Politics turned Parody from within a Conservative Bastion inside the People's Republic of Maryland
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
A Russian-American Outreach Begins...
24 comments:
Salvatore
said...
Once again, Trump's voice represents the anger and discontent of many Americans.It is truly inspiring to see him standing up for his rights and a fair judicial process.We need more leaders who dare to speak out for the truth and defend our laws and freedoms . Thank you president trump we all love you ❤️💖 keep up the good work
Exactly. The united states, under predisent d0n0ld, has joined with Russia in support of an aggressor country invading a neighbor and killing their citizens/grabbing their land. We are now the bad guys.
"We already knew that"... in your delusions.
I strongly oppose White Supremacy. And I don't have TDS, you do. You are completely deranged. I have TES. I am enraged. As all decent and sane non-morons are.
We grabbed the land in 2014 (Maidan). In 2014, they started taking it back. Only in 2025 did we begin to acknowledge our mistake. Europe still refuses to do so. The only question that remains is, how many more Europeans have to die before they can acknowledge their mistake?
No, we just grabbed Zelinskyy. Who needs a deed when you hold a gun to the landowners head? Who pays for the Ukrainian government again? Did you read the red-lines document we sent Zelinskyy?
In summary: "It sure would be sad if something bad happened to your country were you to disobey these redlines"
Copilot: The blog comment you mentioned interprets this document in a highly dramatic and subjective way, framing it as a threat to Zelensky and a justification for Putin's actions. However, this interpretation seems to oversimplify the situation. The document itself is a call for accountability and adherence to principles like sovereignty and democracy, not an ultimatum or threat. The claim that it left Putin no choice but to invade is a contentious perspective, as the invasion of Ukraine is widely regarded as a result of broader geopolitical ambitions and not solely tied to this statement.
Me: Has Zellensky ever expressed anger or disagreement with this document and said it forced him to do things he did not want to do?
Copilot: There’s no record of Zelensky explicitly expressing anger or disagreement with the "Joint Statement by Civil Society Representatives" or claiming it forced him into actions he didn’t want to take. The document itself was a set of "red lines" proposed by civil society groups to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and democratic principles were upheld. It was more of a public accountability measure than a directive.
Zelensky has faced criticism and pressure from various groups throughout his presidency, but he hasn’t publicly framed this particular statement as coercive or restrictive. [end]
Conclusion -- Zelensky did not have a "gun to his head".
Atlantic Council: One of the many myths and legends surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the idea that Kyiv rejected a reasonable Russian peace deal in the early weeks of the war. In reality, recently obtained documents confirm that the terms offered by the Kremlin in spring 2022 would have left Ukraine partitioned, disarmed, internationally isolated, and utterly unable to defend itself against further Russian aggression. In other words, Vladimir Putin’s alleged peace proposal was in fact a call for unconditional surrender and a blueprint for the destruction of the Ukrainian state. link
So, according to you, Zelenskyy was actually pro-surrender and was bullied out of total and complete capitulation? He bigly wanted to be Putin's butt boy?
Copilot: The proposed agreement reportedly included Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions and accepting neutrality, but it also involved contentious demands, such as Russia retaining control over annexed territories. These terms were seen as unacceptable by Ukraine, especially given the atrocities committed in places like Bucha, which hardened public and political resolve against concessions.
Zelenskyy’s rejection of such terms seems consistent with his leadership and Ukraine’s stance on sovereignty. Boris Johnson’s visit may have reinforced this position, but it’s unlikely Zelenskyy needed external persuasion to reject what many viewed as a capitulation. The circumstances and Ukraine’s resilience suggest that the deal was a non-starter for Kyiv from the outset. [end]
Meaning, your assertions are complete BS. Zellenskyy would have rejected surrender regardless of the Boris Johnson "warning". Though Boris did say "the West, including the UK, would continue to support Ukraine militarily and economically" and that very likely solidified his decision.
What's going on now is that d0n0ld (on behalf of his master, Putin) is warning Zelensky that there will be consequence unless Ukraine surrenders. With the support of Europe and Biden, Zellenskyy had good reason to not surrender. Now he may have no choice. Even so, I think he might not go for the complete capitulation Putin desires. I know you will be very pleased if Ukraine ceases to exist.
He told reporters he would "reboot" peace talks with the separatists fighting Ukrainian forces and volunteers in the east.
"I think that we will have personnel changes. In any case we will continue in the direction of the Minsk [peace] talks and head towards concluding a ceasefire," he said.
There are sporadic skirmishes and the situation also remains tense around Crimea, annexed from Ukraine by Russia in 2014.
And then the USAID NGO's sent him their Red Lines ultimatum... "it would be a shame if something bad happened to you country again... like Maidan"
Minus: ...then the USAID NGO's sent him their Red Lines ultimatum...
Copilot: The idea that USAID-funded NGOs would threaten a sitting president with another uprising feels more like a conspiracy theory than a substantiated fact. It's easy for narratives like this to gain traction, especially in polarized discussions, but they often crumble under scrutiny.
24 comments:
Once again, Trump's voice represents the anger and discontent of many Americans.It is truly inspiring to see him standing up for his rights and a fair judicial process.We need more leaders who dare to speak out for the truth and defend our laws and freedoms . Thank you president trump we all love you ❤️💖 keep up the good work
Once again, tRump's voice represents the anger and discontent of many American White Supremacists.
TDS affects white supremacists like you? We already knew that...
"A Russian-American Outreach Begins..."
Exactly. The united states, under predisent d0n0ld, has joined with Russia in support of an aggressor country invading a neighbor and killing their citizens/grabbing their land. We are now the bad guys.
"We already knew that"... in your delusions.
I strongly oppose White Supremacy. And I don't have TDS, you do. You are completely deranged. I have TES. I am enraged. As all decent and sane non-morons are.
We grabbed the land in 2014 (Maidan). In 2014, they started taking it back. Only in 2025 did we begin to acknowledge our mistake. Europe still refuses to do so. The only question that remains is, how many more Europeans have to die before they can acknowledge their mistake?
@@
Minus: We grabbed the land in 2014 (Maidan).
No US troops grabbed any land in 2014 in Ukraine.
No, we just grabbed Zelinskyy. Who needs a deed when you hold a gun to the landowners head? Who pays for the Ukrainian government again? Did you read the red-lines document we sent Zelinskyy?
In summary: "It sure would be sad if something bad happened to your country were you to disobey these redlines"
Copilot: The blog comment you mentioned interprets this document in a highly dramatic and subjective way, framing it as a threat to Zelensky and a justification for Putin's actions. However, this interpretation seems to oversimplify the situation. The document itself is a call for accountability and adherence to principles like sovereignty and democracy, not an ultimatum or threat. The claim that it left Putin no choice but to invade is a contentious perspective, as the invasion of Ukraine is widely regarded as a result of broader geopolitical ambitions and not solely tied to this statement.
Me: Has Zellensky ever expressed anger or disagreement with this document and said it forced him to do things he did not want to do?
Copilot: There’s no record of Zelensky explicitly expressing anger or disagreement with the "Joint Statement by Civil Society Representatives" or claiming it forced him into actions he didn’t want to take. The document itself was a set of "red lines" proposed by civil society groups to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and democratic principles were upheld. It was more of a public accountability measure than a directive.
Zelensky has faced criticism and pressure from various groups throughout his presidency, but he hasn’t publicly framed this particular statement as coercive or restrictive. [end]
Conclusion -- Zelensky did not have a "gun to his head".
^
Acta non verba says different.
Or he'd have signed Putin's peace agreement in April 2022.
There wasn't one.
Atlantic Council: One of the many myths and legends surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the idea that Kyiv rejected a reasonable Russian peace deal in the early weeks of the war. In reality, recently obtained documents confirm that the terms offered by the Kremlin in spring 2022 would have left Ukraine partitioned, disarmed, internationally isolated, and utterly unable to defend itself against further Russian aggression. In other words, Vladimir Putin’s alleged peace proposal was in fact a call for unconditional surrender and a blueprint for the destruction of the Ukrainian state. link
"peace agreement" = surrender and future aggression agreement.
No there wasn't an agreement. Boris Johnson warned Zelenskyy that he'd cross a redline, and there'd be consequences.
So, according to you, Zelenskyy was actually pro-surrender and was bullied out of total and complete capitulation? He bigly wanted to be Putin's butt boy?
Copilot: The proposed agreement reportedly included Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions and accepting neutrality, but it also involved contentious demands, such as Russia retaining control over annexed territories. These terms were seen as unacceptable by Ukraine, especially given the atrocities committed in places like Bucha, which hardened public and political resolve against concessions.
Zelenskyy’s rejection of such terms seems consistent with his leadership and Ukraine’s stance on sovereignty. Boris Johnson’s visit may have reinforced this position, but it’s unlikely Zelenskyy needed external persuasion to reject what many viewed as a capitulation. The circumstances and Ukraine’s resilience suggest that the deal was a non-starter for Kyiv from the outset. [end]
Meaning, your assertions are complete BS. Zellenskyy would have rejected surrender regardless of the Boris Johnson "warning". Though Boris did say "the West, including the UK, would continue to support Ukraine militarily and economically" and that very likely solidified his decision.
What's going on now is that d0n0ld (on behalf of his master, Putin) is warning Zelensky that there will be consequence unless Ukraine surrenders. With the support of Europe and Biden, Zellenskyy had good reason to not surrender. Now he may have no choice. Even so, I think he might not go for the complete capitulation Putin desires. I know you will be very pleased if Ukraine ceases to exist.
Zelinskyy RAN on a platform of neutrality and ending the Donbass conflict...
from his election press release by BBC
He told reporters he would "reboot" peace talks with the separatists fighting Ukrainian forces and volunteers in the east.
"I think that we will have personnel changes. In any case we will continue in the direction of the Minsk [peace] talks and head towards concluding a ceasefire," he said.
There are sporadic skirmishes and the situation also remains tense around Crimea, annexed from Ukraine by Russia in 2014.
And then the USAID NGO's sent him their Red Lines ultimatum... "it would be a shame if something bad happened to you country again... like Maidan"
...as well as receiving some death threats from the NAZIs in AZOV Battalions.
Minus: ...then the USAID NGO's sent him their Red Lines ultimatum...
Copilot: The idea that USAID-funded NGOs would threaten a sitting president with another uprising feels more like a conspiracy theory than a substantiated fact. It's easy for narratives like this to gain traction, especially in polarized discussions, but they often crumble under scrutiny.
You should have read them memo.
...it doesn't get more explicit than that.
..it doesn't get more explicit than that. ... In your delusions.
Exactly.
Post a Comment