Unable to load image
/h/slavshit House Edgy
Arestovitch Das/Ihr Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦  11mo ago (text post) 513 thread views #230617

Wikipedia pages in English are often unreliable

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17030533594894514.webp

Like from some magical reason on English page Ukraine is still fighting alone without support while even khohol page is more honest

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17030533600944793.webp

Also funny how battle of bakhmut ended in German language

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1703053360371648.webp

The Israel Wikipedia pages fights must be even fiercer but I don't know Arabic or Jewish

11
New Old Top Bottom Controversial Random
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

View entire discussion

I gave you source and the source is law maker.

And I don't know much about UK part of ww2 to talk about it.

But reality is US is targeting Russian assets and then destroying them with US weapons that's a direct hostile action and there are special nato forces in Ukraine and generals

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17030971576176333.webp

I made already a post in June when Russia killed tons of foreigners operators in khramatorsk.

If all what nato does against Russia is not belligerent then that word has no meaning

What Belarus did is let Russian use its territory and sell some weapons its a lot less what west did and west says Ukraine destroyed NS2 so how could Ukraine do this from its own territory ?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From what you gave, they're arguing that they are a "belligerent" (according to some vague definition) because they gave "too much" in money and resources. If that's your standard, then the US and Soviet Union were in a Hot War, not a Cold War, because they were belligerents.

>your standard is unreasonable when logically applied to historic events

Ask yourself: when did the US join WW2 as a belligerent? It wasn't 1942 because they were giving the British weapons, even destroyers!, money, and material as early as 1939. Every reasonable historian will think that's an r-slured argument.

>your standard is unreasonable when logically applied to historic events

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If that's your standard, then the US and Soviet Union were in a Hot War, not a Cold War, because they were belligerents.

Wasn't that politician kitty walking similar how now west is gating like kitty telling its not part of it ?

Also thank you for not answering my question because you have no arguments

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyconfused:

The West was part of the Cold War....

I already repeated my argument. They're not belligerents in the commonly understood sense of that word.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There no war in Ukraine by common international sense

But last question

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1703099730611203.webp

Should nato be included as “supported” here ?

And ain't funny you called Belarus belligerent when it's written “supposed”

So you were ok to mental gymnastics your way to say oh Belarus is belligerent but west ain't :marseybrainlet:

See Germans are smarter

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1703099797433298.webp

So again thanks showing me the western hypocrisy. You so smart that you were ok to rush ad Belarus as belligerent as it suits your agenda and then drop words as “logic” :marseyxd:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Looks like "parties to the conflict" or "participating Something" which seems different from "belligerent." You should really brush up on the basics. :marseyshrug:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wasn't me that mental doing gymnastics explaining why Belarus is belligerent and west ain't :surejan:

In the end the tittle of the post is that English pages often unreliable.

The reason why nato is not included in supported is same as why bakhmut is still outgoing in English page.

First west told early it's not part of conflict other Zelenskyy didn't admitted losing bakhmut so pure western propoganda on site that call it self objective :marseykingcrown:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In the end the tittle of the post is that English pages often unreliable.

>Could my English suck? NO. It is those bastard English whose language sucks!

Great job, salvy. :marseythumbsup:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Excuse for not ending bakhmut fight was that “Russian didn't captured 200 meters of some woods outside bakhmut” Russian captured it and the fight is still outgoing because they found new excuses.

Is that my English fault ? :surejan:

But why are they going out if their way to ad Belarus as supporter of Russia but don't ad any supporters to Ukraine, also my English fault ?

:surejan:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments
Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.