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 yesterday at 04:29 AM by Ajay0

[k0ver]

19 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

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.

"... commitment to their verbal promises... " - firstly, this is highly contested. But in a grand scheme of things this might be one of the most pathetic arguments yet. This claim and the "encroaching NATO" arguments are truly absurd. Especially if you're intellectually honest and contest with "encroaching Russia" pushing warlords and tanks into Europe's land and culture for 100+ years.

Besides, even if the "verbal promises" were real, should I list some of the verbal promises Russia made to many of its (now swallowed up) neighbours? The moment there is a historically documented event such as Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and countless "non-aggression" and "non-meddling" pacts tossed away like used toilet paper, there is not a single independent country in Europe that gives two shits about what some long-dead buffoon said to another deceased fat-fuck behind closed doors on a meeting they weren't invited in. Truly!
- Everyone knows that these carefully crafted legal documents, handshakes and promises get quickly dismissed the moment imperialist tyrant has a hissy fit one bad Monday morning. In the survival game there are no gentlemen's agreements, because there is no place for gentlemen at the survival table.

This is why all these meek arguments seem so pathetic to most people involved:
- For Ukraine it is existential crisis. If they fail to fight back with everything they have they will be completely exterminated. There will be no Ukrainian identity. It is unthinkable for a country with more than 1,000 years of history to be pushed around like this or forced to give up land for nothing. It is absolutely unfathomable.
- For Europe, this is also an existential crisis. If we do not help Ukraine fight off this genocidal maniac, the war will spread to the streets of the rest of the continent. It will then spread across the world. Ukraine is the final barricade holding back the last remnants of the Bolshevik revolutionaries. This is their final attempt before they are reduced to a stain in the record of human history. It is also the last place where this can be settled with your "conventional weapons".

If they move one centimetre too close to the Eiffel Tower or London Bridge, all bets are off.

Edited 6 hours ago by k0ver

[Ajay0]

7 hours ago, k0ver said:

"... commitment to their verbal promises... " - firstly, this is highly contested. But in a grand scheme of things this might be one of the most pathetic arguments yet. This claim and the "encroaching NATO" arguments are truly absurd. Especially if you're intellectually honest and contest with "encroaching Russia" pushing warlords and tanks into Europe's land and culture for 100+ years.

Besides, even if the "verbal promises" were real, should I list some of the verbal promises Russia made to many of its (now swallowed up) neighbours? The moment there is a historically documented event such as Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and countless "non-aggression" and "non-meddling" pacts tossed away like used toilet paper, there is not a single independent country in Europe that gives two shits about what some long-dead buffoon said to another deceased fat-fuck behind closed doors on a meeting they weren't invited in. Truly!
- Everyone knows that these carefully crafted legal documents, handshakes and promises get quickly dismissed the moment imperialist tyrant has a hissy fit one bad Monday morning. In the survival game there are no gentlemen's agreements, because there is no place for gentlemen at the survival table.

This is why all these meek arguments seem so pathetic to most people involved:
- For Ukraine it is existential crisis. If they fail to fight back with everything they have they will be completely exterminated. There will be no Ukrainian identity. It is unthinkable for a country with more than 1,000 years of history to be pushed around like this or forced to give up land for nothing. It is absolutely unfathomable.
- For Europe, this is also an existential crisis. If we do not help Ukraine fight off this genocidal maniac, the war will spread to the streets of the rest of the continent. It will then spread across the world. Ukraine is the final barricade holding back the last remnants of the Bolshevik revolutionaries. This is their final attempt before they are reduced to a stain in the record of human history. It is also the last place where this can be settled with your "conventional weapons".

If they move one centimetre too close to the Eiffel Tower or London Bridge, all bets are off.

The Soviets under communism may have synced with imperialism due to ideology but the present state of poor conditions and national ideology does not allow russian imperialistic pursuits. 

Also the world is aware of the western leaders completely dismissing verbal promises made to Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and this is why there is much official and clandestine support for Russia from other countries, hoping that the russians would keep the warmongering west with a history of imperialism in its place.

By reneging on its promises and expansion of Nato to the very borders of nuclear-armed Russia, and thereby provoking war, the western leadership has cut a sorry unethical figure in the rest of the world.

Nato countries only constitute 12 % of humanity , and there are also many protests in nato countries over the war in ukraine.

BRICS countries itself constitute over 50 % of humanity and is backing russia as well, and so the russians can fight for a long period of time without any issues.

Hence I would say unregulated nato expansion has made many military-industrial complex capitalists rich and happy, but it has also unnecessarily disturbed the geopolitical environment in europe , which had only a small time period of peace after the two devastating world wars.

Europe is the fastest warming continent on earth due to global warming, which is creating weather disturbances like heat waves killing thousands of europeans in recent times, compounded by the many thousands dying of hypothermia as well during the cold winter periods.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/23/heat-killed-staggering-50000-people-european-cities-this-summer-experts

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/12/europe-worlds-fastest-warming-continent-climate-crisis-explainer

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cold-weather-deaths-england-ukhsa-b3071388.html

So obviously, europe's greatest concern should not be Russia (suffering from poverty, decreasing/ageing population due to low fertility levels and ageing infrastructure), but its own weather conditions which are killing thousands of europeans every year. 

Russia having 20 % of the world's forests also ranks first in the world in terms of carbon sink removing around 1150 million tonnes of co2 from the world's atmosphere.  Damage to russian forests in war would have heavy repurcussions in european climate issues as well.

The western military industrial complex capitalists are immune to changing weather conditions due to the excellent housing conditions they live in, but this is not the case for the western middle and lower classes and growing body of homeless  who have to beat the heat and cold with a lot of good luck and nothing else other than that.

Edited 1 hour ago by Ajay0