What Offense Did the Ukrainian People Commit That Caused Them to Be Bombed into Oblivion by The Russian Military at the Command of Putin?

[TruthNotBS]

Did you read the link dumbass?

Your prior claims that US does not give a shit about Irael's illegal settlements are clearly false.

They don't give a shit. You like to insult people, calling them "morons", but you're clearly the fucking imbecile. A gullible, bootlicking retard. Sure in press conferences, American government officials will pay lip service to international law and how Israel shouldn't be expanding settlements in Palestinian territories and how the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal. Are you so gullible and dumb, to believe that this is anything other than an act, or for political expediency and propaganda? Look at how the US always votes in the UN. It always votes against any resolution condemning Israel's illegal occupation and it continues to pour billions of dollars into it, in weapons, money..etc. You're an idiot.

My brother lives in a southern state, that has a law in the books, prohibiting anyone who conducts business with the state government to be in favor of BDS i.e. Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, vs Israhell. My brother owns a trucking company with a significant fleet, that was going to bid for an important contract with the state government and they forced him to sign that anti-BDS document in order to bid for the contract. That's the level of control that Israel, the Jewish Zionist apartheid state has over our country. My brother signed it, because he's not political, he doesn't give a shit about politics. He signed it, but he told me because he knows I'm an anti-Zionist activist, that he had to sign that shit to bid for the contract. His eyes were beginning to open as to how much control these Zionists have over our country.

Our government doesn't give a rats ass about Palestinians, or international law, our country does whatever is in our perceived interest, even if it violates international law. It's the American ruling elites that pull the strings, not Joe the plumber or my brother, the truck driver and now business owner. They don't pull the strings, the average Joe American just wants to pay the bills and put his kids through college. The ruling class pulls the strings and starts all of the wars. Has us on the brink of nuclear annihilation, fighting WW3 vs Russia over Ukraine and Taiwan. You liberals are fucking...crazy. You'll destroy the world, all life on this planet, for the sake of "democracy" in Ukraine and Taiwan and of course, despite you liberals denying it, because Putin doesn't allow gay pride parades in Moscow. You're all fucking nuts.

 

[whitehall]

Ukraine is a crooked little country more aligned with Russia than NATO and sometimes shit happens. If you ask yourself what did Yugoslavia deserve to be bombed by Bill Clinton you might learn that it was a distraction from his peculiar sexual appetite but like all democrats he had the support of the mainstream media.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Now I KNOW you are Russian sock puppet.

Real Americans don't bring up mean-nothing stuff like this as an argument for something. Leaders in open democracies are often confronted like that but to Russians a sight of someone openly talking back to Dear Leader is hard to phanthom.

You have no argument, nothing. All you do is insult people and accuse them of being Russian spies or whatever. Dumb. Go grow a brain and a conscience, you fucking retard.

 

[theHawk]

I've already refuted at least one.

What other one specifically do you think is not refutable?

Libya.


Go.

 

[Marener]

Nice revisionist history. He wasn’t “voted out”, he was removed from office by force, by an insurrection.

Parliament tried to then impeach him after the fact, and that failed since they didn’t have the votes. So then they had a sham trial where they charged him with lesser crimes, but he had already been removed from office by the coup. So no, he wasn’t “voted out”. That is a total lie.

Removed from office by a vote.

Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych

Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych and hold early presidential elections on 25 May.

www.bbc.com

None of you losers deny he was super corrupt. Russian stooges always are.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Removed from office by a vote.

Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych

Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych and hold early presidential elections on 25 May.

www.bbc.com

None of you losers deny he was super corrupt. Russian stooges always are.
s deny he was super corrupt. Russian stooges always are.

The claim that Viktor Yanukovych was legally voted out of office in 2014 doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when you look at the actual process and Ukraine’s constitutional requirements.

1. Illegal Process: According to the Ukrainian Constitution, a president can only be removed from office through a specific impeachment process that involves a thorough investigation, a ruling from the Constitutional Court, and a supermajority vote (three-fourths of the parliament). In Yanukovych’s case, none of this happened. Instead, the Ukrainian parliament held a rushed vote to remove him, claiming he had "abandoned" his duties. This was a clear violation of the constitutional procedure for impeachment, making the vote legally dubious from the start.
2. Lack of Quorum: The vote to remove Yanukovych didn’t even meet the constitutional threshold. The Ukrainian Constitution required 338 votes in favor to legally oust the president, but the vote only garnered 328 votes—falling short of the necessary number. In any functioning legal system, that should have nullified the vote, but it was pushed through regardless, with no regard for constitutional legitimacy.
3. External Pressure and Violence: Yanukovych fled Kyiv due to escalating violence and threats to his safety amid the Euromaidan protests, but he did not formally resign or abdicate power. The vote to remove him came at a time when the country was in chaos, and many members of parliament were absent or intimidated by the violent situation. This wasn’t a calm, lawful, or democratic transition—it was a rushed and chaotic power grab.
4. Western Involvement: There is also significant evidence that Western powers played a role in facilitating the regime change. U.S. officials, such as Victoria Nuland, were caught on tape discussing who should lead Ukraine after Yanukovych’s removal, suggesting the West was deeply involved in orchestrating the events that led to his ousting. This further undermines the claim that his removal was a purely legal or democratic process.

In short, Yanukovych’s removal violated Ukraine’s own constitutional processes, lacked the required number of votes, and took place under extreme political pressure, violence, and external influence. Calling this a "legal" vote is simply a convenient fiction to justify what was, in reality, an unlawful regime change.

 

[Marener]

The claim that Viktor Yanukovych was legally voted out of office in 2014 doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when you look at the actual process and Ukraine’s constitutional requirements.

1. Illegal Process: According to the Ukrainian Constitution, a president can only be removed from office through a specific impeachment process that involves a thorough investigation, a ruling from the Constitutional Court, and a supermajority vote (three-fourths of the parliament). In Yanukovych’s case, none of this happened. Instead, the Ukrainian parliament held a rushed vote to remove him, claiming he had "abandoned" his duties. This was a clear violation of the constitutional procedure for impeachment, making the vote legally dubious from the start.
2. Lack of Quorum: The vote to remove Yanukovych didn’t even meet the constitutional threshold. The Ukrainian Constitution required 338 votes in favor to legally oust the president, but the vote only garnered 328 votes—falling short of the necessary number. In any functioning legal system, that should have nullified the vote, but it was pushed through regardless, with no regard for constitutional legitimacy.
3. External Pressure and Violence: Yanukovych fled Kyiv due to escalating violence and threats to his safety amid the Euromaidan protests, but he did not formally resign or abdicate power. The vote to remove him came at a time when the country was in chaos, and many members of parliament were absent or intimidated by the violent situation. This wasn’t a calm, lawful, or democratic transition—it was a rushed and chaotic power grab.
4. Western Involvement: There is also significant evidence that Western powers played a role in facilitating the regime change. U.S. officials, such as Victoria Nuland, were caught on tape discussing who should lead Ukraine after Yanukovych’s removal, suggesting the West was deeply involved in orchestrating the events that led to his ousting. This further undermines the claim that his removal was a purely legal or democratic process.

In short, Yanukovych’s removal violated Ukraine’s own constitutional processes, lacked the required number of votes, and took place under extreme political pressure, violence, and external influence. Calling this a "legal" vote is simply a convenient fiction to justify what was, in reality, an unlawful regime change.

Yanukovych was a corrupt president. Top to bottom.

 

[theHawk]

Removed from office by a vote.

Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych

Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych and hold early presidential elections on 25 May.

www.bbc.com

None of you losers deny he was super corrupt. Russian stooges always are.

Wrong. The charges they used to vote on were not following their own constitution.

He was already removed from office by threat of violence.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Yanukovych was a corrupt president. Top to bottom.

Oh, is that the metric now? The others weren't "corrupt", just Yanukovych, how convenient. Poroshenko wasn't corrupt? Zelensky isn't corrupt? Your attempt to justify the coup is pathetic. Why should the Russo-Ukrainians of the Donbas accept your coup government? To hell with people like you. You should've waited for the next election and elected your new president who supposedly won't be corrupt, right? Russia did the right thing, saving the Russians in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. To hell with you and your ilk.

 

[theHawk]

Yanukovych was a corrupt president. Top to bottom.

I think it’s safe to say all Ukrainian presidents are corrupt, top to bottom.

Let’s just not pretend the government installed after him was legitimate.

Poroshenko was a US installed puppet, which is what caused the civil war to start.

Why is it so hard for lefties to admit that Ukraine is divided and things would be far better off if the country was split and allow the people to go their separate ways? The war would be over if negotiations were allowed to happen.

 

[AntonToo]

My brother lives in a southern state, that has a law in the books, prohibiting anyone who conducts business with the state government to be in favor of BDS i.e. Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, vs Israhell. My brother owns a trucking company with a significant fleet, that was going to bid for an important contract with the state government and they forced him to sign that anti-BDS document in order to bid for the contract. That's the level of control that Israel, the Jewish Zionist apartheid state has over our country.

You want to talk about Israel? Go start another thread instead of diluting this one about Ukraine and Russia.

 

[AntonToo]

I think it’s safe to say all Ukrainian presidents are corrupt, top to bottom.

Bullshit. There have been no credible corruption allegations against Zelensky and he has proven himself a patriot dedicated to his country.

 

[AntonToo]

Libya.


Go.

Inches of Libian territory annexed by America - ZERO.

America's military involvement in Libya were consistent with UN Security Council resolution 1973.

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on...

press.un.org

Questions?

 

[IM2]

Putin tells Trump a lie. Trump repeats the lie Putin tels. Trump worshippers repeat what Trump tells them.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You want to talk about Israel? Go start another thread instead of diluting this one about Ukraine and Russia.

You don't give a shit if Israel violates international law, you're just whining about Russia supposedly breaking international law. You fucking hypocrite.

 

[Lesh]

Your lame ass digital flag is “supporting” a dictator who cancelled elections and remained in office after his term expired.

You know, the exact thing you lefty twats accuse Trump of wanting to do.

WE are not at war.

 

[AntonToo]

You don't give a shit if Israel violates international law, you're just whining about Russia breaking international law. You fucking hypocrite.

again, you want to talk about Israel (a country that is not America, Russia or Ukraine) then go start another thread.

not interested in your reaching, irrelavant what-aboutisms.

 

[AntonToo]

Why is it so hard for lefties to admit that Ukraine is divided and things would be far better off if the country was split and allow the people to go their separate ways? The war would be over if negotiations were allowed to happen.

Umm because it's bullshit. Ukraine has a clear constitutional path for region successions.

It was never followed or applied for by any regions. Instead, they were millitarily taken over by Russians, who conducted lawless "referendums" at a barrel of a gun.

 

[Lesh]

Nice revisionist history. He wasn’t “voted out”, he was removed from office by force, by an insurrection.

Parliament tried to then impeach him after the fact, and that failed since they didn’t have the votes. So then they had a sham trial where they charged him with lesser crimes, but he had already been removed from office by the coup. So no, he wasn’t “voted out”. That is a total lie.

Oddly you have no problem with Putin arbitrarily changing Russian election laws to remain in power for going on three decades now

 

[TruthNotBS]

Inches of Libian territory annexed by America - ZERO.

America's military involvement in Libya were consistent with UN Security Council resolution 1973.

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on...

press.un.org

Questions?

Sure, the no-fly zone was authorized to "protect civilians," but what actually happened in Libya was far from just that. The U.S. and NATO used this resolution as a blank check for regime change, going way beyond the mandate of protecting civilians and directly leading to the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi.

1. Regime Change, Not Civilian Protection: The U.S. and NATO twisted the intent of the UN resolution, which was supposed to be about protecting civilians, into a full-scale military intervention aimed at ousting Gaddafi. The UN never authorized regime change, and yet that’s exactly what happened. The result? Libya went from a relatively stable, oil-rich nation to a failed state teeming with terrorist groups, civil war, and human trafficking. Libya today is a chaotic mess, with rival factions fighting for control, widespread violence, and an economy in ruins. So much for "protecting civilians," huh?
2. Support for Extremist Groups: Let’s not forget that the U.S. and NATO backed Islamic extremist groups to help overthrow Gaddafi. These groups, some with ties to Al-Qaeda, were empowered and armed by Western powers. The removal of Gaddafi wasn’t followed by a peaceful transition to democracy, as the West loves to claim—it led to complete instability. The extremists the U.S. and its allies supported didn’t protect civilians; they contributed to the chaos and violence that followed.
3. Gaddafi’s Libya vs. Post-Gaddafi Libya: Under Gaddafi, Libya had one of the highest standards of living in Africa. Free education, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and oil wealth shared with the population—these were the realities in Libya before 2011. Was Gaddafi an authoritarian? Sure, but Libya was a functioning state, not the terrorist-infested warzone it is today. The U.S. didn’t bring democracy to Libya—they destroyed the country’s stability, leaving a power vacuum that’s been filled by warlords and militias.
4. Hypocrisy: And speaking of "protecting civilians," why does the U.S. selectively intervene in countries like Libya, but ignore real humanitarian crises when its interests aren’t at stake? If this was truly about protecting human life, where’s the intervention in places like Gaza or Yemen, where U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is committing actual crimes against humanity with U.S.-supplied weapons? The intervention in Libya had nothing to do with human rights, it was about getting rid of Gaddafi, a leader who refused to play ball with the U.S. and NATO when it came to its economy, resources, and foreign policy.

The result of U.S. involvement in Libya is unquestionably disastrous. Libya is now a failed state in perpetual conflict, with no functioning government, a hotbed for terrorist activity, and thousands of civilians caught in the crossfire. So no, Anton, the intervention wasn’t justified, it was a catastrophic failure cloaked in the guise of humanitarianism. You're a fucking piece of shit imperialist.