1) I think we are going in circles here. What Germany ultimately wanted was the lands that belonged to USSR as this was always their primary target. This was their open strategy and Allies, Poland and USSR knew about these plans. Poland just happened to be in the way and had to allow access either diplomatically or be forced to provide access. They could concede lands, but that in my opinion this would ultimately not have saved them as Slavs and Jews inhabiting Poland were to be exterminated after Nazis were done with USSR.

With the benefit of hindsight - Western Europe and Poland should have allied with USSR sooner and contained Germany, by eg intervening at Czechoslovakia before Wehrmacht militarized and got access to Czechoslovakian military supplies. Alas this was not done as pre-war politics of Europe was a complicated hot mess, fueled by fear of communism. It feels we are repeating the mistakes of the past again, arming people that openly state that they are exterminating untermenshen and orcs. There are no former Nazis - people like that never change. Imagine they actually win. Are you ready?

2) They do and it’s already happening. You probably should revisit your understanding of how Russians define the goal of “denazification”. Maybe you are confused.

Mind you Ukraine has already agreed to comply with this requirement in Istanbul peace process, so theoretically this is still on the table in any future ceasefire/peace agreement. Again, as I mentioned before, they will have to implement these amendments anyway if they ever wish to join the European Union as this is a part of mandatory required laws.

3) “Cuba was never invaded by USA”. Sweet summer child, you have much to learn.

5) The excerpt you posted is that of one of the opposition leaders that conducted the coup d etat - Mr Turchynov - becoming interim president, circumventing official legal due process. Is this relevant?

It is actually true that Russia did eventually recognize Petr Poroshenko (against their better judgement and with assurances from France and Germany) as elected president to resolve Donbass conflict together with France and Germany in Minsk format, but as we now know from Merkel and Hollande themselves - they never intended to resolve the conflict and wanted to buy Ukraine time so Ukraine could recapture Donbass by force.

This post was edited by Malopox on Feb 12 2024 11:50am

This seems to be a more or less level-headed analysis of the interview by no other than Al Jazeera.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/2/12/putin-is-ready-for-talks-on-ukraine-but-on-his-own-terms

Overall I personally have a feeling that Tucker did a dry run of negotiations off record to prepare for a possible ceasefire if Trump is elected - so Republicans can focus on Choyna.

Hmm

i still cant comprehend how all these facts were erased by western propaganda

TIL Tucker Carlson is related to William Fullbright via his mothers side.

They weren't erased. Globalist warhawks simply aren't interested. The Maidan Revolution was backed by the West. Why would the west behave as though it wasn't perfectly legal and acceptable and "democratic"?

These absolute geniuses do not care what is "right" or "wrong" or "legal" or "democratic" in any way, shape, or form. All they care about is control. They believe that Zelenski being controlled by the West makes anything he does okay. It's a very simple formula.

I still haven't watched this interview lmao, no fugging time and its buried in my playlist

It's interesting, though I'd recommend reading the transcript, rather than listening. The translator is a tad offputting.

~40 minutes of the interview was a history lesson, and the rest paints the US and NATO as aggressors, and the Zelenski government as illegitimate.

The overall take from the interview was precisely what you'd expect. The way Putin went about it was unexpected though. I thought it was hilarious when I listened to it, overall. Don't really see what all the fuss from the left OR right is about, overall. Mostly just think it's really weird that so many people are promoting war against Russia without even wanting to hear the position of Russia's President. Like, when did reason and diplomacy become "too much effort" and war and silencing of nations the immediate go-to?

Communist Russia doesn't exist. Hasn't existed for over 30 years. And the Ukraine/Russia question is not split on partisan lines. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party like making that claim, but it's simply not true. Many Republicans are avid supporters of supporting Ukraine. And many Democrats are firmly against it.

This is the best part about not being a part of any political party. I can view them objectively, and assess what they're doing. As it stands right now, the "Uniparty" portion of entrenched Washington is all in with their favoring of Ukraine. The "outsider" portion of the Republican party is against it. The "Progressive" wing of the Democratic party is RABIDLY for it.

The fact that progressives are now painting Russia as somehow "communist" is interesting. Very interesting. These are the very people who SUPPORT Communist China. Who SUPPORT Socialist Venezuela. Why would Marxists wish to paint Russia as a Communist nation when it has not been since the fall of the USSR?

Was having this conversation last week with my wife, because the answer felt like it was obvious, but eluded me. Then it hit me: Progressives HATE Russia. Absolutely HATE them. Because Russia WAS Communist. And not only did it fail, but it was replaced with a Republic that has been succeeding, and even thriving without the oppressive Marxist yoke pulling at it's neck. Russia literally stands as the perfect example of what avid Marxists REFUSE to acknowledge: Nations are better off without Marxist ideology.