you have groups like Wagner which was founded by a neo-Nazi and some from this group that have been captured have Nazi tattoos.
That’s literally Fake News and here is the proof:
If you make a bold claim the least you can do is show what made you think this. Everywhere I read says Russia did this.
Can you show us your evidence that proves that was done by Ukraine?
The Ukrainians are not trying to convince everyone that they’re not the same “race” as most Russians. The Ukrainians are trying to convince everyone that Russia is targeting them because of their ethnicity (culture) and national identity (“I am Ukrainian, not Russian”). Genocide is not limited to only race. Trying to systematically eliminate an ethnic group or a national identity is a key component of genocide (and genocide is one of if not the main pillars of Nazism, and what most people are referring to when they say Russia is acting like Nazis). Putin explicitly called into question the right of Ukrainian statehood and national identity.
And yes, Ukraine has neo-Nazis too (like Azov Battalion among other groups) that also target Russian ethnicity and national identity.
There were no cameras when Epstein definitely didn't kill himself.
Similar to the bridge collapse speech.
No, it really not. Even if Bernie Sanders changed his party affiliation to Republican and won, that would be better for us than if he won as a Democrat or Independent.
Many committees and rules in Congress rely on party numbers.
So you're saying don't invest in the US.
Propaganda is a helluva drug.
This is one of those very few things that you can say that legitimately warrants being removed from office.
If this was actually legit, what do you honestly think would happen?
Your comment doesn't make logical sense.
"Does not develop or possess" is a very broad claim which addresses the more specific/restrictive claim of "does not develop and possess".
While I'm at it, "does not develop or possess" also addresses "does develop but does not possess" as well as "does not develop but does possess".
Nah I legitimately completely doubt that.