Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Tomef]

I have a better source. Video.

How on earth did you come to imagine this supports your claim? Please explain.

 

[Tomef]

He meant that in 2014 the separatists of Donbas, patriots who wanted to join the Russian Federation were attacked by the Poroshenko regime.

A source for this. A source that gives clear and thorough information on which this idea is based. Something along the lines of a credible report, with the usual citations, evidence, consideration of relevant facts and so on. In short, the kind of basic thing opinions can be based on. 2 minute video edits are only evidence of an inability to think.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is your source? Honestly, this is what you think proves your point? If you expect to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to do a bit better.

Please explain why you think this has anything to do with your claims. You could explain why you think 2 clips of Zelensky talking about people using Russian being a non-issue (it never was and issue, unlike Russia, which repeatedly took great pains to try and eradicate Ukrainian language and culture, as pointed out earlier, there were no ethnic tensions in the Donbas until created by Kremlin operatives, Ukraine as a state did not take issue with people using Russian as a first language, or as their only language), then about the war - started by Kremlin proxies - in Donbas. Why do you believe this supports anything you have said? Please explain. Please explain also why you think Ukraine should honour any agreement with Putin, who has disregarded and broken every agreement made to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, as defined to include now (not then) disputed territories at the time of agreement? Why any of this? I mean, even if this vid did suggest something like you are claiming, are you genuinely not aware that splicing together a few seconds of what someone said in different times should not generally be taken as a reliable means to understand anything?

I have provided you with a video that shows that by the times of Poroshenko, Donbas people were forbidden from speaking Russian in public spaces. There was an incredibly ferocious anti-Russian policy that pushed the Russian separatists in Donbas to claim independence.
Independence from the sorosized regime of Kiev (bleah).
That was 2014. The war started in 2014, said Stoltenberg: he meant that Kiev regime massacred the Donbas separatists, so it's Ukrainians the bad guys. The perpetrators. Putin invaded in 2022 just to put an end to this war started bn Kiev.
In 2014 it was the elitist cabal of warmongers that funded Kiev.

God knows the Truth. And I am a Christian, so I know that He knows I know the Truth.




I don't want to convince you.
If you think that in the US they are all holy immaculate saints, virgins and martyrs, you can do that.
If you believe Russians are all ugly, bad and dirty...you can do that.

 

[Tomef]

I have provided you with a video that shows that by the times of Poroshenko, Donbas people were forbidden from speaking Russian in public spaces.

You haven’t provided anything of the sort. Please explain, using what is actually said in the video, why you think it shows this. Failing that, provide any evidence for this claim.

 

[Tomef]

If you think that in the US they are all holy immaculate saints, virgins and martyrs, you can do that.
If you believe Russians are all ugly, bad and dirty...you can do that.

Where does this puerile nonsense come from?

How about looking at things that actually happen and discussing them?

 

[Estro Felino]

You haven’t provided anything of the sort. Please explain, using what is actually said in the video, why you think it shows this. Failing that, provide any evidence for this claim.

Do you know what sealioning means?

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tomef]

Source of a Russian invasion in Donbas?

I have a better source. Video.

Where does anyone here say anything that backs up anything you have said? Where is there anything mentioned about anyone not being permitted to speak Russian?

Russian is widely spoken now, everywhere from Odessa to Kharkiv, I was there weeks ago. Nothing you have said so far has any bearing on reality.

 

[Tomef]

Do you know what sealioning means?

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1) I am asking for evidence that supports your claims, not something tangential
2) The two minute vids you posted do not in any way provide support for your claims. You have failed to explain why you imagine they do.

This does not fit the definition of sealioning:

‘...pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed'

Again, not tangential, no attempt at addressing yet made.

 

[Estro Felino]

Where does anyone here say anything that backs up anything you have said? Where is there anything mentioned about anyone not being permitted to speak Russian?

Subtitles are written clearly:
Leave them alone. Grant them the right to speak Russian.
That means that they are forbidden from speaking Russian.

Russian is widely spoken now, everywhere from Odessa to Kharkiv, I was there weeks ago. Nothing you have said so far has any bearing on reality.

Of course...because now Kharkiv is under Russian influence.

 

[Estro Felino]

1) I am asking for evidence that supports your claims, not something tangential
2) The two minute vids you posted do not in any way provide support for your claims. You have failed to explain why you imagine they do.

This does not fit the definition of sealioning:

‘...pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed'

You do ask me for evidence, instead of addressing the topic.

 

[Tomef]

Stoltenberg: he meant that Kiev regime massacred the Donbas separatists

? Please give some reason why you imagine this is what he meant, with some kind of supporting evidence.

 

[Tomef]

That means that they are forbidden from speaking Russian.

No, it means the opposite.

Leave them alone. Grant them the right to speak Russian.

Grant them the right - let them do it. To be granted a right means to be given the right to do something. Btw this excerpt is from the ‘Zelensky speaks in favour of Russians’ part of your video.

 

[Tomef]

You do ask me for evidence, instead of addressing the topic.

The topic requires evidence - you have made a series of outlandish claims without the slightest justification. Hence, the need for at least something that shows why you have these views.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, it means the opposite.

Leave them alone. Grant them the right to speak Russian.

Grant them the right - let them do it. To be granted a right means to be given the right to do something. Btw this excerpt is from the ‘Zelensky speaks in favour of Russians’ part of your video.

Since you understood that video better than me, enlighten me.
Explain what Zelenskyy is saying in that video...and what he means by those words.

Do not plead the fifth.

 

[Tomef]

Of course...because now Kharkiv is under Russian influence.

Ahh I think I am beginning to see the troll here. My bad. Of course, Kharkiv now being 20 km from the frontline they must have just started speaking Russia again in December, knowing what would happen in May! All those people in Odessa, Dnipro, Zaphorizhia and the other cities I visited must have been thinking the same thing for the last two years - let's keep on speaking Russian, just in case!

 

[Tomef]

Since you understood that video better than me, enlighten me.
Explain what Zelenskyy is saying in that video...and what he means by those words.

Do not plead the fifth.

What does he mean? Exactly what he says, there isn’t any need for interpretation. Russia speakers should have the right to speak Russian, the war in Donbas should be stopped, about the Minsk agreements there’s nothing but some vague allusions.

 

[Estro Felino]

? Please give some reason why you imagine this is what he meant, with some kind of supporting evidence.

I have listened to two hours of interview with Putin. By Tucker Carlson.
This is enough evidence for me.

Have you?

 

[Estro Felino]

What does he mean? Exactly what he says, there isn’t any need for interpretation. Russia speakers should have the right to speak Russian, the war in Donbas should be stopped, about the Minsk agreements there’s nothing but some vague allusions.

Does this mean that someone was preventing them from speaking Russian?

 

[Stevicus]

Simpler issues are things like the absurdity of Russia’s claims on Crimea - prior to Catherine the Great the number of ethnic Russians in Crimea was negligible. They simply took it, killed and tortured enough of the locals to make them shut up (and later simply deported most of them) and declared ‘this is now Russia. In fact, it always has been!”. And now they sing songs about Crimea’s Russianness. It is utterly insane.

A Russian guy I know once told me a joke that illustrated how even educated Russians, if asked about something crazy the press is saying the Kremlin might do will say ‘no, that will never happen’, then immediately after it does happen the same people will say ‘of course you could see that was going to happen, I’ve known for years it was inevitable’. The Russian state is a shambolic, brutish kleptocracy with a maudlin sense of its own ‘glorious’ history of brutal imperialism. It has no acceptable history, hence it has to fabricate its own, which is why so much time and money is invested in churning out propaganda to serve its purposes. Many Russians are so accustomed to this web of bull**** they are simply incapable of evaluating the truth of any of it.

There's obviously a good deal of history and bad blood between Ukraine and Russia, going back for centuries. However, I would take issue with the notion of singling Russia out as the only bad guy in the history of that region. There were other players involved, particularly in Crimea. Going back to the Kievan Rus period, back then, there was no place called "Ukraine." The same people we call "Ukrainians" today were called "Ruthenians" back then.

The area in question was mainly just one large battlefield which changed hands numerous times. Turks, Poles, Lithuanians, and others were all in there staking their claims at one point or another. Poland's government, in particular, was quite aggressive in their expansionist tendencies which the Russians had to fend off. From Russia's point of view, it's clear that European powers were aggressive towards them, taking advantage of the weakness caused by Russia falling under the Mongol Yoke. (Read up on the Time of Troubles in Russia for more info.)

When the Russians took what was then the Khanate of Crimea, all they were doing was taking another aggressive invader's prize. The Russians also had a long-term objective of retaking Constantinople for Orthodoxy, which they saw as occupied by Eastern invaders who never belonged there to begin with. By all rights, most of what is considered present-day Turkey is actually Greek territory. But I digress. The bottom line is, Russia can't be blamed for the actions of other nations, and their responses and actions to the situation they were presented were normal and reasonable for any sovereign nation to take, given the circumstances and geopolitical constraints.

For the Ukrainians, their position may have been unfortunate, being that their territory was traded back and forth. The other major powers of Europe recognized the boundaries of Imperial Russia as they were established at the Congress of Vienna, which included the Baltics, Poland, and Finland (and they already had most of Ukraine and Crimea prior to Napoleon anyway). The other European powers went along with this set up because they wanted order to return to Europe, and the idea of a strong, conservative monarchy in charge in Eastern Europe seemed a safe bet at the time. They also knew that Russia's primary national security aspirations were focused on the East (Central and East Asia) and South (Ottoman Empire), not on Europe, so they had no reason to view Russia as a threat back then.

Meanwhile, throughout all of this, Imperial Russia was ruling over Ukraine, which was an important part of the Russian Empire. They were a multinational empire, just like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Did the Ukrainians want independence back then? Perhaps some did, although it didn't really seem a possibility until the Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Civil War. I think Ukrainians, along with the majority of Russians, were on board with the idea of overthrowing the Tsar, but neither the Kerensky government nor the Bolsheviks were interested in entertaining the idea of Ukrainian independence. They had just been devasted by a war with the Germans, along with revolutions and a civil war. They were faced with massive internal opposition, ostracism by the outside world, and outside powers actively working to interfere and sabotage the fragile, newly-formed government which was trying to make a go of it. It doesn't seem too hard to see why and how they would have ended up with a guy like Stalin in charge.

We, in the West, have not exactly been innocent bystanders in all of this either. Our governments also had a role in these historical events.

Still, a lot has happened since then, the Soviet Union broke up, and the Ukrainian and Russian Republics chose to go their separate ways. For reasons that seem complicated and somewhat irrelevant at this point, they are two groups of people with a lot of bad blood and history between them that they don't seem to like each other very much. They have a territorial dispute. On the surface, it doesn't appear to be an automatic reason to start fighting, but Russia's fears appear rooted in Ukraine's dealings with the West and the possibility that Ukraine could join NATO, which the Russians considered to be an unacceptable threat to Russian security.

Having said all that, I still accept the contention that Putin's government is guilty of fomenting an aggressive invasion. None of his stated pretexts nor the historical background to the situation could excuse the conduct in which his forces have engaged. However, I don't accept the idea that Putin did what he did out of some kind of imagined "grand plan" to take over Europe or reconstitute the Soviet Union. I don't think that's plausible.

Of course, the other side of this is, how does this affect the West and our own position in the world? From a Western standpoint, Russia is not the only country in the world we have to worry about, although if we had played our cards right 10-20 years ago, we might have avoided this current situation. It wouldn't have been appeasement, but a certain quid pro quo, as Russian support might have been crucial in containing certain rogue nations like Iran and North Korea. Likewise, Russian-American cooperation could have been an effective counterbalance against potential Chinese antagonism.

That's the real shame of it all, considering the past 80 years of U.S. foreign policy. All we had to do was make a deal with the Russians, and we could have had a more peaceful and stable world. But for reasons which are difficult to fathom, our leaders just don't consider that an option. Maybe it's a legacy of Russophobia and McCarthyite redbaiting, but I can see it in some of the rhetoric that's been tossed about in recent years.

 

[Tomef]

I have listened to two hours of interview with Putin. By Tucker Carlson.
This is enough evidence for me.

Have you?

That says it all. Silly for me to waste time on this. If you read any of the, actually reliable, reports I sent you perhaps you can explain why nothing that has actually happened fits with anything you think. If you don’t like engaging with real things, well, that’s your prerogative.

Does this mean that someone was preventing them from speaking Russian?

Why do you think it does? I mean what actually happened and what evidence do you have for thinking that it did?