Zelensky said that because he was talking to Ha'aretz, simple. He says similar stuff depending on who his audience is, tailors his message. He's good at it.
As much as that happened and was an atrocity, what next? Viking were partial to a bit of rape tooMai Lai may have been one of the most upsetting single incidents but the US focus on bodycount as a metric for how well they were doing ensured that civilians were targeted throughout the Vietnam war. Up to two million civilians died (through actions on both sides).
The LibDems taught him well.
The Vikings didn't organise the phoenix programAs much as that happened and was an atrocity, what next? Viking were partial to a bit of rape too
I also didnt see many but saw a few in shops etc. I admit I was there for a couple days and wasn't really looking but the Ukrainian flag was conspicuous by its absence. And everything was in Russian.I don't remember any flags in Odessa when I was there in 2005.
Yes, I'm saying that brutality, specifically the rape and murder of civilian populations, is a regular feature of war. It's disgusting and seemingly beyond comprehension but the Americans did it, the Germans did it, the Russians have done it before, the Japanese did it and even the British have done it.As much as that happened and was an atrocity, what next? Viking were partial to a bit of rape too
...Zelenskyy argued that the war in his country might have been avoided if the Security Council had properly responded to past conflicts in Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya.
“If tyranny had at least once received such a response to the war it had reached, it would have ceased to exist and honest peace (would have) been guaranteed after it and the world would have changed for sure,” he said....
In addition, as Vladimir Sharov — one of the greatest Russian writers in recent decades, in my view — put it, Russian leaders are classified in the popular consciousness not as legitimate or illegitimate, but as genuine or not genuine. A genuine czar, a true chief, a true leader, is someone who takes a country on the brink of ruin and leads it to triumph.
Let’s take the wars that are canonized in the Russian state narrative. It’s the start of the 17th century: the Poles are in Moscow, and Minin and Pozharsky form a militia and drive them out of there. Beginning of the 18th century: the Great Northern War begins with a defeat near Narva, causing Peter to transform the whole country and ultimately leads to [Russian victory in] Poltava. The start of the 19th century: Napoleon occupies Moscow — so the Russians take Paris. Hitler didn’t manage to take Moscow, but he got close. The initial months of 1941 were catastrophic — and then we were victorious.
In Latin America, during the military coup period, there was a slogan: “Send the soldiers back to the barracks!” I would suggest a new slogan: “Send the historians back to their department!”
“We lived here!”; “We’re one people!”; “This land belongs to this group and not that one!”; It’s difficult to imagine anything more damaging than the use of these kinds of arguments to solve historical problems.
Have we had the Russian general admitting to shooting "Nazis in civilian clothing" in Mariupol? And can anyone here who speaks Russian verify that is indeed what he says?
e2a: i did a live translation using the audio function of google translate in chrome (listening to the audio on a loudspeaker with google translate active) and he does indeed say they killed 93 people
Second rule - don't use telegram?
Zinoviev Club is back up BTW.
First rule of Zinoviev Club - don't talk about Putin negatively
The master criminal always makes one fatal error...So he's admitted to war crimes. Even if they were nazi's, executing them is a war crime.
Second rule would be - Putin is fantasticSecond rule - don't use telegram?
Have we had the Russian general admitting to shooting "Nazis in civilian clothing" in Mariupol? And can anyone here who speaks Russian verify that is indeed what he says?
e2a: i did a live translation using the audio function of google translate in chrome (listening to the audio on a loudspeaker with google translate active) and he does indeed say they killed 93 people
I think you missed out the bit in between where the Germans seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 thereby revealing the folly of Munich and the idea that you could trade the Sudetenland for 'peace in our time'. Parallels there perhaps with some in the West (and on here) who've been rushing to trade the Donbas with Putin for another illusory 'peace'?Your grasp of history is a bit shaky here. Hitler was effectively given permission to annex the Sudetenland by Chamberlain and others.
War wasn't declared on Germany until Hitler (and Stalin) invaded Poland, and both Britain and France had existing pacts with Poland promising to come to its aid in the case of an invasion.
ETA I see this has already been covered
Nonetheless britain declared war over poland not czechoslovakiaI think you missed out the bit in between where the Germans seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 thereby revealing the folly of Munich and the idea that you could trade the Sudetenland for 'peace in our time'. Parallels there perhaps with some in the West (and on here) who've been rushing to trade the Donbas with Putin for another illusory 'peace'?
Send a letter instead?Second rule - don't use telegram?
Indeed. But I think you're missing the point.Nonetheless britain declared war over poland not czechoslovakia
Not at all. Who are you casting in the role of next up for Putin then, if Ukraine is standing in for Czechoslovakia?Indeed. But I think you're missing the point.
Have we had the Russian general admitting to shooting "Nazis in civilian clothing" in Mariupol? And can anyone here who speaks Russian verify that is indeed what he says?
e2a: i did a live translation using the audio function of google translate in chrome (listening to the audio on a loudspeaker with google translate active) and he does indeed say they killed 93 people