LahnaMan retweeted
Presidentti Koiviston nauhoista: Neuvostoliiton hajoamiseen liittyvät toimet olivat ulkopoliittiselta johdoltamme täydellinen epäonnistuminen. Koivisto, Väyrynen ja kump. olivat sekä rähmällään että peloissaan edelleen, vaikka diplomaattimmekin kertoivat, että NL:n taru oli ohi.
LahnaMan retweeted
Mendel's narrative that Ukraine has "rejected" easy peace deals or bears responsibility for the war’s continuation and destruction is disinformation. Here's why:
1. The Istanbul Talks (April 2022)
Claim:
Ukraine was offered a favorable deal in Istanbul to keep its territory (minus Crimea/Donbas) in exchange for neutrality and army reduction, but Zelenskyy unilaterally declined.
Rebuttal:
Demilitarization as a Trap: Russia’s Istanbul demand for a drastically reduced Ukrainian military (capping forces at levels that would leave Ukraine defenseless) was designed to make future invasion effortless. Accepting demilitarization without ironclad security guarantees was an invitation to total conquest down the road.
The Guarantee Catch: Russia demanded a veto over any future collective security response if Ukraine were attacked again. Under Moscow's terms, if Russia invaded a second time, Russia itself would have to agree before any external power could legally intervene to assist Ukraine.
Bucha and Russian War Crimes: The Istanbul talks collapsed primarily due to the discovery of mass atrocities in Bucha, Irpin, and Izium as Russian troops retreated from Kyiv. Russian war crimes demonstrated that "agreements" with Moscow meant surrendering Ukrainian citizens to occupation, torture, and mass graves.
No Real Russian Commitment: Russia never offered a binding, full withdrawal from Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, or Kharkiv during those early talks; Moscow was attempting to consolidate military control while stalling for time after its initial push on Kyiv failed.
2. Late 2022 & The Kherson Liberation
Claim:
After Russian forces withdrew from Kherson city, Ukraine refused a potential ceasefire brokered or suggested by the US to continue the war.
Rebuttal:
Operational Momentum: In late 2022, Ukraine had just scored major strategic victories in Kharkiv and Kherson. Accepting a premature ceasefire would have allowed a severely weakened, retreating Russian military time to entrench, dig extensive defensive lines (which they later did with the Surovikin Line), rearm, and forcibly draft hundreds of thousands of mobilized troops.
Freezing the Conflict Benefits the Aggressor: A ceasefire without Russian withdrawal simply converts temporary frontline positions into de facto borders. Ukraine’s experience from 2014 to 2022 (Minsk I & II) proved that a frozen conflict only gives Russia time to prepare its next offense.
US Policy Alignment: The claim that Zelenskyy single-handedly "persuaded" the US to force Ukraine to fight ignores the fundamental principle repeatedly articulated by international law and Western coalition strategy: "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine."
3. Early 2023 "Back-Channel Deal"
Claim:
A deal was on the table to return to pre-February 2022 borders in exchange for neutrality and recognizing Crimea as Russian, but Ukrainian leadership turned it down.
Rebuttal:
Unsubstantiated Fantasy: There is zero official evidence that Vladimir Putin ever agreed to abandon Russia's illegally annexed "four new regions" (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk), which Moscow formally incorporated into the Russian Constitution in September 2022.
Constitutional Reality in Moscow: Following Russia’s formal annexation decree in late 2022, Putin repeatedly insisted that the "new territorial realities" were non-negotiable. Reverting to pre-2022 lines was explicitly ruled out by the Kremlin's public and private declarations.
Rewarding Aggression: Surrendering Crimea formally would validate Russia's aggressive land grabs, violate international law regarding territorial integrity, and leave the Black Sea permanent security threat unaddressed.
4. The July 2024 Energy Ceasefire & Kursk
Claim:
Ukraine disrupted an energy ceasefire mediated via the Middle East by launching the Kursk operation.
Rebuttal:
Asymmetric Warfare and Strategic Initiative: The Kursk offensive was a tactical and strategic necessity designed to relieve pressure on the Eastern front in Donetsk, force Russia to reallocate troops to its own border, create a territorial bargaining chip, and demonstrate that Russia’s border was vulnerable.
Russian Destruction of Energy Grids: Russia began its systematic campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in the fall of 2022—long before Kursk. Moscow’s attacks on civilian infrastructure were designed to freeze the civilian population into submission, not to negotiate a genuine energy truce in good faith.
Leverage for Peace: A state defending itself against an existential threat cannot rely on unratified, informal promises while its eastern territory is being taken day by day.
5. Blaming the Victim for Destruction and "Degradation"
Claim:
Because Ukraine did not accept Russia's terms, Ukrainian leadership is responsible for the destruction of the country, casualties, and degradation of the state.
Rebuttal:
Shifting Moral and Legal Guilt: Every dead Ukrainian, ruined power plant, and displaced refugee is the direct legal and moral responsibility of the aggressor - the Russian Federation - which launched an illegal, unprovoked full-scale war of conquest. Blaming Ukraine for defending its territory is classical victim-blaming.
Capitulation vs. Survival: Capitulation does not stop human suffering; it merely converts battlefield fighting into mass repression, occupation terror, forced Russification, conscription of Ukrainians into the Russian military, and the elimination of the Ukrainian nation-state.
Summary
The premise of Mendel's narrative rests on the false assumption that Vladimir Putin was acting as a rational actor offering genuine peace in good faith.
Throughout the conflict, Russia’s fundamental goal has remained unchanged: the total political control or subjugation of Ukraine. Ceasefire proposals offered by Moscow under terms of demilitarization and territorial concession are not paths to peace; they are operational pauses designed to secure Russian gains and set up the next phase of conquest. Defending sovereignty against an existential threat is not a choice made out of stubbornness - it is a necessity for survival.
Let’s go through the peace deals Zelenskyy rejected.
• Istanbul agreement, 2022
Ukraine needed to refuse NATO accession, reduce the army, Russia would withdraw from the Kyiv reg., possibly from the Kharkiv, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. At that point the scale of destruction was still limited and the number of dead was far lower. In April 2022 Zelenskyy declined the deal.
• End of 2022
Russian forces withdrew from part of the Kherson region. Zelenskyy traveled to meet Biden and, acc. to my sources, later confirmed by Mr. Blinken in the New York Times, persuaded the WH to continue the war. The precise terms of any proposed deal remain unknown, but sources indicate there was readiness to declare at least a ceasefire.
• Beginning of 2023
Through unofficial channels between the United States and Russia, an understanding took shape: Putin agreed to withdraw to the borders that existed before the full-scale invasion—freeing nearly everything conquered that year—in exchange for Ukraine’s refusal of NATO accession and recognition of Crimea as Russian. Zelenskyy and Yermak refused. Since then nearly a million people have been killed or wounded, several million have become refugees, parts of the Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions have been occupied, more of Zaporizhzhia has been taken, Kherson lies in ruins, the Chernihiv and Sumy regions face constant shelling, Kyiv itself has become almost a front-line city, the energy system has been destroyed, businesses cannot operate, exports have stalled, and the country is degrading.
• July 2024
An arrangement that began with an energy ceasefire, modeled on the Istanbul understandings and mediated through the Middle East. While negotiations were under way, Zelenskyy also planned the Kursk operation, which ultimately disrupted all the arrangements.
• March 2025
After the Oval Office clash between Trump and Zelenskyy, European leaders gathered in London in early March. The British government stated that a number of options were on the table and that Ukraine had to choose. As always, nothing came of it.
Whether Putin was prepared each time to implement any agreements remains unknown, yet on several occasions he carried out what he had promised. Does this remove his responsibility for the deaths, the horrors, and the destruction in Ukraine? No.
But the country is degrading, the state apparatus is degrading, and corruption finishes what Putin’s missiles, drones, and bombs did not destroy. Inhumanity has effectively become a state strategy and a national ideology promoted at every turn.
Ukraine simply cannot win this way—there are neither economic, nor demographic, nor any other grounds for it. Therefore, if Zelenskyy does not agree to a deal with realistic terms now, Ukraine will be forced to capitulate. And that is deeply alarming, because it can actually cost the country its independence and sovereignty.
LahnaMan retweeted
Holy shit!
What a gigachad
Shows that you can just do things. There's an important lesson there
❗️A Norwegian MP illegally transported drones to Ukraine and thereby forced the government to change the law, – Aftonbladet.
▪️ Peter Frølich, together with the organization “Free Ukraine” (Fritt Ukraina), tried to send a batch of drones with thermal imaging cameras to Ukraine;
▪️ The cargo was stopped by Norwegian customs: under a law adopted back in the 1950s, this was illegal;
▪️ Then the MP appealed directly to the government. He stressed that the situation was critical and that delay could cost the lives of Ukrainian soldiers;
▪️ The organization nevertheless managed somehow to secretly deliver the drones to Ukraine. The next day, the Norwegian government promised to expedite consideration of the issue. Ultimately, the rules were changed, and now Norwegians can legally send civilian drones to Ukraine.
LahnaMan retweeted
This is disinformation.
Let’s go through the peace deals Zelenskyy rejected.
• Istanbul agreement, 2022
Ukraine needed to refuse NATO accession, reduce the army, Russia would withdraw from the Kyiv reg., possibly from the Kharkiv, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. At that point the scale of destruction was still limited and the number of dead was far lower. In April 2022 Zelenskyy declined the deal.
• End of 2022
Russian forces withdrew from part of the Kherson region. Zelenskyy traveled to meet Biden and, acc. to my sources, later confirmed by Mr. Blinken in the New York Times, persuaded the WH to continue the war. The precise terms of any proposed deal remain unknown, but sources indicate there was readiness to declare at least a ceasefire.
• Beginning of 2023
Through unofficial channels between the United States and Russia, an understanding took shape: Putin agreed to withdraw to the borders that existed before the full-scale invasion—freeing nearly everything conquered that year—in exchange for Ukraine’s refusal of NATO accession and recognition of Crimea as Russian. Zelenskyy and Yermak refused. Since then nearly a million people have been killed or wounded, several million have become refugees, parts of the Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions have been occupied, more of Zaporizhzhia has been taken, Kherson lies in ruins, the Chernihiv and Sumy regions face constant shelling, Kyiv itself has become almost a front-line city, the energy system has been destroyed, businesses cannot operate, exports have stalled, and the country is degrading.
• July 2024
An arrangement that began with an energy ceasefire, modeled on the Istanbul understandings and mediated through the Middle East. While negotiations were under way, Zelenskyy also planned the Kursk operation, which ultimately disrupted all the arrangements.
• March 2025
After the Oval Office clash between Trump and Zelenskyy, European leaders gathered in London in early March. The British government stated that a number of options were on the table and that Ukraine had to choose. As always, nothing came of it.
Whether Putin was prepared each time to implement any agreements remains unknown, yet on several occasions he carried out what he had promised. Does this remove his responsibility for the deaths, the horrors, and the destruction in Ukraine? No.
But the country is degrading, the state apparatus is degrading, and corruption finishes what Putin’s missiles, drones, and bombs did not destroy. Inhumanity has effectively become a state strategy and a national ideology promoted at every turn.
Ukraine simply cannot win this way—there are neither economic, nor demographic, nor any other grounds for it. Therefore, if Zelenskyy does not agree to a deal with realistic terms now, Ukraine will be forced to capitulate. And that is deeply alarming, because it can actually cost the country its independence and sovereignty.
LahnaMan retweeted
Imagine thinking that Lula isn't an extremist. He has:
(1) Whitewashed Maduro’s repression in Venezuela, and in June 2023, when questioned about support for Maduro, Lula said the concept of democracy was “relative” and emphasized that Venezuela had held more elections than Brazil.
(2) Defended Cuba’s treatment of dissidents. In March 2010, amid hunger strikes by Cuban political prisoners, Lula compared their situation to that of ordinary Brazilian prisoners and argued that Cuba’s judicial decisions should be respected.
(3) Comparing Israel’s Gaza campaign to Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.
(4) Assigning Zelensky equal responsibility for Russia’s invasion. In his May 2022 Time interview, Lula said Zelensky was “as responsible as Putin for the war.”
LahnaMan retweeted
For @sikorskiradek this makes Lula a “pragmatist” who “strongly defends the interest of his country”, just as Sikorski does. For me, it makes him a deeply corrupt, self-serving demagogue, “Third Worldist” enemy of the West and an antisemite to boot.
Imagine thinking that Lula isn't an extremist. He has:
(1) Whitewashed Maduro’s repression in Venezuela, and in June 2023, when questioned about support for Maduro, Lula said the concept of democracy was “relative” and emphasized that Venezuela had held more elections than Brazil.
(2) Defended Cuba’s treatment of dissidents. In March 2010, amid hunger strikes by Cuban political prisoners, Lula compared their situation to that of ordinary Brazilian prisoners and argued that Cuba’s judicial decisions should be respected.
(3) Comparing Israel’s Gaza campaign to Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.
(4) Assigning Zelensky equal responsibility for Russia’s invasion. In his May 2022 Time interview, Lula said Zelensky was “as responsible as Putin for the war.”
LahnaMan retweeted
I'm very very sad tonight. I just learned that Stephen Biesty passed away in 2024 at 63... He is one of my favorite artist. Rest in peace.
LahnaMan retweeted
The catalyst for Estonias reindependence movement was the soviets wanting to mine phosphorite and poisoning the groundwater plus bringing tens of thousands of settlers
LahnaMan retweeted
No idea why he is lying about this.
His proposition was the “imagine” that Russia had committed beheadings of Ukrainian soldiers.
There was no need to “imagine” and he got ratioed to bejesus for it.
The sole motive to take this down was embarrassment.
LahnaMan retweeted
Putin didn't accept this particular deal because he also wanted the ZSU defanged, which should be understood for obvious reasons to be unacceptable
but "tankies" love to misinterpret events and claim "we were right!"
LahnaMan retweeted
Maybe russians shouldn't invade other countries if they don't want to be droned or disemboweled?
LahnaMan retweeted
"and banned them the use of the Ukrainian language in divine services"
The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has officially mandated the rebaptism of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians and banned them the use of the Ukrainian language in divine services.
On October 22, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church approved a document titled "Guidelines for the Reception of Individuals from Ukrainian Schismatic Structures Wishing to Join the Russian Orthodox Church." It applies to people in Russian-occupied territories who were previously affiliated with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), or the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).
The document outlines three procedures for joining the ROC. Notably, it stipulates that individuals baptized within the OCU, UOC-KP, or UAOC must undergo the Sacrament of Baptism again to join the ROC. Different rules apply to those originally baptized within the ROC, the Roman Catholic Church, or a Protestant denomination.
Regarding the accession of entire congregations to the ROC, the document states that such a community may not demand a distinct liturgical order or a special administrative status. Furthermore, the use of any language other than Church Slavonic in divine services is prohibited—even though the ROC elsewhere permits the use of various other languages, ranging from English to Japanese.
LahnaMan retweeted
Funny how for some Ukraine was in a sympathetic position only when it was pummeled by Russia.
When Ukraine started to fight back, it suddenly became less sympathetic.
Sorry we couldn't be a perfect victim for you.
