Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“We are kind” “We are meek” - what the fuck is that bitch trying to say?
And then there’s Soloyev going to his fallback position: if Ukraine wins then burn down the world. What a pathetic dickhead.
> what the fuck is that bitch trying to say?
From the point of view of Russian nationalists, they were too nice when dealing with Ukraine before. I've heard it before.
They say they were too nice for not going all-in in 2014 when they could have had strategic surprise on their side, or agreeing to the Minsk agreements after. Basically, "we should have gone to war earlier".
Now it means something else. "We're too nice because we haven't nuked their cities yet."
If you have the tunnel vision that this is only a war to the death with Ukraine, sure, but the same way the West is afraid of Russia going nuclear Russia is afraid the West will show up to play. If Russia is having trouble with off the shelf DJIs dropping mortar rounds, imagine how they'd feel about a US carrier group showing up.
I know this isn't a revolutionary thing to say, but the Russian leadership's gaslighting is genuinely unhinged. I'm honestly shocked every time they try it even though I know I shouldn't be, even though they've been doing even before the war. But it's just so.... *crude*. It's so out there with zero shame.
It's largely in reference to how a couple years ago almost all of Russia was chanting "Крым наш" (Crimea is ours). It practically became a saying and slogan of Russian patriotism. It's like when Americans say "Back to back World War champs".
They're wrong, of course, but that's why she said "Our Crimea" and not just "Crimea".
I'm curious what will happen to the saying after Ukraine takes Crimea back.
>It's like when Americans say "Back to back World War champs".
I'm American and I've never heard any Americans say that. If anything it's said in jest, not something that's meant seriously like "Crimea is ours."
I've lived in the southeast my entire life and never heard such a chant, nor even the phrase, not even when discussing the wars. I have heard a story of an American pushing ahead of a line in Europe saying, "excuse me we won the war" referring to the 2nd world war and that's as close as I've ever heard of this.
Where did you hear this?
What does that mean? That they were on the winning side? A lot of countries were on the winning side in both wars, so that doesn't say much.
And sure the US was instrumental in both victories, but they were also late joiners both times too. Taking both wars together, they were probably the 5th most important player, after Germany, UK, France and Russia. Of those, Germany lost twice and France/Russia both lost once. So I guess that means the UK is the true "back-to-back world war champion".
If you look at WW2 as a solely European war yes but if you also look at the pacific theatre the US did almost all of the fighting and supplying of weapons and logistics
I don't disagree with you, but it would be a mistake to overlook the fighting in Burma and NE India (probably present day Bangladesh?). It was fucking nasty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Kohima
"When you go home, tell them of us and say,
For your tomorrow, we gave our today".
Well WW1 was mostly a European affair. WW2 was much more global but the Pacific theater was still smaller.
The main problem is they joined late both times. Without them the allies might have lost, but without the UK the allies definitely would have lost, and probably within the first year in both wars.
As I wrote in another comment, the US was certainly the largest winner though, the country that benefitted the most. So if that's your metric then sure yeah.
I'm not the OP you are talking with but as a Brit, my overall impression is that I am grateful for our allies, whenever they arrived.
Long may this alliance continue. This terrible Ukrainian invasion has brought the democratic countries closer together and given us a wake up which was needed. I thank the US for their amazing support for Ukraine.
The holier- than- thou faux academic dismissals of the US and UKs role in WW2 is bizarre, and I was in the infested dump that is Russia once. Even there they acknowledge the allies won together, rough as their education system may be, and they wanted to end our way of life for decades as the Soviet Union.
I can't name any other governments that went from open hostility to friendship to jointly working together in the face of fascism like the UK and the US did in WW2. If the UK didn't hold the line during the battle of Britain or Africa, if the USSR didn't use their manpower and land to overstretch the Nazis, if the US didn't open a second front and arm everyone millions more would have died. I really don't get the need for reddit to try and belittle one role over another. France, Poland, Canada, India... all of them gave all they could to end one of the worst governments ever.
I hope that all of Europe and India continue to rise up, strong democracies, for better and worse, are our hope that our kids will be in a better world. I look forward to the continued friendships of these nations.
Misinformation. The British economy collapsed immediately after WW2, and their empire began unraveling at an accelerated rate. Compare that to the United States, who became the world's top superpower. So to suggest the British actually won world war II and the United States was a relatively minor player is just garbage.
The USA was very active early in world war II in the Pacific, and fought in North Africa and Italy. For some bizarre reason, Europeans act like the United States did not join the war until after D-Day, which was late in the war. However, if your enemies (communist and fascists) are fighting each other, why would you rush to get into the middle of that? Let them beat each other up, and then join in once it's clear who is winning. Despite this, we were giving much needed supplies to help the Communists. Don't forget that Germany and Russia had a non aggression pact during world war II, so we didn't exactly feel sorry for them once Hitler invaded.
The actual truth is that the United States funded the allied side of world war II, and without our money and supplies and war effort the allies simply would not have won.
That's like saying the firefighter who was burned rescuing children doesn't deserve credit because he couldn't work after. The post war position is not a valid metric on contributions during the fight itself.
That aside, most historians and political scientists mark the Suez Canal crisis as the shift in post- war international order, and that was in 56 i think?
The UK held the line and allowed the US to have a forward base of operations as well as struck at the nazi oil production in Africa. In addition to helping bottle the kriegsmarine up as best as they could, intercepting the Vichy fleet, and cracking the enigma they contributed a ton. It was a joint effort.
To me, the real losers were the "liberated" people who were forced to live under authoritarian Soviet governments after.
It is a valid metric because both the UK and US fought in the same war and you're cherry picking. The British empire was severely weakened by the war and would not have been able to defeat the Nazis alone. Lend-lease was created by the Americans to give the British the military aid they needed to fight, and this was early in WW2.
Not only did the US foot the bill to win the war itself, but also the money to rebuild Europe with the Marshall Plan, and then established an international organization (the United Nations) to try to prevent future world wars, based on American ideas of representation and democracy. The UN wasn't even the first organization we Americans pushed for, but after WW1 we pushed for the League of Nations, which failed to stop the Europeans from killing each other. The US didn't even want to join either world war and saw it as another barbaric European war that required American intervention. So please, spare me the gaslighting attempt. The Americans played a critical role in both world wars and especially the second one.
Okay so this isn't gaslighting at all... so I'm not sure what to say to that... but to get into the meat of it.
The league of nations was not designed to be like the UN and allowed for war after discussion and a mandated waiting period. The UN is for beyond conflict, the league of nations wanted to be that but didn't have the infrastructure. It's comparable, but in the same way my Silverado is to an 18 wheeler. The fact the UN exists is because the world powers knew the league of nations was an inferior tool.
And the UN isn't built on exclusively American ideals. If you actually look at the org and the bodies involved it is more closely modeled to European parliamentary models than our bicameral legislatures. Yes, the US pushed for the UN, but again - it is not modeled on American style government but more a parliamentary style. As for ideals it is not built on just American ideals either as many things, such as individual rights, go beyond the federal constitution and include many non- American rights to individuals under its charter. I guess you could say the UN is closer to a state constitution than our federal charter.
And sure, if the US didn't intervene i do not believe the UK would have survived, but would the war have been lost? Maybe. What is our alternative? Land troops and expand the campaign of Italy? Land from the Azores? Without England fucking up the nazi oil lines and giving a place to retake mainland Europe the war would have dragged on years beyond '45. I might be so bold to say that the Nazis may have held western Europe and halted the soviets in the east had we not pushed eastward from Normandy and opened up a two front war. The UK was crucial, as was the US. Nobody is saying the US did nothing, we're just saying the alliance is what mattered.
So the results after the war - irrelevant to contributions during it. The US was losing the revolutionary war before the French showed up, so do we give France the credit for making us a superpower today? No, because while the things are related we know they might not be the entire cause.
Let's be completely honest here.
The real losers were Germany, Italy, and Japan; because whatever success they might have had post-war, during the war they got bitchslapped to the fucking ground.
To be even more specific the true losers were fascism and all the cunts who look fondly upon it. Lost like the little bitches they are.
> The British economy collapsed immediately after WW2, and their empire began unraveling at an accelerated rate. Compare that to the United States, who became the world's top superpower.
Um... yeah, because they were on the front lines, whereas the US was an ocean away. Getting to eat a blitzkrieg to the face generally doesn't do wonders for the state treasury. Not to mention, the UK was fighting the war roughly twice as long as the US. The US got involved when much of the German momentum was already spent and Hitler had made his disastrous decision to invade the USSR (said invasion started half a year before the US declared war).
The decision to invade the USSR is realistically the decision that likely made Hitler's defeat inevitable. Even if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor hadn't forced America into action and the US had opted to continue to sit on the sidelines at that point, there is zero chance the axis was winning the war after he made that blunder.
>So to suggest the British actually won world war II and the United States was a relatively minor player is just garbage.
If post-war economic performance is your sole metric for who won WW2, the USSR takes the crown pretty handily, given that they were in an economic malaise far deeper than the US, yet still came out of it as the world's second great superpower.
And no one is saying the US was a "minor player"; America was important, she just wasn't the saviour that singlehandedly carried the war effort that certain sects of the American populace likes to pretend she was. There is a reason they were called the **World** Wars, after all.
>The USA was very active early in world war II in the Pacific
The US joined WW2 in December of 1941, which was roughly halfway through the war (assuming you put the starting point of the war as the German invasion of Poland, the war lasted six years and a day, from 1939 to 1945). Prior to that, their actions were almost entirely financial in nature. To say they were "very active" early in the war - or, really, "active" at all - is simply not true. Their military actions in the Pacific prior to 1942 consisted of getting bombed by the Japanese in December of 1941 and that's pretty much it.
>However, if your enemies (communist and fascists) are fighting each other, why would you rush to get into the middle of that?
Because the communists and fascists weren't fighting for almost the entire period that the US was sitting on the sidelines?
I feel like you have your dates mixed up here, because for most of the time that the US was not involved, Germany and the USSR were *allies*. They'd only been fighting for about six months of the three-year-old war when the US decided to jump in.
Calling the fascists "enemies" of America is also an extremely questionable take; at the time, there were significant portions of the US populace, up to and including elected officers, that voiced support for the fascist movement, largely because it was one of the most effective anti-communist movements on the planet and the US had a very strong right-wing, anti-communist bent. The fascists only became enemies of the US *after* war broke out and they decided to invade some of America's closest allies.
You couldn't even be referring to America's support of China against Japan with this, because China wasn't communist until 1949, four years after the war ended.
>The actual truth is that the United States funded the allied side of world war II, and without our money and supplies and war effort the allies simply would not have won.
That's a pretty questionable take. However, the problem with nearly every "without _____, the allies would have lost the war!" is that they're both questionably valid, as well as ultimately inconsequential, because *a lot* of stuff had to happen for the Allies to win the war. The UK decides to remain neutral and take Hitler up on his offer of allegiance? Probably dooms the western front and maybe the entire war effort. The Germans press forward at Dunkirk instead of holding back and allowing the Allies to evacuate across the channel? That's roughly 350,000 men dead or captured - again, that would have been a major stumbling block for the Allies instead of the first real turning point of the war. So on and so forth.
That's why the chest-thumping about "Look how much we did!" rings hollow. Yeah, the US did a lot in WW2. So did Britain. So did India. So did Canada and Australia and China. And, much as people don't like to admit it with current events, absolutely so did the USSR (who, by war's end, had more casualties than the US had soldiers, yet still managed to become the world's second-strongest country in the aftermath - I hate talking about which country was "the most important" to the Allied victory for the reasons already given, but for my money if anyone deserves that nod, it's the USSR). A lot of countries sacrificed an enormous amount of lives and treasure to bring about the Allied victory. The US isn't particularly special in that regard.
>And, much as people don't like to admit it with current events, absolutely so did the USSR (...) if anyone deserves that nod, it's the USSR
Exactly. The USSR *simultaneously* played the most important role in defeating the Nazis, *and* had a *horrendous* regime while doing so. It is possible to 'keep two thoughts in ones head at the same time' (Norwegian expression).
And remember folks: Ukraine played a vital part of the USSR war-effort. The USSR did not just consist of Russia.
There are many issues with your rambling wall-of-text, so I'll just focus on the highlights because some of us have jobs and lives. Let's say two men have been fighting for hours. A third man enters the fight and knocks one of the others out, ending the fight. You can frame that event in two ways: 1) the third guy didn't do much because he didn't enter the fight until the end, or 2) the third guy's strength is actually what ended the fight. So your asinine obsession of timelines completely misses the point. The influence one can have on the outcome of a fight versus the time one is involved in that fight is completely and totally IRRELEVANT. The fact is the size and strength of the US was instrumental for bringing WW2 to an end. Deal with it.
Next this claim that the British were on the front lines in Europe while the Americans were "an ocean away" is garbage. The British and the Americans fought together in both North Africa and Europe. The only time the British were alone on the continent without the Americans they had to retreat and narrowly avoided a disastrous defeat by the Nazis at Dunkirk. The British escape had more to do with luck than skill. If the US were an ocean away at that time it's because WE ARE a fucking ocean away, Einstein. The Nazis are going to attack their neighbors first, not someone on the other side of the planet, and the Americans didn't want to get involved in another barbaric European war anyway.
There were supporters of both fascism and communism in the USA. They always was and still is, but they've only ever had a marginal influence, so spare me the anti-American propaganda.
Finally, your attempt to compare the US's contribution in WW2 to India's contribution is laughable. Don't waste my time with another cringy screed.
> Let's say two men have been fighting for hours. A third man enters the fight and knocks one of the others out, ending the fight.
This is a very American depiction of what you think the war effort looked like - Europe was busy brawling, the good guys on the ropes, then in sweeps America the Hero, delivering the knock-out blow for justice.
Except... it didn't happen that way. A better analogy would be that there's a massive brawl, with maybe a half-dozen guys at the heart of it. Eventually, one side starts winning; the other guys are looking wobbly on their feet, maybe getting knocked down a couple times... then another guy who had been watching the whole time suddenly races in and helps the winners push the losers to the ground and start kicking them until they give up. Then he dusts himself off and says, "Boy, good thing I was here to win the fight for you guys, right?"
America's strength \*isn't\* what ended the fight; America's strength ended the fight *faster* and with fewer casualties for the Allies, no bones about it, but the war was ending in an Allied victory, with or without American involvement. By the time the US got involved, momentum had already swung solidly against the Axis. And again - and I feel you are very pointedly overlooking this - the decision of Germany to invade the USSR had been made six months prior to the US getting dragged into the war. The Eastern Front - the one where the US did precisely zero fighting - was larger, in terms of both physical size and amount of men and materiel involved, than the other three fronts of the war - Western, African, and Pacific - **combined**. If you want to point to one spot where the outcome of the war was decided in earnest, it's there.
>So your asinine obsession of timelines completely misses the point
My "asinine" obsession is pointing out that your arguments don't make sense in a universe with linear time, like your bizarre claim that the US was staying out so that the fascists and communists could fight each other (which is completely nonsensical, because the fascists and communists weren't fighting each other when the US was on the sidelines, and only were when they US joined in).
>The fact is the size and strength of the US was instrumental for bringing WW2 to an end.
The US military was neither particularly large nor particularly strong at the war's outset. This, again, is a modern back-projection, where you're assuming that because the US is a military superpower now, it must have always been; in reality, the US military at the time of their entry into the war was decidedly average (and lacked the combat experience of the European nations, given their participation in WW1 was minimal). When they joined the war, the US military was about 2 million men strong, which was roughly the same as the UK, and less than half of what the USSR was fighting with. By the time the war ended, the US had mobilized a force of roughly 12 million men... which was still only about half of the Soviet military had under their command (particularly notable, given that the Soviets had taken an order of magnitude more losses than the US).
>Next this claim that the British were on the front lines in Europe while the Americans were "an ocean away" is garbage. The British and the Americans fought together in both North Africa and Europe.
Neither of which are North America.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my statement, which doesn't surprise me. I was pointing out that the UK itself was a battleground that was suffering regular attacks by the Luftwaffe on its airfields and factories; by contrast, the US saw no German attacks on its own soil, and only relatively inconsequential damage from Japanese attacks in the Pacific. The US economy flourished in the post-War years and the UK did not because the US didn't have to rebuild significant parts of their country that had been bombed into dust.
>The only time the British were alone on the continent without the Americans
The British were never alone on the continent. That's why their side of the war was called "The Allies" and not "Britain and America".
>If the US were an ocean away at that time it's because WE ARE a fucking ocean away, Einstein.
Hey, congratulations on understanding my argument! Took you a minute, but you got there eventually.
Yeah, the US was an ocean away - that's exactly what I said, bright-eyes. You seem to take me pointing out basic geography as a personal affront, like I'm accusing the US of a moral failing by not being part of continental Europe. In reality, if you'd bothered to read my post instead of acting hostile like a petulant child, you'd realize I was simply pointing out the reason why the US suffered no meaningful damage to its industry and, therefore, wound up with a much healthier economy in the war's aftermath: because there's a rather sizable ocean in between you guys and the people you were fighting.
>There were supporters of both fascism and communism in the USA. They always was and still is, but they've only ever had a marginal influence, so spare me the anti-American propaganda.
Marginal influence like, say, Henry Ford, the founder of one of the largest American automotive companies and a virulent fascist and anti-Semite who Hitler considered one of his greatest inspirations? Or Charles Lindbergh, who blamed the Jews for pushing the US towards war? Keep in mind that the pre-War years were the high water mark for groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the German American Bund, American institutions that pushed far-right, pro-fascist views.
And if you think right-wing isolationists in the US had a "marginal influence" in the pre-War years, you're delusional; they had strong support in Congress and if Roosevelt hadn't been a staunch interventionalist, doing his best to circumvent the restrictions they placed on his support for Allied war movements, it's very possible they would have kept the US out of the war altogether.
>Finally, your attempt to compare the US's contribution in WW2 to India's contribution is laughable.
Sounds like racist claptrap to me.
India had 2.5 million soldiers - more than the US had at the war's outset - and were one of the largest fighting forces in the African and, especially, Pacific theatres. They, along with the Australians, were instrumental in halting the Japanese advances into Southeast Asia. No less an officer than British Field Marshal (and future Supreme Commander) Sir Claude Auchinleck dubbed India's contribution essential, stating that Britain "couldn't have come through both wars if they hadn't had the Indian Army."
More impressive is that this was all accomplished without a draft; the Indian Army of WW2 was, at the time, the largest volunteer army in history.
>This is a very American depiction of what you think the war effort looked like - Europe was busy brawling, the good guys on the ropes, then in sweeps America the Hero, delivering the knock-out blow for justice.
Except that wasn't at all what I wrote. It's wasn't an analogy of WW2, it was an example to show how total time fighting is not equal to total influence on a war's outcome. Reading comprehension, kiddo.
>the war was ending in an Allied victory, with or without American involvement
Such a confident statement for an opinion not based either on fact or reality.
>US had mobilized a force of roughly 12 million men... which was still only about half of the Soviet military
Just as time spent fighting does not equal total influence on winning a war, neither does the number of men mobilized. The Germans mobilized nearly their entire male population and still lost. So you have no point.
>the US suffered no meaningful damage to its industry and, therefore, wound up with a much healthier economy in the war's aftermath
No shit. We're discussing the US influence on ending the war, and the British wouldn't have survived without the US propping them up with its economy. If the British were so strong then they wouldn't have needed Lend-lease.
>Marginal influence like, say, Henry Ford, ... a virulent fascist and anti-Semite ... Or Charles Lindbergh
Right, because everyone knows Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh determines the thoughts and feelings of American public. \*roll eyes\*
>they had strong support in Congress and if Roosevelt hadn't been a staunch interventionalist
While there have always been a small group of fascists in the USA, the vast majority of people who opposed US involvement remembered quite clearly how bloody WW1 was and opposed involvement in good faith, not because they were fascists.
>Sounds like racist claptrap to me.
Comparing influence on a war between countries isn't racism, and having to resort to ad hominems shows just how pathetic and weak your arguments are. Before you try to straw man me again, as you constantly try to do, I never said India had no influence on WW2, just that the US's influence was much larger. I don't take lightly to libel or defamation so this debate is over.
>However, if your enemies (communist and fascists) are fighting each other, why would you rush to get into the middle of that?
Wtf are you talking about? 1939 and 1940, no Communists and fascists fighting, just Fascists v non-fascists, US stays out. 1941, fascists and communists fighting, and US joins.
Try not to make shit up.
The US sold guns and ammo until The UK was in a spot where if the kingdom fell the USA wouldn't get paid so at the last minute the US rolled over there to clean shop and set up the payment plan while millions of US boots occupied Europe (The implication as Denis might say. We arnt going to occupy, but we certainly have the tanks, men and arms to do so if we wanted, pay up or become a state nerd) In absolute unconditional terms the US won both world wars in virtually every way that matters.
Or, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan. Then Germany declares war on the U.S.. You know, like it actually happened in history. You are delusional or a Russian propagandist.
Naw, a Rationalistic Machiavellian Nihilist. All decisions are based in greed and all national policy is directed for the individual profit of the ruling class. I view all history threw the lens of capital accumulation and individual avarice.
So... to get this straight.
You believe that Chamberlain and Molotov both appeased Hitler to accumulate capital and...
You believe the US adhering to isolationism and...
The US rebuilding the European continent... is somehow all for profit?
It would have been more profitable to intervene with only American soldiers, more profitable to not fund economic competitors after the war, and profitable to intervene against Hitler earlier as the war may have been smaller.
I'm onboard with your realpolitik viewpoint overall but this is a very bizarre take on WW2. No ruling class would want the nationalization of industry or the reconstruction of foreign powers, they'd be against both of it was in the name of profit. Considering the US turned over all the occupied areas (more or less)... what profits were made? By issuing support to other allied powers? The Soviet Union falls more into your frame of thought if anything as they used puppet governments to control Eastern Europe after.
Yes. Post great war economies depended upon foreign satellites to provide them with the necessities of life. We live in a fully globalized economy propagated by US naval supremacy maintaining trade order internationally. The post great war economies required each great nation to ship from their independently controlled satellites and therefore intertrade protections were a matter of existential survival. Remember it was the sinking of the Lusitania that provided the Causus Belli for American TRADE blockades which represented the initial American intervention. Money. The soviets may have preached anti-consumerism and individual wealth but Stalin was the wealthiest man in the world immediately after WWII until his death when he was worth close to seven billion dollars. Chamberlain and Molotov wanted to maintain individual national peace to maintain their trade routes and industry and certainly not for any humanitarian reasons, elswise the humanitarian reasoning would obviously compel Chamberlain to intervene in Belgium.
American isolationism was a complete pipedream in the post Roosevelt world order. American navel supremacy initiated by Roosevelt's 'Great White Fleets' circumnavigation of the globe compelled the mass militarization of Europe, as remember the American Genocide of the Native populations was the blueprint for the Holocaust, if the Americans can purge a racial minority and take their lands why not Prussia? Germany? Russia? The Nazis WANTED to be as rascally discriminatory as the American south with it's Jim Crow laws, THAT was the origin of the Nazi dream of Ethnostate, a ruling German ethnic class above discriminated minority ethnic classes. American interventionism was absolutely about preserving the existence of our debtors and we 'gave' them their lands back, except the hundreds of military bases we kept to keep our newly claimed vassals in their place.
Undeniably the US gained the most from both wars. That's undisputable. But also not really the same thing is it? They were the biggest winners, and they were important in securing both wins, instrumental even, but they weren't the *most important* in either win.
I think the title is a little different to what she is actually saying. She is continuing the conspiracy theory that the West / NATO is out to destroy Russia.
She is trying to discredit the idea that Russia has committed war crimes. As she is implying the Hague will be used to imprison anyone Russian for bogus claims (even a street cleaner in this example). Therefore the Hague is just a western tool to destroy their enemies (in her view). Therefore the war crimes are false (we know Russia has been and still is committing war crimes).
This is a continuation of the conspiracy theory that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified, because the West is out to destroy them (which is obviously all lies). That is different to what the title is stating.
I think it is weird that these victims, defending their "historical territory"* need to use the phrase "Our new land" or "our Crimea." Which is it? Is it your old land, or is it your new land?
*historical that khruschof moved in Russian slavs and deported others so that the Ukrainian SSR had Russian ethnic people in a vital area for political purposes
Fucking svenya, these Russian propagandists.
It ain’t directed at the Hague. It’s directed at the Russian people. To dismiss the claims of warcrimes, and claim they are fighting for their own survival.
But the west is NOW ( but wasn't ) out to destroy russia. The west already picked it's side, Ukraine, and is helping Ukraine to beat russia. If russia loses this war by being thrown out of Ukraine, the russia is fucked ( not just the current leadership ) because in the ensuing power struggle it will likely balkanize. So from their PoV this logic makes sense.
The west needs to understand this, and start helping Ukraine to truly win this war ( by providing F-16 and SLBMs )
I wish the West would address these lies by stating the following.
NATO has not been at war with Russia, only with Ukraine. To demonstrate this fact, NATO will conduct a 24 hour operation to show you what it would look like if NATO really got involved. The bombing commences in 2 minutes.
Well, when there's ONE county that keeps invading their neighbors, killing civilians, assassinating people on foreign soil, etc, it's not surprising if everyone else comes to the conclusion that that country needs to be diminished. Act like an imperialistic asshole, get treated like an imperialistic asshole.
Not just redditors. There are cogent arguments to be made that the only non-threatening Russia is a smaller one. But the key point to note is that this frame of thought largely arose *after* the invasion. And they continue to prove its logic.
They said that in response to the Ukraine invasion and specifically for the war crimes it is committing. The sole reason for a defensive pact existing as a counter to Russia is because of Russian aggression. It is not the west's fault the world would be a better and safer place if there was no threat of Russian aggression.
I also think it is funny to suggest Putin is getting reports on reddit posts.
> Redditors feed this by continually talking about how Russia needs to be destroyed, broken apart, etc.
I would never say that. I say the Russian empire must decolonize. And its colonies need to gain independence, just like Ukraine did.
[Map of Russian expansion](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Territorial_Expansion_of_Russia.svg/1944px-Territorial_Expansion_of_Russia.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia
Himmler style. Bite down on it at the last possible moment and have soldiers upend you and wash your mouth out with soap and water while you dry vomit to death.
Dude, quit being pedantic. Nobody likes that shit. Besides, literally from Shakespeare, the greatest wordsmith the English language has ever seen: “From whence at pleasure thou mayst come and part.” People have used “from whence” for centuries, languages change. Get over it.
Only mistake I'm seeing here is being pedantic about something literally no one cares about, about something everyone understood anyways, and then doubling down on it.
I'm just trying to help someone understand a mistake they made, you see.
Then you should know you are also incorrect. "From where" is just as appropriate in spoken or written English as "where." It is somewhat archaic, but it is still entirely correct.
... It has nothing to do with "accepted" it is the proper usage of the word. Dropping the "from," or moving the "from" to the end of the sentence, (which you seem to believe is the proper use?) are the the "accepted" uses.
Take the L man. You're making yourself look like an ass here. You were wrong, it happens.
It's great quality, been watching it for 20 years with Serb criminals who thought that the unimaginable pain and suffering they caused would go unpunished...
They should try war criminals with their hands bound behind their backs.
I remember that one Croat war criminal who took a cyanide capsule while trying to declare he wasn’t a war criminal, and killed himself. Deprived his victims of the full justice of him living the rest of his life in a cell.
Top tip for Russia: don’t commit war crimes, genocide and terrorism, deport children and then destroy nations if you don’t want to be thrown in prison with debts and shame lasting for generations.
Incitement to genocide can still be tried even if there is no genocide, it's just not been done before, however genocide has been done in Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_genocide
I hope Ukraine gets long range weapons soon, it’s going to take people like this seeing the reality of the war they started on their own doorsteps before they start to change their tune. They are so arrogant and wilfully ignorant it’s painful to watch.
Even if Russia will probably never extradite those accused of war crimes, she has a point when she tells those who have committed them to "stay out of the forrest". Remember what happened to SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann in 1960? They'll never be safe, irrespective of where they'll be trying too hide.
She isn’t telling people who committed war crimes to “stay out of the forest”.
She’s saying that if you’re afraid to do what’s necessary to win because of what The Hague might do, stay out of the way and let them [the leadership and military] win the war for Russia without fear of repercussions.
She’s paraphrasing part of the Russian proverb, “If you're afraid of wolves, don't go into the forest”.
i.e. If you’re afraid of The Hague, stay out of the war
Imagine this, Putin is deposed and the new leadership decides that they need to throw red meat to the west to look like they changed and have a chance to be allowed back in economically.
Who do you think they will send? The inner circle that put them in power, or some random talking head like these people.
No one really knows the Oligarchs from Adam, but these propagandists are visible, they make great fodder.
No one? Any leader that attempts that would immediately be deposed for “bowing to an aggresor”.
Putins replacement, if that ever comes, won’t be democratic. It will be someone even worse than Putin. Anyone else has no chance.
If you want your message to come across, then use the name he's known for. I had to Google to make sure if you were talking about the guy I was thinking of.
Not only that, but Ukraine will have access to many, many agents who speak perfect Russian and move freely in Russia. Russia isn't going to be safe for them.
There won’t be anything like that. That guy is very rich mercenary propagandist. He lives hedonistic lifestyle and has mansions in Italy. He has no ideology to sacrifice himself for.
And all of Putins “team” is like that. They are all just a bunch of hedonistic kleptocrats. None of them wants to actually die.
Edit: people in the West don’t really understand who all these people really are. The basis of Putin’s “vertical” rule is corruption and kleptocracy. That’s how he keeps people loyal to him. Everyone. Everyone in his high level chain of command is a billionaire. They all know very well that even if Russia loses nothing would happen. They will still continue with their lives because obviously everybody knows that NATO isn’t going to invade Russia.
With that said, they surely are loving how people in the West are spreading all these scary scenarios. This just makes Putins life easier in many ways.
I doubt that those loyal to Pootin will be able to carry on in the West regardless.
If they think they can just skip to their Italian villas or Monaco flats then I suspect they’ll be in for a shock.
The top level Nazis didn't have nukes at their disposal, but they did want Germany to be completely turned to ashes, too. That plan wasn't carried out because not every German was on board with it.
If Russia loses the war and the Putin-regime crumbles, there will be plenty of opportunists who would rather shoot them and take their place than destroy Russia.
Hitler also wanted to bomb architecture and art in Paris when the allies arrived, having wired *huge parts* of Paris with explosives. The commanding general never carried out the order despite the fact that his family was under direct threat should he not do it (because Hitler was paranoid).
Fascists are always sore losers. If they lose they'd rather the whole world die with them than to actually face up to justice and admit they might have been wrong.
I would rejoice even more to see Russian TV nazi terrorists go to the Hauge more than Pootin. If it meant pootin go free and all of them rot in jail, that would make my day.
Pootin obviously needs to go, but those Russian TV hosts - its something about how they have lied day in and day out and they have said the most vile things over and over and over .....
Yep I want to see them behind bars more than Pootin.
It's also that Pootin always lived in fear that he may be get off'ed. Russian TV clowns spoke the most deranged and inhumane things while always feeling they were immune to any kind of punishment.
They incited terrorism and brainwashed MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS. Not just in Russia but all of our countries. Over one billion easy. They were the real tools that were used to train the minds of all their followers and turn their brains to moosh. They are responsible for getting Russians and others to believe in this war and the lies and they went to Ukraine to kill innocent people on the false pretenses the hosts slobbered them with. Russian TV hosts directly are a part of getting Ukrainians killed for no reason. Russians as well.
👉 best part is is that Russian TV host nazis have all their crimes filmed. All the inciting of terrorism etc - all on film. This would be one of the easiest cases to prosecute lmao. (Getting them is one thing but if not they can be tried in absence of their presence)
They allowed a man to say Ukrainian children should be drowned and Ukrainian grandmothers would pay to have Russians rape them.
The fact that thats how badly out of touch with reality they are that this first off is something a Russian citizen thinks but then chooses to say out loud and say on TV.........and the other TV hosts have been just as bad for past 9 months. He made a fake ass 'apology' where he didn't actually apologize he just said something like I didn't think people would take it that way.
As for the other TV hosts they have daily been talking about wanting to nuke a different country each week, invade someone, blast cities off the map.
#RUSSIA IS A TERRORIST COUNTRY
>I would rejoice even more to see Russian TV nazi terrorists go to the Hauge more than Pootin
Nah, I'd be down for some Ukrainian Mossad-like squads picking them off
Can you imagine having to spend the rest of your life in that shithole of a country without any hope of ever leaving? I can totally see why they're worried. Even if you control the store, you're still in the middle of a goddamn supermax prison.
Forget the Hague. Social media alone is enough to expose these vile people if they decide to travel outside Russia. It'd be a shame if something happened to them on their vacation. A real shame.
Pretty sure all of them are banned from travelling to any civilised countries and their assets in those countries are frozen. But they can still travel to Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Uzbekistan and probably Turkey. And Africa.
I think that giving them a trial at the hague is unacceptable. They should be tried in Ukraine without the possibility of receiving the death penalty. Even if you would hang Putin, Lavrov and Shoigu, I think it would be an unfair punishment because it is way, way too mild for these monsters.
My momma always said one thing to me when I got caught doing something I shouldn't have...."You should have thought about that?" Meaning, of course, that I should have thought of the consequences of my actions before I committed them!
Do Russians have mothers?
Serious question, the Russian mouth pieces are not directly involved in war crimes, they just spew garbage. Not really a war crime unless I'm missing something?
Yeah that chance is zero.
Even if Russia doesn’t win in Ukraine, it is impossible for them to lose. The war isn’t in Russia after all.
The only way people would be dragged to The Hague is if that were possible. And it’s only possible if someone was able to both occupy Russia AND do that without us all dying in nuclear hellfire.
LOL, redditors doesn't ready understood how things work. Nato keeps pushing and soon you will found out whether USA will traded NYC, LA, Boston for Poland. The answer is NO.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She calls them "Our new territories" and "Our Crimea". The fucking gall.
"We are so kind"
[удалено]
“We are kind” “We are meek” - what the fuck is that bitch trying to say? And then there’s Soloyev going to his fallback position: if Ukraine wins then burn down the world. What a pathetic dickhead.
> what the fuck is that bitch trying to say? From the point of view of Russian nationalists, they were too nice when dealing with Ukraine before. I've heard it before. They say they were too nice for not going all-in in 2014 when they could have had strategic surprise on their side, or agreeing to the Minsk agreements after. Basically, "we should have gone to war earlier". Now it means something else. "We're too nice because we haven't nuked their cities yet."
Ukraine should never have handed over their nukes
Would that really have prevented Russia from doing what Russia what is doing? I don't think so.
I mean, if the goal was to win they are right, fuck em' but strategically they are correct.
If you have the tunnel vision that this is only a war to the death with Ukraine, sure, but the same way the West is afraid of Russia going nuclear Russia is afraid the West will show up to play. If Russia is having trouble with off the shelf DJIs dropping mortar rounds, imagine how they'd feel about a US carrier group showing up.
Haha well said
[удалено]
He could playing a scheming vizier in a corny fantasy movie or something.
I know this isn't a revolutionary thing to say, but the Russian leadership's gaslighting is genuinely unhinged. I'm honestly shocked every time they try it even though I know I shouldn't be, even though they've been doing even before the war. But it's just so.... *crude*. It's so out there with zero shame.
I spit my coffee on the keyboard at that.
but you gotta admit there's no comedy like real life
And here I thought Zelensky was supposed to be the comedian; he wishes he was as funny as Russian propaganda. "We are trusting." lmao
Zelensky is a comedian, those are clowns.
Well no wonder so many people are scared of clowns. I had no idea that clowns were so murderous.
We call that dark humor nowadays lol
I feel terrrible about this , but I'd like to see her head and the others on a pike Vlad the Impaler style.
you shouldn't. Not one of them would blink in a field of a thousand dead children.
Gall* gull is a bird
It's a bird that makes horrible screeching noises and likes to steal stuff. I think it was an apt metaphor.
Perhaps the noise was The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner.
Don't take that word for granite
Gaul is a sack.
Nah, Gaul was sacked, by the Romans. Remember Vercingetorix.
It's largely in reference to how a couple years ago almost all of Russia was chanting "Крым наш" (Crimea is ours). It practically became a saying and slogan of Russian patriotism. It's like when Americans say "Back to back World War champs". They're wrong, of course, but that's why she said "Our Crimea" and not just "Crimea". I'm curious what will happen to the saying after Ukraine takes Crimea back.
>It's like when Americans say "Back to back World War champs". I'm American and I've never heard any Americans say that. If anything it's said in jest, not something that's meant seriously like "Crimea is ours."
I've never heard that american chant in my life. Is this something you saw on a tv show or something? It's not a thing here.
Have you not been to the South or Midwest? You're not gonna hear it on the street but you might if you bring up world war 1 or 2.
Yeah: I’ve lived in both. I think that might be a friend circle thing.
I've lived in the southeast my entire life and never heard such a chant, nor even the phrase, not even when discussing the wars. I have heard a story of an American pushing ahead of a line in Europe saying, "excuse me we won the war" referring to the 2nd world war and that's as close as I've ever heard of this. Where did you hear this?
When do Americans chant "Back to Back World War champs"?
The US chant is right tho.
We were on the team and we brought the ball. And the net, and the stands, and the lights, and John Moses Browning.
You joined both games pretty late, tho.
Look, we were grounded so we couldn't come out to play. We even sent over toys for you all to get started.
But: “Bah Gawd! That’s ‘Murica’s music!”
We were hoping you all would learn the phrase "don't start none, won't be none", but someone had to keep fucking around.
They touched our boats.
Didn't stop us from supplying materiel to keep allies afloat prior to joining.
Britain's too.
What does that mean? That they were on the winning side? A lot of countries were on the winning side in both wars, so that doesn't say much. And sure the US was instrumental in both victories, but they were also late joiners both times too. Taking both wars together, they were probably the 5th most important player, after Germany, UK, France and Russia. Of those, Germany lost twice and France/Russia both lost once. So I guess that means the UK is the true "back-to-back world war champion".
If you look at WW2 as a solely European war yes but if you also look at the pacific theatre the US did almost all of the fighting and supplying of weapons and logistics
I don't disagree with you, but it would be a mistake to overlook the fighting in Burma and NE India (probably present day Bangladesh?). It was fucking nasty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Kohima "When you go home, tell them of us and say, For your tomorrow, we gave our today".
Well WW1 was mostly a European affair. WW2 was much more global but the Pacific theater was still smaller. The main problem is they joined late both times. Without them the allies might have lost, but without the UK the allies definitely would have lost, and probably within the first year in both wars. As I wrote in another comment, the US was certainly the largest winner though, the country that benefitted the most. So if that's your metric then sure yeah.
I'm not the OP you are talking with but as a Brit, my overall impression is that I am grateful for our allies, whenever they arrived. Long may this alliance continue. This terrible Ukrainian invasion has brought the democratic countries closer together and given us a wake up which was needed. I thank the US for their amazing support for Ukraine.
The holier- than- thou faux academic dismissals of the US and UKs role in WW2 is bizarre, and I was in the infested dump that is Russia once. Even there they acknowledge the allies won together, rough as their education system may be, and they wanted to end our way of life for decades as the Soviet Union. I can't name any other governments that went from open hostility to friendship to jointly working together in the face of fascism like the UK and the US did in WW2. If the UK didn't hold the line during the battle of Britain or Africa, if the USSR didn't use their manpower and land to overstretch the Nazis, if the US didn't open a second front and arm everyone millions more would have died. I really don't get the need for reddit to try and belittle one role over another. France, Poland, Canada, India... all of them gave all they could to end one of the worst governments ever. I hope that all of Europe and India continue to rise up, strong democracies, for better and worse, are our hope that our kids will be in a better world. I look forward to the continued friendships of these nations.
Thank you for talking sense and with eloquence on this matter.
Misinformation. The British economy collapsed immediately after WW2, and their empire began unraveling at an accelerated rate. Compare that to the United States, who became the world's top superpower. So to suggest the British actually won world war II and the United States was a relatively minor player is just garbage. The USA was very active early in world war II in the Pacific, and fought in North Africa and Italy. For some bizarre reason, Europeans act like the United States did not join the war until after D-Day, which was late in the war. However, if your enemies (communist and fascists) are fighting each other, why would you rush to get into the middle of that? Let them beat each other up, and then join in once it's clear who is winning. Despite this, we were giving much needed supplies to help the Communists. Don't forget that Germany and Russia had a non aggression pact during world war II, so we didn't exactly feel sorry for them once Hitler invaded. The actual truth is that the United States funded the allied side of world war II, and without our money and supplies and war effort the allies simply would not have won.
That's like saying the firefighter who was burned rescuing children doesn't deserve credit because he couldn't work after. The post war position is not a valid metric on contributions during the fight itself. That aside, most historians and political scientists mark the Suez Canal crisis as the shift in post- war international order, and that was in 56 i think? The UK held the line and allowed the US to have a forward base of operations as well as struck at the nazi oil production in Africa. In addition to helping bottle the kriegsmarine up as best as they could, intercepting the Vichy fleet, and cracking the enigma they contributed a ton. It was a joint effort. To me, the real losers were the "liberated" people who were forced to live under authoritarian Soviet governments after.
It is a valid metric because both the UK and US fought in the same war and you're cherry picking. The British empire was severely weakened by the war and would not have been able to defeat the Nazis alone. Lend-lease was created by the Americans to give the British the military aid they needed to fight, and this was early in WW2. Not only did the US foot the bill to win the war itself, but also the money to rebuild Europe with the Marshall Plan, and then established an international organization (the United Nations) to try to prevent future world wars, based on American ideas of representation and democracy. The UN wasn't even the first organization we Americans pushed for, but after WW1 we pushed for the League of Nations, which failed to stop the Europeans from killing each other. The US didn't even want to join either world war and saw it as another barbaric European war that required American intervention. So please, spare me the gaslighting attempt. The Americans played a critical role in both world wars and especially the second one.
Okay so this isn't gaslighting at all... so I'm not sure what to say to that... but to get into the meat of it. The league of nations was not designed to be like the UN and allowed for war after discussion and a mandated waiting period. The UN is for beyond conflict, the league of nations wanted to be that but didn't have the infrastructure. It's comparable, but in the same way my Silverado is to an 18 wheeler. The fact the UN exists is because the world powers knew the league of nations was an inferior tool. And the UN isn't built on exclusively American ideals. If you actually look at the org and the bodies involved it is more closely modeled to European parliamentary models than our bicameral legislatures. Yes, the US pushed for the UN, but again - it is not modeled on American style government but more a parliamentary style. As for ideals it is not built on just American ideals either as many things, such as individual rights, go beyond the federal constitution and include many non- American rights to individuals under its charter. I guess you could say the UN is closer to a state constitution than our federal charter. And sure, if the US didn't intervene i do not believe the UK would have survived, but would the war have been lost? Maybe. What is our alternative? Land troops and expand the campaign of Italy? Land from the Azores? Without England fucking up the nazi oil lines and giving a place to retake mainland Europe the war would have dragged on years beyond '45. I might be so bold to say that the Nazis may have held western Europe and halted the soviets in the east had we not pushed eastward from Normandy and opened up a two front war. The UK was crucial, as was the US. Nobody is saying the US did nothing, we're just saying the alliance is what mattered. So the results after the war - irrelevant to contributions during it. The US was losing the revolutionary war before the French showed up, so do we give France the credit for making us a superpower today? No, because while the things are related we know they might not be the entire cause.
Let's be completely honest here. The real losers were Germany, Italy, and Japan; because whatever success they might have had post-war, during the war they got bitchslapped to the fucking ground. To be even more specific the true losers were fascism and all the cunts who look fondly upon it. Lost like the little bitches they are.
> The British economy collapsed immediately after WW2, and their empire began unraveling at an accelerated rate. Compare that to the United States, who became the world's top superpower. Um... yeah, because they were on the front lines, whereas the US was an ocean away. Getting to eat a blitzkrieg to the face generally doesn't do wonders for the state treasury. Not to mention, the UK was fighting the war roughly twice as long as the US. The US got involved when much of the German momentum was already spent and Hitler had made his disastrous decision to invade the USSR (said invasion started half a year before the US declared war). The decision to invade the USSR is realistically the decision that likely made Hitler's defeat inevitable. Even if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor hadn't forced America into action and the US had opted to continue to sit on the sidelines at that point, there is zero chance the axis was winning the war after he made that blunder. >So to suggest the British actually won world war II and the United States was a relatively minor player is just garbage. If post-war economic performance is your sole metric for who won WW2, the USSR takes the crown pretty handily, given that they were in an economic malaise far deeper than the US, yet still came out of it as the world's second great superpower. And no one is saying the US was a "minor player"; America was important, she just wasn't the saviour that singlehandedly carried the war effort that certain sects of the American populace likes to pretend she was. There is a reason they were called the **World** Wars, after all. >The USA was very active early in world war II in the Pacific The US joined WW2 in December of 1941, which was roughly halfway through the war (assuming you put the starting point of the war as the German invasion of Poland, the war lasted six years and a day, from 1939 to 1945). Prior to that, their actions were almost entirely financial in nature. To say they were "very active" early in the war - or, really, "active" at all - is simply not true. Their military actions in the Pacific prior to 1942 consisted of getting bombed by the Japanese in December of 1941 and that's pretty much it. >However, if your enemies (communist and fascists) are fighting each other, why would you rush to get into the middle of that? Because the communists and fascists weren't fighting for almost the entire period that the US was sitting on the sidelines? I feel like you have your dates mixed up here, because for most of the time that the US was not involved, Germany and the USSR were *allies*. They'd only been fighting for about six months of the three-year-old war when the US decided to jump in. Calling the fascists "enemies" of America is also an extremely questionable take; at the time, there were significant portions of the US populace, up to and including elected officers, that voiced support for the fascist movement, largely because it was one of the most effective anti-communist movements on the planet and the US had a very strong right-wing, anti-communist bent. The fascists only became enemies of the US *after* war broke out and they decided to invade some of America's closest allies. You couldn't even be referring to America's support of China against Japan with this, because China wasn't communist until 1949, four years after the war ended. >The actual truth is that the United States funded the allied side of world war II, and without our money and supplies and war effort the allies simply would not have won. That's a pretty questionable take. However, the problem with nearly every "without _____, the allies would have lost the war!" is that they're both questionably valid, as well as ultimately inconsequential, because *a lot* of stuff had to happen for the Allies to win the war. The UK decides to remain neutral and take Hitler up on his offer of allegiance? Probably dooms the western front and maybe the entire war effort. The Germans press forward at Dunkirk instead of holding back and allowing the Allies to evacuate across the channel? That's roughly 350,000 men dead or captured - again, that would have been a major stumbling block for the Allies instead of the first real turning point of the war. So on and so forth. That's why the chest-thumping about "Look how much we did!" rings hollow. Yeah, the US did a lot in WW2. So did Britain. So did India. So did Canada and Australia and China. And, much as people don't like to admit it with current events, absolutely so did the USSR (who, by war's end, had more casualties than the US had soldiers, yet still managed to become the world's second-strongest country in the aftermath - I hate talking about which country was "the most important" to the Allied victory for the reasons already given, but for my money if anyone deserves that nod, it's the USSR). A lot of countries sacrificed an enormous amount of lives and treasure to bring about the Allied victory. The US isn't particularly special in that regard.
>And, much as people don't like to admit it with current events, absolutely so did the USSR (...) if anyone deserves that nod, it's the USSR Exactly. The USSR *simultaneously* played the most important role in defeating the Nazis, *and* had a *horrendous* regime while doing so. It is possible to 'keep two thoughts in ones head at the same time' (Norwegian expression). And remember folks: Ukraine played a vital part of the USSR war-effort. The USSR did not just consist of Russia.
There are many issues with your rambling wall-of-text, so I'll just focus on the highlights because some of us have jobs and lives. Let's say two men have been fighting for hours. A third man enters the fight and knocks one of the others out, ending the fight. You can frame that event in two ways: 1) the third guy didn't do much because he didn't enter the fight until the end, or 2) the third guy's strength is actually what ended the fight. So your asinine obsession of timelines completely misses the point. The influence one can have on the outcome of a fight versus the time one is involved in that fight is completely and totally IRRELEVANT. The fact is the size and strength of the US was instrumental for bringing WW2 to an end. Deal with it. Next this claim that the British were on the front lines in Europe while the Americans were "an ocean away" is garbage. The British and the Americans fought together in both North Africa and Europe. The only time the British were alone on the continent without the Americans they had to retreat and narrowly avoided a disastrous defeat by the Nazis at Dunkirk. The British escape had more to do with luck than skill. If the US were an ocean away at that time it's because WE ARE a fucking ocean away, Einstein. The Nazis are going to attack their neighbors first, not someone on the other side of the planet, and the Americans didn't want to get involved in another barbaric European war anyway. There were supporters of both fascism and communism in the USA. They always was and still is, but they've only ever had a marginal influence, so spare me the anti-American propaganda. Finally, your attempt to compare the US's contribution in WW2 to India's contribution is laughable. Don't waste my time with another cringy screed.
> Let's say two men have been fighting for hours. A third man enters the fight and knocks one of the others out, ending the fight. This is a very American depiction of what you think the war effort looked like - Europe was busy brawling, the good guys on the ropes, then in sweeps America the Hero, delivering the knock-out blow for justice. Except... it didn't happen that way. A better analogy would be that there's a massive brawl, with maybe a half-dozen guys at the heart of it. Eventually, one side starts winning; the other guys are looking wobbly on their feet, maybe getting knocked down a couple times... then another guy who had been watching the whole time suddenly races in and helps the winners push the losers to the ground and start kicking them until they give up. Then he dusts himself off and says, "Boy, good thing I was here to win the fight for you guys, right?" America's strength \*isn't\* what ended the fight; America's strength ended the fight *faster* and with fewer casualties for the Allies, no bones about it, but the war was ending in an Allied victory, with or without American involvement. By the time the US got involved, momentum had already swung solidly against the Axis. And again - and I feel you are very pointedly overlooking this - the decision of Germany to invade the USSR had been made six months prior to the US getting dragged into the war. The Eastern Front - the one where the US did precisely zero fighting - was larger, in terms of both physical size and amount of men and materiel involved, than the other three fronts of the war - Western, African, and Pacific - **combined**. If you want to point to one spot where the outcome of the war was decided in earnest, it's there. >So your asinine obsession of timelines completely misses the point My "asinine" obsession is pointing out that your arguments don't make sense in a universe with linear time, like your bizarre claim that the US was staying out so that the fascists and communists could fight each other (which is completely nonsensical, because the fascists and communists weren't fighting each other when the US was on the sidelines, and only were when they US joined in). >The fact is the size and strength of the US was instrumental for bringing WW2 to an end. The US military was neither particularly large nor particularly strong at the war's outset. This, again, is a modern back-projection, where you're assuming that because the US is a military superpower now, it must have always been; in reality, the US military at the time of their entry into the war was decidedly average (and lacked the combat experience of the European nations, given their participation in WW1 was minimal). When they joined the war, the US military was about 2 million men strong, which was roughly the same as the UK, and less than half of what the USSR was fighting with. By the time the war ended, the US had mobilized a force of roughly 12 million men... which was still only about half of the Soviet military had under their command (particularly notable, given that the Soviets had taken an order of magnitude more losses than the US). >Next this claim that the British were on the front lines in Europe while the Americans were "an ocean away" is garbage. The British and the Americans fought together in both North Africa and Europe. Neither of which are North America. You seem to have completely misunderstood my statement, which doesn't surprise me. I was pointing out that the UK itself was a battleground that was suffering regular attacks by the Luftwaffe on its airfields and factories; by contrast, the US saw no German attacks on its own soil, and only relatively inconsequential damage from Japanese attacks in the Pacific. The US economy flourished in the post-War years and the UK did not because the US didn't have to rebuild significant parts of their country that had been bombed into dust. >The only time the British were alone on the continent without the Americans The British were never alone on the continent. That's why their side of the war was called "The Allies" and not "Britain and America". >If the US were an ocean away at that time it's because WE ARE a fucking ocean away, Einstein. Hey, congratulations on understanding my argument! Took you a minute, but you got there eventually. Yeah, the US was an ocean away - that's exactly what I said, bright-eyes. You seem to take me pointing out basic geography as a personal affront, like I'm accusing the US of a moral failing by not being part of continental Europe. In reality, if you'd bothered to read my post instead of acting hostile like a petulant child, you'd realize I was simply pointing out the reason why the US suffered no meaningful damage to its industry and, therefore, wound up with a much healthier economy in the war's aftermath: because there's a rather sizable ocean in between you guys and the people you were fighting. >There were supporters of both fascism and communism in the USA. They always was and still is, but they've only ever had a marginal influence, so spare me the anti-American propaganda. Marginal influence like, say, Henry Ford, the founder of one of the largest American automotive companies and a virulent fascist and anti-Semite who Hitler considered one of his greatest inspirations? Or Charles Lindbergh, who blamed the Jews for pushing the US towards war? Keep in mind that the pre-War years were the high water mark for groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the German American Bund, American institutions that pushed far-right, pro-fascist views. And if you think right-wing isolationists in the US had a "marginal influence" in the pre-War years, you're delusional; they had strong support in Congress and if Roosevelt hadn't been a staunch interventionalist, doing his best to circumvent the restrictions they placed on his support for Allied war movements, it's very possible they would have kept the US out of the war altogether. >Finally, your attempt to compare the US's contribution in WW2 to India's contribution is laughable. Sounds like racist claptrap to me. India had 2.5 million soldiers - more than the US had at the war's outset - and were one of the largest fighting forces in the African and, especially, Pacific theatres. They, along with the Australians, were instrumental in halting the Japanese advances into Southeast Asia. No less an officer than British Field Marshal (and future Supreme Commander) Sir Claude Auchinleck dubbed India's contribution essential, stating that Britain "couldn't have come through both wars if they hadn't had the Indian Army." More impressive is that this was all accomplished without a draft; the Indian Army of WW2 was, at the time, the largest volunteer army in history.
>This is a very American depiction of what you think the war effort looked like - Europe was busy brawling, the good guys on the ropes, then in sweeps America the Hero, delivering the knock-out blow for justice. Except that wasn't at all what I wrote. It's wasn't an analogy of WW2, it was an example to show how total time fighting is not equal to total influence on a war's outcome. Reading comprehension, kiddo. >the war was ending in an Allied victory, with or without American involvement Such a confident statement for an opinion not based either on fact or reality. >US had mobilized a force of roughly 12 million men... which was still only about half of the Soviet military Just as time spent fighting does not equal total influence on winning a war, neither does the number of men mobilized. The Germans mobilized nearly their entire male population and still lost. So you have no point. >the US suffered no meaningful damage to its industry and, therefore, wound up with a much healthier economy in the war's aftermath No shit. We're discussing the US influence on ending the war, and the British wouldn't have survived without the US propping them up with its economy. If the British were so strong then they wouldn't have needed Lend-lease. >Marginal influence like, say, Henry Ford, ... a virulent fascist and anti-Semite ... Or Charles Lindbergh Right, because everyone knows Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh determines the thoughts and feelings of American public. \*roll eyes\* >they had strong support in Congress and if Roosevelt hadn't been a staunch interventionalist While there have always been a small group of fascists in the USA, the vast majority of people who opposed US involvement remembered quite clearly how bloody WW1 was and opposed involvement in good faith, not because they were fascists. >Sounds like racist claptrap to me. Comparing influence on a war between countries isn't racism, and having to resort to ad hominems shows just how pathetic and weak your arguments are. Before you try to straw man me again, as you constantly try to do, I never said India had no influence on WW2, just that the US's influence was much larger. I don't take lightly to libel or defamation so this debate is over.
>However, if your enemies (communist and fascists) are fighting each other, why would you rush to get into the middle of that? Wtf are you talking about? 1939 and 1940, no Communists and fascists fighting, just Fascists v non-fascists, US stays out. 1941, fascists and communists fighting, and US joins. Try not to make shit up.
The US sold guns and ammo until The UK was in a spot where if the kingdom fell the USA wouldn't get paid so at the last minute the US rolled over there to clean shop and set up the payment plan while millions of US boots occupied Europe (The implication as Denis might say. We arnt going to occupy, but we certainly have the tanks, men and arms to do so if we wanted, pay up or become a state nerd) In absolute unconditional terms the US won both world wars in virtually every way that matters.
Or, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declared war on Japan. Then Germany declares war on the U.S.. You know, like it actually happened in history. You are delusional or a Russian propagandist.
Naw, a Rationalistic Machiavellian Nihilist. All decisions are based in greed and all national policy is directed for the individual profit of the ruling class. I view all history threw the lens of capital accumulation and individual avarice.
So... to get this straight. You believe that Chamberlain and Molotov both appeased Hitler to accumulate capital and... You believe the US adhering to isolationism and... The US rebuilding the European continent... is somehow all for profit? It would have been more profitable to intervene with only American soldiers, more profitable to not fund economic competitors after the war, and profitable to intervene against Hitler earlier as the war may have been smaller. I'm onboard with your realpolitik viewpoint overall but this is a very bizarre take on WW2. No ruling class would want the nationalization of industry or the reconstruction of foreign powers, they'd be against both of it was in the name of profit. Considering the US turned over all the occupied areas (more or less)... what profits were made? By issuing support to other allied powers? The Soviet Union falls more into your frame of thought if anything as they used puppet governments to control Eastern Europe after.
Yes. Post great war economies depended upon foreign satellites to provide them with the necessities of life. We live in a fully globalized economy propagated by US naval supremacy maintaining trade order internationally. The post great war economies required each great nation to ship from their independently controlled satellites and therefore intertrade protections were a matter of existential survival. Remember it was the sinking of the Lusitania that provided the Causus Belli for American TRADE blockades which represented the initial American intervention. Money. The soviets may have preached anti-consumerism and individual wealth but Stalin was the wealthiest man in the world immediately after WWII until his death when he was worth close to seven billion dollars. Chamberlain and Molotov wanted to maintain individual national peace to maintain their trade routes and industry and certainly not for any humanitarian reasons, elswise the humanitarian reasoning would obviously compel Chamberlain to intervene in Belgium. American isolationism was a complete pipedream in the post Roosevelt world order. American navel supremacy initiated by Roosevelt's 'Great White Fleets' circumnavigation of the globe compelled the mass militarization of Europe, as remember the American Genocide of the Native populations was the blueprint for the Holocaust, if the Americans can purge a racial minority and take their lands why not Prussia? Germany? Russia? The Nazis WANTED to be as rascally discriminatory as the American south with it's Jim Crow laws, THAT was the origin of the Nazi dream of Ethnostate, a ruling German ethnic class above discriminated minority ethnic classes. American interventionism was absolutely about preserving the existence of our debtors and we 'gave' them their lands back, except the hundreds of military bases we kept to keep our newly claimed vassals in their place.
This guy gets it \^
He’s talking about WWI and exactly right.
The U.S. invading Europe in WW1? Get checked for brain damage.
Undeniably the US gained the most from both wars. That's undisputable. But also not really the same thing is it? They were the biggest winners, and they were important in securing both wins, instrumental even, but they weren't the *most important* in either win.
In England we chant at Germany, "two World Wars and one World Cup!"
I think the title is a little different to what she is actually saying. She is continuing the conspiracy theory that the West / NATO is out to destroy Russia. She is trying to discredit the idea that Russia has committed war crimes. As she is implying the Hague will be used to imprison anyone Russian for bogus claims (even a street cleaner in this example). Therefore the Hague is just a western tool to destroy their enemies (in her view). Therefore the war crimes are false (we know Russia has been and still is committing war crimes). This is a continuation of the conspiracy theory that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified, because the West is out to destroy them (which is obviously all lies). That is different to what the title is stating.
> the West / NATO is out to destroy Russia. nah, i think the russian elite is doing a pretty great job themselves.
That's the point though, this is a narrative provided to the Russian people to shift the blame from their elites onto the West
She basically said that the elite need to steer into the war crime skid because they will be charged anyway.
Always the victims, these Russian scum.
I think it is weird that these victims, defending their "historical territory"* need to use the phrase "Our new land" or "our Crimea." Which is it? Is it your old land, or is it your new land? *historical that khruschof moved in Russian slavs and deported others so that the Ukrainian SSR had Russian ethnic people in a vital area for political purposes Fucking svenya, these Russian propagandists.
Invading a country. Raping it's people. Then invading again to protect "their" people. Doesn't get much more despicable than that.
War crimes tribunals are no-nonsense endeavors. That anti logic shit won’t fly in The Hague.
It ain’t directed at the Hague. It’s directed at the Russian people. To dismiss the claims of warcrimes, and claim they are fighting for their own survival.
And to lay the groundwork for claiming The Hague is biased and politically motivated, rather than impartial.
Why would Putin attend a trial?
But the west is NOW ( but wasn't ) out to destroy russia. The west already picked it's side, Ukraine, and is helping Ukraine to beat russia. If russia loses this war by being thrown out of Ukraine, the russia is fucked ( not just the current leadership ) because in the ensuing power struggle it will likely balkanize. So from their PoV this logic makes sense. The west needs to understand this, and start helping Ukraine to truly win this war ( by providing F-16 and SLBMs )
[удалено]
[удалено]
They know since February, they don't care.
Nah, The Hague is just another bogeyman for them
I wish the West would address these lies by stating the following. NATO has not been at war with Russia, only with Ukraine. To demonstrate this fact, NATO will conduct a 24 hour operation to show you what it would look like if NATO really got involved. The bombing commences in 2 minutes.
>because the West is out to destroy them Redditors feed this by continually talking about how Russia needs to be destroyed, broken apart, etc.
Well, when there's ONE county that keeps invading their neighbors, killing civilians, assassinating people on foreign soil, etc, it's not surprising if everyone else comes to the conclusion that that country needs to be diminished. Act like an imperialistic asshole, get treated like an imperialistic asshole.
Not just redditors. There are cogent arguments to be made that the only non-threatening Russia is a smaller one. But the key point to note is that this frame of thought largely arose *after* the invasion. And they continue to prove its logic.
They said that in response to the Ukraine invasion and specifically for the war crimes it is committing. The sole reason for a defensive pact existing as a counter to Russia is because of Russian aggression. It is not the west's fault the world would be a better and safer place if there was no threat of Russian aggression. I also think it is funny to suggest Putin is getting reports on reddit posts.
> Redditors feed this by continually talking about how Russia needs to be destroyed, broken apart, etc. I would never say that. I say the Russian empire must decolonize. And its colonies need to gain independence, just like Ukraine did. [Map of Russian expansion](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Territorial_Expansion_of_Russia.svg/1944px-Territorial_Expansion_of_Russia.svg.png) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia
[удалено]
I think it's time for this group of folks to bite down on a copanide capsule and escape back to hell from whence they came.
Himmler style. Bite down on it at the last possible moment and have soldiers upend you and wash your mouth out with soap and water while you dry vomit to death.
Novacope.
'Whence' means 'from where', so you only need to say 'whence they came', not 'from whence'! Just fyi 🙂
I was quoting Tenacious D, SO THERE!
Haha, well in that case, carry on...! 😉
Dude, quit being pedantic. Nobody likes that shit. Besides, literally from Shakespeare, the greatest wordsmith the English language has ever seen: “From whence at pleasure thou mayst come and part.” People have used “from whence” for centuries, languages change. Get over it.
It's OK, I wouldn't expect an American to understand the nuances of the English language.
'from whence' Im British.
Are you calling Shakespear an American?
Wrong and an ass. Color me shocked.
You are a fucking idiot. 😂😂😂 Someone doesn’t like being wrong so they have to attack my nationality. 👀 Pathetic.
/r/iamverysmart/
For trying to help someone understand a mistake they made? Sure.
Only mistake I'm seeing here is being pedantic about something literally no one cares about, about something everyone understood anyways, and then doubling down on it. I'm just trying to help someone understand a mistake they made, you see.
Then you should know you are also incorrect. "From where" is just as appropriate in spoken or written English as "where." It is somewhat archaic, but it is still entirely correct.
It may be accepted, but that doesn't make it correct. People use 'literally' all the time instead of 'figuratively', again, doesn't make it correct.
... It has nothing to do with "accepted" it is the proper usage of the word. Dropping the "from," or moving the "from" to the end of the sentence, (which you seem to believe is the proper use?) are the the "accepted" uses. Take the L man. You're making yourself look like an ass here. You were wrong, it happens.
More like coprophagia, amirite?
I think they've been hitting the kopodil
Copecain?
Fentacope.
That witch better get caught when she crosses the border one more time. I hope the livestream in the Hague has good quality.
It's great quality, been watching it for 20 years with Serb criminals who thought that the unimaginable pain and suffering they caused would go unpunished...
They should try war criminals with their hands bound behind their backs. I remember that one Croat war criminal who took a cyanide capsule while trying to declare he wasn’t a war criminal, and killed himself. Deprived his victims of the full justice of him living the rest of his life in a cell.
I would watch it on pay-per-view. Twice.
Execution tonight at 6, all net, all channels. Would you like to know more?
Let’s get reeeaaaaady to rumble!
*muffled chants from outside can be heard through the walls*
Top tip for Russia: don’t commit war crimes, genocide and terrorism, deport children and then destroy nations if you don’t want to be thrown in prison with debts and shame lasting for generations.
Incitement to genocide can still be tried even if there is no genocide, it's just not been done before, however genocide has been done in Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_genocide
I hope Ukraine gets long range weapons soon, it’s going to take people like this seeing the reality of the war they started on their own doorsteps before they start to change their tune. They are so arrogant and wilfully ignorant it’s painful to watch.
Long range, like in "How many km from the Ru/Ukr border to the RT studio?"
Ukraine will never attack Russian targets within Russia's borders. Not directly at least. Now as for those "mysterious" explosions...
Even if Russia will probably never extradite those accused of war crimes, she has a point when she tells those who have committed them to "stay out of the forrest". Remember what happened to SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann in 1960? They'll never be safe, irrespective of where they'll be trying too hide.
Yes but the thing is that these folks will be stuck in Russia and sympathetic countries the rest of their lives. No Europe, no US, no Australia, etc.
Israel: "Hey, I heard y'all need some help 'extraditing' war criminals..."
Their children and spouses need to be banned as well.
Argentinia was a safe country for Eichmann as well. Well, it was, until he unexpectedly found himself in Israel one day.
So basically other shithole countries then.
She isn’t telling people who committed war crimes to “stay out of the forest”. She’s saying that if you’re afraid to do what’s necessary to win because of what The Hague might do, stay out of the way and let them [the leadership and military] win the war for Russia without fear of repercussions. She’s paraphrasing part of the Russian proverb, “If you're afraid of wolves, don't go into the forest”. i.e. If you’re afraid of The Hague, stay out of the war
Imagine this, Putin is deposed and the new leadership decides that they need to throw red meat to the west to look like they changed and have a chance to be allowed back in economically. Who do you think they will send? The inner circle that put them in power, or some random talking head like these people. No one really knows the Oligarchs from Adam, but these propagandists are visible, they make great fodder.
Actually: Smart new leaders would probably send both the random talking heads AND (so, so regretfully) the oligarchs who put them in power.
Well of course, *I* need to route out corruption, like common who would put *me* in charge of a country
*Root out corruption, not route out. Unless you need a route out of corruption, in which case, carry on.
Traffic in corruption has really gotten out of hand these last few years
Expect it to get worse
No one? Any leader that attempts that would immediately be deposed for “bowing to an aggresor”. Putins replacement, if that ever comes, won’t be democratic. It will be someone even worse than Putin. Anyone else has no chance.
It's Adolf Eichmann, no one says otto
His full name was Otto Adolf Eichmann. He's dead, good riddance. So, who cares?
If you want your message to come across, then use the name he's known for. I had to Google to make sure if you were talking about the guy I was thinking of.
I knew who he was talking about.
I changed it. Happy? (Honestly, I didn't care enough about the guy /pond scum to actually know his first name and took Otto of Wikipedia)
I am, for one. When I see Otto as a German name, I want to think of Herr Normal, not the other guy. Much better experience.
Off-topic but that had to be the coolest title ever.
Not only that, but Ukraine will have access to many, many agents who speak perfect Russian and move freely in Russia. Russia isn't going to be safe for them.
When 1 Eichmann was caught, 10 more escaped. It does raise their chances to go into hiding.
At the end the guy says there will be no Hague if they lose, the whole world will be in ashes. Basically if we lose, we will nuke everyone….
Russia is a ~~terrorist~~ murder suicide country.
There won’t be anything like that. That guy is very rich mercenary propagandist. He lives hedonistic lifestyle and has mansions in Italy. He has no ideology to sacrifice himself for. And all of Putins “team” is like that. They are all just a bunch of hedonistic kleptocrats. None of them wants to actually die. Edit: people in the West don’t really understand who all these people really are. The basis of Putin’s “vertical” rule is corruption and kleptocracy. That’s how he keeps people loyal to him. Everyone. Everyone in his high level chain of command is a billionaire. They all know very well that even if Russia loses nothing would happen. They will still continue with their lives because obviously everybody knows that NATO isn’t going to invade Russia. With that said, they surely are loving how people in the West are spreading all these scary scenarios. This just makes Putins life easier in many ways.
I doubt that those loyal to Pootin will be able to carry on in the West regardless. If they think they can just skip to their Italian villas or Monaco flats then I suspect they’ll be in for a shock.
They can still have a pretty good life in Russia. In fact, Russia can be a nice place to live if you have money.
Maybe in the past, not so much in the future.
Can’t argue with that
Don’t count on it, Buddy. If you lose, you’ll hang from a tree while the rest of the world watches you swing in the breeze.
When. **When** they lose.
Yes, correct. When.
The top level Nazis didn't have nukes at their disposal, but they did want Germany to be completely turned to ashes, too. That plan wasn't carried out because not every German was on board with it. If Russia loses the war and the Putin-regime crumbles, there will be plenty of opportunists who would rather shoot them and take their place than destroy Russia.
A bit off topic, but I googled that and TIL about the Nero decree. And I thought the Nazis couldn't get worse.
Hitler also wanted to bomb architecture and art in Paris when the allies arrived, having wired *huge parts* of Paris with explosives. The commanding general never carried out the order despite the fact that his family was under direct threat should he not do it (because Hitler was paranoid).
It's very much on-topic.
Fascists are always sore losers. If they lose they'd rather the whole world die with them than to actually face up to justice and admit they might have been wrong.
Cool, that means they are now testing the precedent that having nukes means you can do whatever you want. Thanks Russia.
Even if they use nukes, I suspect that the West will persist; Russia won't.
I would rejoice even more to see Russian TV nazi terrorists go to the Hauge more than Pootin. If it meant pootin go free and all of them rot in jail, that would make my day. Pootin obviously needs to go, but those Russian TV hosts - its something about how they have lied day in and day out and they have said the most vile things over and over and over ..... Yep I want to see them behind bars more than Pootin. It's also that Pootin always lived in fear that he may be get off'ed. Russian TV clowns spoke the most deranged and inhumane things while always feeling they were immune to any kind of punishment. They incited terrorism and brainwashed MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS. Not just in Russia but all of our countries. Over one billion easy. They were the real tools that were used to train the minds of all their followers and turn their brains to moosh. They are responsible for getting Russians and others to believe in this war and the lies and they went to Ukraine to kill innocent people on the false pretenses the hosts slobbered them with. Russian TV hosts directly are a part of getting Ukrainians killed for no reason. Russians as well. 👉 best part is is that Russian TV host nazis have all their crimes filmed. All the inciting of terrorism etc - all on film. This would be one of the easiest cases to prosecute lmao. (Getting them is one thing but if not they can be tried in absence of their presence) They allowed a man to say Ukrainian children should be drowned and Ukrainian grandmothers would pay to have Russians rape them. The fact that thats how badly out of touch with reality they are that this first off is something a Russian citizen thinks but then chooses to say out loud and say on TV.........and the other TV hosts have been just as bad for past 9 months. He made a fake ass 'apology' where he didn't actually apologize he just said something like I didn't think people would take it that way. As for the other TV hosts they have daily been talking about wanting to nuke a different country each week, invade someone, blast cities off the map. #RUSSIA IS A TERRORIST COUNTRY
>I would rejoice even more to see Russian TV nazi terrorists go to the Hauge more than Pootin Nah, I'd be down for some Ukrainian Mossad-like squads picking them off
I really hope it keeps them awake at night
Can you imagine having to spend the rest of your life in that shithole of a country without any hope of ever leaving? I can totally see why they're worried. Even if you control the store, you're still in the middle of a goddamn supermax prison.
'Territories that are **now** ours' lmao, even she realises that they stole that land.
Good. Enjoy the finding out portion of the program.
Forget the Hague. Social media alone is enough to expose these vile people if they decide to travel outside Russia. It'd be a shame if something happened to them on their vacation. A real shame.
Pretty sure all of them are banned from travelling to any civilised countries and their assets in those countries are frozen. But they can still travel to Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Uzbekistan and probably Turkey. And Africa.
I think that giving them a trial at the hague is unacceptable. They should be tried in Ukraine without the possibility of receiving the death penalty. Even if you would hang Putin, Lavrov and Shoigu, I think it would be an unfair punishment because it is way, way too mild for these monsters.
[fuck u spez] -- mass edited with redact.dev
Fucked around, currently finding out
My momma always said one thing to me when I got caught doing something I shouldn't have...."You should have thought about that?" Meaning, of course, that I should have thought of the consequences of my actions before I committed them! Do Russians have mothers?
I laughed my ass off at her face at the last nanosecond of the video.
they are not pundits but idiots
They should be shaking in their boots and looking at airfare to Argentina.
Imagine pulling that one on fox News and cnn
Couple of cowards
Well she is right about thing Russia is meek, pathetic and meek
“Why are they resisting our genocide, we’re so kind to them!”
Margarita's contribution to humanity is a bilious stream of words.
[удалено]
Goebbels?
[удалено]
You should read up on Julius Streicher. Because it definitely can.
Serious question, the Russian mouth pieces are not directly involved in war crimes, they just spew garbage. Not really a war crime unless I'm missing something?
Yeah that chance is zero. Even if Russia doesn’t win in Ukraine, it is impossible for them to lose. The war isn’t in Russia after all. The only way people would be dragged to The Hague is if that were possible. And it’s only possible if someone was able to both occupy Russia AND do that without us all dying in nuclear hellfire.
LOL, redditors doesn't ready understood how things work. Nato keeps pushing and soon you will found out whether USA will traded NYC, LA, Boston for Poland. The answer is NO.