Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[URL]https://weltwoche.ch/daily/selenskyj-zerstoert-die-ukraine-seine-ex-sprecherin-julija-mendel-ueber-ihr-land-korruption-in-kiew-und-den-weg-zum-frieden/[/URL]

Interview in English to Die Welwoche.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;3084393]Notice you haven't addressed a single point of my rebuttal to the article of hers that you posted. [/QUOTE]That's not how propogandists work.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;3084393]You just dumped more emotional quotes from her.[/QUOTE]Now, that's precisely how propogandists work.

There are many speculations about the recent visit of the CIA director to Moscow. One of the items although was disclosed, and it was a note by the US received from the RF to the below events. This time I asked Google AI to sum them up.

In May 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky presided over the high-profile state re-burial of Andriy Melnyk, a prominent WWII-era Ukrainian nationalist leader, and his wife Sofia Fedak-Melnyk. Their remains were exhumed from Luxembourg and transferred to the National Military Memorial Cemetery near Kyiv. This repatriation is part of a broader, state-backed initiative to establish a national pantheon of heroes to honor figures who fought for Ukrainian independence. Melnyk was the leader of a major faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-M). While Kyiv frames him as a historical figure who fought against Soviet oppression, his legacy is deeply controversial due to the OUN's collaboration with Nazi Germany during the war and its links to anti-Semitic rhetoric and the Holocaust. Later in August 2026, the remains of another early OUN leader, Yevhen Konovalets, were similarly repatriated from Rotterdam.

Reaction in Former Allied CountriesThe state honors bestowed upon Melnyk triggered swift and severe backlash from several former Allied nations, sparking diplomatic friction:

Israel: The reaction from Israel was immediate and highly critical. Israel's Foreign Ministry and Yad Vashem issued sharp condemnations, stating that honoring the leader of a movement that collaborated with Nazi Germany "undermines the moral integrity essential to Holocaust remembrance" and compromises historical truth.

Poland: The event, alongside a subsequent decree honoring the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), ignited fury among Polish political and public figures. The OUN and UPA are historically tied to the wartime massacres of tens of thousands of ethnic Poles and Jews in Volhynia. Polish officials warned Kyiv that elevating figures associated with these massacres to a national pantheon could have severe long-term consequences for Ukraine's ambitions to join the European Union.

Russia: Russia used the event to heavily lean into its wartime propaganda narratives. The Russian Foreign Ministry formally summoned Luxembourg's ambassador to protest the exhumation, calling the state-honored re-burial a sign of disrespect toward millions of victims of Nazi Germany. The decision has highlighted a sharp divide between Ukraine's current wartime efforts to consolidate a fiercely anti-Soviet national identity and the international community's insistence on preserving historical accountability regarding WWII atrocities.

In the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, reactions to the state-honored re-burials of Andriy Melnyk and Yevhen Konovalets were highly nuanced. They were characterized by a sharp divide between official diplomatic silence from governments and vocal criticism from media, historians, and political factions. Because these nations are Ukraine's primary military and financial backers in its ongoing war against Russia, the reactions reflected a delicate balancing act:

1. The United States: Strategic Silence vs. Media ConcernOfficial Stance: The USA State Department and official government channels largely avoided making public statements or formal condemnations. Washington prioritized maintaining a united front with Kyiv amid the ongoing conflict, choosing not to publicly scold an ally over internal domestic memory policies. Media and Public Debate: Major USA Publications, such as The New York Times, covered the re-burials by highlighting the deep contradictions of the event. American media noted that while Ukraine is fighting to defend its democracy and align with Western values, elevating historical figures who collaborated with fascist regimes and held anti-Semitic ideologies creates severe friction with Western historical narratives.

2. The United Kingdom: Press Criticism and Diaspora DynamicsOfficial Stance: Similar to the USA, Downing Street remained officially quiet on the matter to avoid fracturing its robust security partnership with Ukraine. Media and Public Backlash: The reaction was more pronounced in British public discourse and independent media. Right-wing and nationalist-leaning platforms, alongside left-wing anti-fascist organizations, expressed deep unease. Organizations representing European diaspora communities in the UK (such as British-Polish groups) openly questioned whether celebrating OUN leaders with state and church honors risked mainstreaming far-right historical figures.

3. France: Domestic Political WeaponizationOfficial Stance: The French government refrained from issuing official diplomatic protests against Kyiv, viewing the creation of the National Pantheon as a domestic Ukrainian affair. Political Fallout: In France, the event was heavily seized upon by political opposition figures, particularly within the European Parliament. French MEPs, such as Thierry Mariani, publicly slammed the European Union's leadership for staying silent. Critics in France argued that the EU was exhibiting "double standards" by aggressively policing historical revisionism within member states while giving Ukraine a pass on honoring WWII-era collaborators for the sake of geopolitical convenience.

USA just suck Putin, wishing for business with him, when he makes business with China. Fortunately EU, UK and Canada to support Ukraine, when Putin threaten with soldiers, people to make them vote for him, dictator fantasying about ex USSR when he was nothing in KGB.

[URL]https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines-true-history-how-nationalist-movements-paved-ukraines-way-to-freedom/[/URL]

"Obviously, there were anti-Semitic Ukrainians, he said, adding that some Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with the Nazis. But for many Ukrainians, the issue wasn't racial but rather political, Motyl said. The question was: Are they, or are they not, loyal to Ukraine? The nationalists weren't out to exterminate, they were out to combat their political enemies, he said while acknowledging the presence of anti-Semites in the ranks of the OUN. To put it a little crudely, but not inaccurately: Ukrainians were peasants and Jews were kind of the middle class and the upper class were either Poles or Russians, he said".

"Ukraine's nationalist heroes are thus no angels, but their main defining and uniting feature is their unbreakable commitment to the struggle for an independent state, scholars agree. Ukrainians will generally choose heroes that are strong, forceful, and that don't break easily, Shkandrij explained. That's why Bandera, as an unbreakable force, a person who never gave up that's why they would find that fight attractive".

Over Ukraine's history, both Russia and Poland have been enemies, so it's not a big surprise to find that Ukraine has heroes that both those countries don't like. And, especially during World War Two, some nationalist groups allied with the Nazis because Russia was seen as the bigger enemy. One relevant point is that many of Ukraine's nationalists had fought for independence against the USSR after the overthrow of the Tsar. In that context, anything to help fight Russia would not have been rejected.

With respect to collaboration with the Nazis in the arrest of Ukrainian Jews, here's an excerpt from an AI search summary:

"Historical Context: The actions of Ukrainian nationalists during this period are often viewed through the lens of their broader goals for Ukrainian independence, which included the elimination of perceived enemies, including Jews, Poles, and Russians. This complex history continues to be a subject of research and discussion among historians".

As far as the reaction of various countries is concerned, it's laughable how many are ready to throw stones when they live in glass houses. Russia, the UK, and France were all colonial powers and, as such, responsible for numerous violent suppressions of independence (I. E. , nationalist) movements. And Israel? Check out Menachem Begin's actions, labeled terrorism by many, in his nationalist struggle. In the US, take your pick of the heroes and villains from both sides of the Civil War. For anyone who thinks the North were unequivocally the good guys, check out Sherman's scorched earth tactics during his March to the Sea.

The bottom line is that history is rarely black and white, and those who love to point out what they perceive to be the sins of others almost never turn the lens upon themselves.

When Putin is kind of Stalin son, but Ukraine was not a country when nazis killed millions of soviets. Stalin Putin fantazies about new USSR and becoming new Tsar, Putin 1, when large majority of Ukrainians hate him and want their independent country, when many Russians ran away, abroad, from dictator who fuck elections and kill who oppose.

This is an article from the drugged out clown's former press secretary.

Zelensky's strategy is national suicide.

https://spectator.com/article/zelenskys-strategy-is-national-suicide

For every 1 birth in Ukraine, there are 4 people dying.

Half of Ukraine's population from 1991 is now gone.

For the remaining Ukrainian population, half are over retirement age.

This is the death of a nation.

The collective west that took Ukraine down the primrose path is pure evil.

[QUOTE=BloodRed;3085518]This is an article from the drugged out clown's former press secretary.

Zelensky's strategy is national suicide.

https://spectator.com/article/zelenskys-strategy-is-national-suicide

For every 1 birth in Ukraine, there are 4 people dying.

Half of Ukraine's population from 1991 is now gone.

For the remaining Ukrainian population, half are over retirement age.

This is the death of a nation..[/QUOTE]Funny how a "dead nation" after all these years is still the one making the Kremlin write opinion pieces instead of victory speeches. 100's of 1000's of casualties later, 40% of the Black Sea fleet down, 45% of your oil refining capacity knocked out, 44% of your budget currently spent on war, while your population is on edge it all remains quite embarrassing for what was supposed to be the second most capable military in the world.

War time consistently craters births while spiking deaths. The 50% figure is false. According to the UN roughly 25% of Ukrainians are over age 60. The rest of your content and much more was addressed here recently in my reply to the Mendel article from the Spectator. You're welcome to try and break down my rebuttal, but heads up, it will require more gray matter than your usual chest thumping, as you repeat the same tired fallacies over and over while completely ignoring the points previously made by your opponents. Here's the link, and it's post #4522.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;3084323][URL]https://spectator.com/article/zelenskys-strategy-is-national-suicide/?edition=us[/URL]

Here's my response to the Iuliia Mendel article recently posted by Questner. It's linked again above.[/QUOTE]

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty[/URL]

The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, also known as the "Big Treaty", was an agreement signed in 1997 between Ukraine and Russia, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.

Respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. The crucial factor. So, what happened between 1998 and 2002 (the year of the first step of an attempt to drag Ukraine into NATO)? Was it a 1998 default? Was it 9/11 and its aftermath? Was it a dawn of Gas Wars? You tell me. I can assure you no Ukrainian at that time discussed it at the kitchen table or begged Rada to join.

As I posted previously: "There are plenty of critics and supporters of both Zelenskyy and Trump who have been consistent over time, which is the norm for people acting on long-held principles. But extreme flip-flopping is not normal behavior".

For anyone who bothers to follow the Ukrainian press, there is no shortage of criticism of Zelenskyy. Here's my personal checklist for separating the credible from the non-credible:

1. Have a consistent track record. By that I mean that a journalist, or other critic, has a history of published articles or posts laying out the principles they use in evaluating Zelenskyy or other officials.

2. Be willing to debate and defend one's position even in a forum where there is vigorous opposition.

3. Don't be an obvious Russian shill who parrots Kremlin talking points.

4. For anyone who claims to represent a significant segment of the Ukrainian population, rather than simply one's own opinion, provide evidence to back up that claim.

Mendel fails every test, as far as I can tell. She's a flip-flopper, which is the opposite of consistency. Since she's been on her anti-Zelenskyy crusade, I've only heard of appearances on Russia-friendly outlets like Tucker Carlson. In fact, I can't find any recent meaningful interactions (interviews or articles) with Ukrainian media since her Carlson appearance. If she really has the best interests of Ukraine at heart, why is she avoiding the best and most direct ways of speaking to them? And, as far as repeating Russian talking points, the Kyiv Independent article I linked to in my earlier post does a good job of detailing that point. Finally, I've seen no credible evidence that Mendel is speaking for anyone other than herself.

Here's the bottom line: If you're on the jury in a court trial, you're tasked with evaluating the credibility of a witness. Once you find that a witness lacks credibility, what they have to say becomes irrelevant because they've failed the basic test of being believable.

The simple point being that it's a complete waste of time, effort, and bandwidth to try to debate or analyze anything that comes from a non-credible source. There are credible critics out there, but they unfortunately don't fall into the kind of sympathetic echo chamber the pro-Putin crowd would probably prefer.

[QUOTE=Questner;3085684][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty[/URL]

The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, also known as the "Big Treaty", was an agreement signed in 1997 between Ukraine and Russia, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.

Respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other. The crucial factor. So, what happened between 1998 and 2002 (the year of the first step of an attempt to drag Ukraine into NATO)? Was it a 1998 default? Was it 9/11 and its aftermath? Was it a dawn of Gas Wars? You tell me. I can assure you no Ukrainian at that time discussed it at the kitchen table or begged Rada to join.[/QUOTE]There was no push to join NATO at that time. Ukraine wanted interoperability — learning to fight and plan alongside NATO forces for peacekeeping and crisis response, not to join the alliance. They joined Partnership for Peace in '94, the first ex-Soviet state to do it. The exercises — Peace Shield, Sea Breeze, Cooperative Partner — were about common tactics, command procedures, and logistics so Ukrainian units could plug into NATO-led missions. They also sent troops to Bosnia and Kosovo under NATO command, which brought money, training, and equipment upgrades Ukraine couldn't afford on its own. Kuchma's multi-vector play: keep Russia close with the Friendship Treaty, keep the West engaged with exercises, and stay out of anyone's exclusive orbit.

What actually brought on Ukraine's quest for NATO membership was the Orange Revolution. Yushchenko took power in 2005 wanting a clean break from Moscow, and in January 2008 he, the prime minister, and the parliament speaker sent a joint letter formally requesting the action plan. Bush backed it; Germany and France blocked it.

P.S. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia applied, queued up, wanted in, none were dragged kicking and screaming. Ukraine asked for a membership action plan in 2008 and applied for real in 2022.

Ukraine's first push toward NATO membership was actually under Kuchma in 2002 after a policy shift. Efforts post 2004 represented an acceleration. Still in no cases was Ukraine "dragged" by any external forces. The same applies to every other Central and Eastern Euro country that expressed interest in membership.

There's a lot of time and effort spent arguing about whether or not commitments were made to the USSR, and later Russia, with respect to NATO expansion and whether various countries (such as Ukraine) should be barred from NATO membership.

I would respectfully submit that these discussions overlook two essential points.

1. Russia has had a de facto veto over Ukraine membership in NATO for many years. By its own charter, NATO requires unanimous agreement before a new member can be allowed in. Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there were a number of NATO members who would absolutely have blocked Ukrainian membership. That includes not only overtly Russia-friendly countries, like Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria, but also countries like Italy, Germany, and France who would have blocked it on "stability" grounds. There are other countries that might have blocked, for their own reasons (like Poland), but the point is that there was essentially zero chance that Ukraine would ever have attained NATO membership. The only way that might have changed would have been if Russia had altered its position.

Another relevant issue is that involvement in unresolved territorial or jurisdictional disputes is a disqualifying factor for NATO membership. By virtue of Russia's occupation and claims in Crimea and Donbas, they have a separate de facto veto over Ukrainian membership in NATO. No resolution = no membership, and Russia directly controls their side of that circumstance. There is little or nothing Ukraine can do unilaterally to affect any of the above.

2. As with unanimous consent being required for NATO membership decisions, a similar unanimity is required for NATO military action. Since its creation in 1949, NATO military forces have been involved in combat primarily during three specific operations (Serbia-Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the no-fly zone around Libya). None of these were a direct threat against either the USSR or Russia. The idea that unanimous consent would ever have been given for NATO military action against Russia is simply ludicrous on its face. Of course, if there is ever a need to defend NATO against direct Russian aggression, that's a different scenario. But the simple point is that there has never been any realistic possibility that NATO would be able to garner unanimous consent for any non-defensive action against Russia. All the same countries as in #1 (above), and probably even more, would never have agreed.

Bottom line: Ukraine by itself has never posed a threat to Russia. It's smaller in size, population, economy, etc. Any claim by nuclear-armed Russia to be fearful of Ukraine is ludicrous on its face. Russia knows this, so it had to construct a paranoid NATO-threat mythology. But Russia's problem is that this myth is completely debunked by all the points above: NATO's multiple unanimous consent requirements + multiple ways Russia (by itself and via proxies) can exercise a de facto veto over Ukraine in NATO and over any NATO military action against Russia. IMO, Russia's real problem with NATO is that it prevents Russia from acting with impunity. At some point Russia might like to take action against the Baltics, for example, and NATO has a deterrent effect that Russia wishes didn't exist.

[QUOTE=Jmsuttr;3085685]Here's the bottom line: If you're on the jury in a court trial, you're tasked with evaluating the credibility of a witness. Once you find that a witness lacks credibility, what they have to say becomes irrelevant because they've failed the basic test of being believable.

The simple point being that it's a complete waste of time, effort, and bandwidth to try to debate or analyze anything that comes from a non-credible source. There are credible critics out there, but they unfortunately don't fall into the kind of sympathetic echo chamber the pro-Putin crowd would probably prefer.[/QUOTE]I'll push back a little. Mendel is highly biased yes, but her generic Russian talking points are well circulating in American discourse. It's essentially a free for all, unlike the Cold War years when Soviet propaganda was subjected to a lot of institutional monitoring. Today's angle can move under different banners but the script is the same. The common denominator is the tribal signaling through buzzwords like "deep state" and "military industrial complex. " They rarely attempt to even define those terms or prove any causal relationships between that and the start of any wars, yet we know they've bought the tee shirt. Russia's victimization is embraced, while its own "military-industrial complex" and crimes against its own people are completely ignored. Given how well this all has circulated it needs to be called out with counter information.

I'm going to indulge for a moment and give the super short version of the pleas from the Russia sympathizers:

It's time for Ukraine to take a "peace deal" because they can only put pregnant women and old men with canes out of the battlefield. "Surrender and save yourselves!" That's essentially it. The script has been the same for over four years. The failed predictions are legion.

The rebuttals are partly in my previous post which I'll link again below, and I'll restate some of the content here.

1. Russia has never offered anything less than demilitarization, neutrality, recognition of annexed territory, and army caps that would leave Ukraine unable to defend itself. That's not a border adjustment. It's handing Putin the keys and hoping he doesn't come back for the furniture. That while 77% of Ukrainians want to fight on, only 12% want to give in to Russian demands.

2. Ukraine, a supposed defeated country is doing a lot of damage. Funny how a "dead nation" after all these years is still the one making the Kremlin write opinion pieces instead of victory speeches. Half a million Russian dead later, 40% of the Black Sea fleet down, 45% of Russian oil refining capacity knocked out, 44% of the Russian budget currently spent on war, while the population remains on edge it all remains quite embarrassing for what was supposed to be the second most capable military in the world.

3. Mendel is recycling the same Russian talking point that's been wrong since 2022, that Ukraine's been running out of men, while the front is still holding. Ukraine's pool of conscription-age men is small — around four million in the territory it still holds — and Russia's is roughly ten times larger. But attrition is not a pure headcount contest. Ukraine has been inflicting disproportionate losses with drones, long-range strikes, and cheaper systems. Russian casualties have run two to three times higher than Ukraine's for most of the war, and in early twenty twenty-six the ratio climbed towards eight to one in some estimates. Russia is also struggling to replace its own losses at the same rate. She's calling for surrender at the exact moment the attrition is working against the side she wants to surrender to.

My thorough version is linked here. Click "View original post. " It remains entirely untouched by the Russia sympathizers.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;3084323][URL]https://spectator.com/article/zelenskys-strategy-is-national-suicide/?edition=us[/URL]

Here's my response to the Iuliia Mendel article recently posted by Questner. It's linked again above. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Paulie97;3085846]I'll push back a little. Mendel is highly biased yes, but her generic Russian talking points are well circulating in American discourse.[/QUOTE]Critics are what they are, and Russian sympathizers are what they are. Mendel claims insider knowledge but she left government service in 2021, over 5 years ago. Then, after leaving, she turned into a fierce Zelenskyy critic. That puts Mendel squarely in the same category as an ex-wife, disgruntled former employee, or ex-business associate. And, when such people do a complete 180 turn, flip-flopping from supporter to denigrator, no reasonable person would take anything they say at face value. That's because the very act of flip-flopping is prima facie evidence of a personal agenda and / or vendetta against the person they formerly supported.

So, other critics can stand or fall on the merits of their arguments, or they might stand or fall based on other factors, but Mendel has disqualified herself by her own actions. Just as no reasonable juror would give any credibility to an ex-wife's negative testimony against her ex-husband, absent extremely corroborating evidence, in the same way Mendel is a thoroughly unreliable and non-credible witness. Which, as I stated in the subject line, makes her irrelevant.

Debating an argument's substance, or lack thereof, is a separate matter. But when the very credibility of a witness is the central issue then they haven't even passed the threshold requirements to be taken seriously. Again, IMO, debating anything Mendel-related is a waste of time, effort, and bandwidth. If someone brings up Mendel in a discussion with me, I simply reply that I believe her like I'd believe your ex-wife. It's good for a laugh and it gets the (non-credible = irrelevant) point across.

P.S. Part of the Russian "Firehose of Propaganda" strategy is to put disposable shills out there, like Mendel, and then discard them when they crash and burn, or lose their usefulness. Energy expended against such a shill is energy wasted, as Russia has an unending supply, just like a matryoshka doll.