Zelensky on coke

[Basman]

9 hours ago, Christoph Werner said:

@Basman @Leo Gura

“Zelensky hate is so forced” is itself the forced narrative.

No one hates Zelensky because he is Ukrainian or because he is “against Russia.” The criticism comes from the fact that, as head of state, he is burning through the demographic and social substance of his own country in a war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win militarily — and in a conflict that from the beginning has been heavily shaped by external interests (USA/NATO, the arms industry, the geopolitical weakening of Russia).

 

The facts that cannot be talked away:

 

- Ukraine already had massive demographic and corruption problems before 2022.

- Since the start of the war: hundreds of thousands dead and wounded (depending on the estimate), massive emigration of the young generation, brain drain, collapse in birth rates, collective traumatization.

- Peace negotiations in early 2022 (Istanbul) were not brought to a conclusion. Western actors clearly signaled that a longer war was in the interest of weakening Russia (“fight to the last Ukrainian”).

- Zelensky himself has maneuvered (or been maneuvered) into a role in which any concessions are treated as betrayal domestically, while Western support is tied to the continuation of the war. That is a classic trap.

- He was an actor and comedian. That in itself doesn’t matter — but it explains why he is so good at the narrative sales job. The Western media machine needs exactly this kind of person: an empathetic, good-looking, English-speaking face for the proxy war.

 

“Decent person for a politician” is the lowest possible bar. Most politicians at this level are not “decent.” They are useful to larger interests. Zelensky has been extremely useful — for the military-industrial complex, for narrative control, and for prolonging a conflict that is permanently destroying Ukraine as a country and as a society.

 

Anyone who has to frame this as “hate” does not want to talk about power structures, incentives, and demographic reality. They want to stay inside the moral story: good president vs. evil aggressor. That is the version for people who do not want to look at who is actually playing at whose expense.

 

The real question is not “Why do people hate Zelensky?”  

The real question is: Why do so many in the West celebrate a man who is sacrificing the future of his own people for foreign strategic goals — and then call that “supporting democracy”?

 

That is not hate. That is a sober assessment.

Utter nonsense. If anyone's tired of the war its Europe. They are very half hearted in their support despite rhetoric. If they wanted to hurt Russia through Ukraine they could do a lot better.

Ukraine cannot accept concentions without security guarantees, which Russia cannot give. Thus war. Zelensky is just doing his job.

[Salvijus]

 

[Salvijus]

 

[k0ver]

On 02/11/2026 at 10:58 PM, Christoph Werner said:

@Basman @Leo Gura

“Zelensky hate is so forced” is itself the forced narrative.

No one hates Zelensky because he is Ukrainian or because he is “against Russia.” The criticism comes from the fact that, as head of state, he is burning through the demographic and social substance of his own country in a war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win militarily — and in a conflict that from the beginning has been heavily shaped by external interests (USA/NATO, the arms industry, the geopolitical weakening of Russia).

 

The facts that cannot be talked away:

 

- Ukraine already had massive demographic and corruption problems before 2022.

- Since the start of the war: hundreds of thousands dead and wounded (depending on the estimate), massive emigration of the young generation, brain drain, collapse in birth rates, collective traumatization.

- Peace negotiations in early 2022 (Istanbul) were not brought to a conclusion. Western actors clearly signaled that a longer war was in the interest of weakening Russia (“fight to the last Ukrainian”).

- Zelensky himself has maneuvered (or been maneuvered) into a role in which any concessions are treated as betrayal domestically, while Western support is tied to the continuation of the war. That is a classic trap.

- He was an actor and comedian. That in itself doesn’t matter — but it explains why he is so good at the narrative sales job. The Western media machine needs exactly this kind of person: an empathetic, good-looking, English-speaking face for the proxy war.

 

“Decent person for a politician” is the lowest possible bar. Most politicians at this level are not “decent.” They are useful to larger interests. Zelensky has been extremely useful — for the military-industrial complex, for narrative control, and for prolonging a conflict that is permanently destroying Ukraine as a country and as a society.

 

Anyone who has to frame this as “hate” does not want to talk about power structures, incentives, and demographic reality. They want to stay inside the moral story: good president vs. evil aggressor. That is the version for people who do not want to look at who is actually playing at whose expense.

 

The real question is not “Why do people hate Zelensky?”  

The real question is: Why do so many in the West celebrate a man who is sacrificing the future of his own people for foreign strategic goals — and then call that “supporting democracy”?

 

That is not hate. That is a sober assessment.

What was the first country Germany attacked right after Hitler took power in 1930s? It was Austria. Do you know what Europe said then? They said, "Well, Austria is corrupt, and its government is not doing well anyway. We do not agree with Hitler, but we will let it slide this time. Besides, Austrians already speak German anyway..."

Then Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. Europe did nothing again. Once more, useful idiots came out of the woodwork making excuses in newspapers for Hitler. They used lines such as "do not poke the bear" and "avoid conflict and de-escalate". They also defended the "right of German people to be angry about how they were treated in 1919". The cowards were quick to hand him an independent country for free, all under the guise of "avoiding unnecessary bloodshed".

Sounds familiar so far?

Then Hitler attacked Poland. This happened after Germany and Poland had signed a "non-aggression agreement" in 1934. Little did anyone know, but it had all been pre-meditated through the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Germany and Russia agreed to split Poland in half and share it like a birthday cake. And in just couple years your countrymen took over most of Europe.

After the war, countries made a pact never to let that shit slide again.

Fast forward 60 years. Georgia happened. Then Crimea. Once again, Europe stayed silent. This was a giant mistake.

It is crystal clear to anyone with more than two brain cells: the full-scale attack on Ukraine was NOT caused by the propaganda jizz-claim that "NATO was moving closer to Putput's borders". It happened because Europe sat silent when a genocidal maniac rolled his tanks into Georgia and then Crimea. The war happened because Russia wanted to swallow another victim of its unchallenged imperialist agenda.

History is repeating itself. It is literally a fucking copy of the 1930s. The difference is that on this timeline, "Hitler is being stopped in Czechoslovakia" type scenario is playing out - i.e. we're not letting Russia take over Ukraine for free. We call this progress.

Because the alternative is shahed drones flying over you in Germany by 2030.

[Ajay0]

On 11/8/2026 at 5:25 AM, k0ver said:

What was the first country Germany attacked right after Hitler took power in 1930s? It was Austria. Do you know what Europe said then? They said, "Well, Austria is corrupt, and its government is not doing well anyway. We do not agree with Hitler, but we will let it slide this time. Besides, Austrians already speak German anyway..."

Then Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia. Europe did nothing again. Once more, useful idiots came out of the woodwork making excuses in newspapers for Hitler. They used lines such as "do not poke the bear" and "avoid conflict and de-escalate". They also defended the "right of German people to be angry about how they were treated in 1919". The cowards were quick to hand him an independent country for free, all under the guise of "avoiding unnecessary bloodshed".

Sounds familiar so far?

Then Hitler attacked Poland. This happened after Germany and Poland had signed a "non-aggression agreement" in 1934. Little did anyone know, but it had all been pre-meditated through the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Germany and Russia agreed to split Poland in half and share it like a birthday cake. And in just couple years your countrymen took over most of Europe.

After the war, countries made a pact never to let that shit slide again.

Fast forward 60 years. Georgia happened. Then Crimea. Once again, Europe stayed silent. This was a giant mistake.

It is crystal clear to anyone with more than two brain cells: the full-scale attack on Ukraine was NOT caused by the propaganda jizz-claim that "NATO was moving closer to Putput's borders". It happened because Europe sat silent when a genocidal maniac rolled his tanks into Georgia and then Crimea. The war happened because Russia wanted to swallow another victim of its unchallenged imperialist agenda.

History is repeating itself. It is literally a fucking copy of the 1930s. The difference is that on this timeline, "Hitler is being stopped in Czechoslovakia" type scenario is playing out - i.e. we're not letting Russia take over Ukraine for free. We call this progress.

Because the alternative is shahed drones flying over you in Germany by 2030.

Lets have a background check...

The two world wars which originated in europe on the basis of military alliances killed over a hundred million people.

The Axis alliances led by the Nazis resulted in provocative invasions which eventually resulted in the second world war. The ending of the second world war led to the cold war.

After the end of the cold war, the military alliance of Nato reneged on its verbal promises not to expand, ' an inch eastward", and expanded all the way to russian borders in eastern europe, geting excellent markets for weapons sales in the process.

It's possible that the greed factor overtook their commitment to their verbal promises and which resulted in their unregulated expansion of Nato.

However, things are not the same as when the two world wars originated in europe, as the present situation involves the possible usage of nuclear weapons.

Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and its nuclear weaponry is targetting the major cities of US and Europe at the moment.

With usage of conventional weaponry, there is chances of much of the population still surviving, and things going back to normal in a few years time after the war.

However, usage of nuclear weaponry means the US, Europe and Russia will become extinct nations, nightmarish radioactive landscapes with null populations forever.

Hence the necessity for greater scrutiny over the geopolitical developments in the US-Europe-Russia theatre.

Edited 1 hour ago by Ajay0