Typical Ukrainian armchair patriots with military exemptions:
🇺🇦 “We must fight to the bitter end! Take back Donbas and Crimea! Not an inch of land surrendered!”
🤡 “Me? Join the army? Oh, absolutely not. My family is against it; my girlfriend won't allow it”
🚨HOLY CRAP!!!
This is Western Europe explained.
Afonso, a Portuguese man, sits on a Portuguese street, and displays a Portuguese flag.
He's attacking and threatened by Muslims and African invaders.
They've got to go.
Not if, but when.
🚨 The situation between Yemen and Saudi Arabia has severely deteriorated. /📄
1. Saudi Arabia has imported 10,000 Syrian subh*mans to try and tilt the war in its favour. This is seen as a severe escalation by Ansarallah.
2. Savage Saudi Arabian bombardment of Sana'a continues, targeting innocent civilians.
3. Ansarallah has responded in kind and has destroyed an aircraft in the Saudi capital's international airport.
4. Aramco is being struck so hard it's difficult to keep track of all the targeted locations on FIRMS.
5. Ansarallah has now begun target the well sites directly, which is the most dangerous escalation yet. Should the support pump be destroyed, it's lights out for world oil for decades to come.
6. Ansarallah has now warned all employees of Saudi Arabia in any kind of civilian infrastructure program to vacate their facilities. This means Yemen is going to rightfully transition to total war on Saudi Arabia, targeting every piece of infrastructure there.
The Yemenis are doing the right thing, and this is going to be a key lesson to all the cowards, liars and traitors around the world. Yemen is risking everything already, there is no point in fighting the war half-heartedly. By bringing in the Syrian subh*mans into the battle, Saudi Arabia has indicated that it wishes to fight a prolonged war of attrition to get its way. There's no point doing that, Saudi Arabia cannot survive a war on its infrastructure. Yemen's infrastructure has already been destroyed. They have left them with nothing, and that means they have everything to gain.
God speed and God bless Yemen, may we see the end of the Saudi Arabian animals.
/End
Blacks literally watch TV shows made just for them about the exact opposite of reality. There’s like a whole ass industry cranking out movies and TV about innocent blacks getting harassed by White gang members while all they wanna do is open up a business about reading books lmao
The Taliban brutally slaps an Afghan woman and throws her inside an unmarked van with tented windows. No one knows where she was taken. Women’s rights activists in Afghanistan condemn this oppression and gender apartheid genocide.
Los únicos franceses son los policías.
El resto son un ejército de hombres en edad militar africanos y musulmanes.
Qué disfruten del enriquecimiento cultural..
It’s actually hilarious and sad to hear Tucker explain slowly and concisely to this buffoon that the British empire destroyed its wealth and its people fighting both world wars on behalf of allied countries that really didn’t matter….
In other words, it’s exactly what this lunatic is arguing for Briton’s to do on behalf of Ukraine once more…
Rees-Mogg actually lied through his teeth in that part of the interview: he claims that, in a treaty, America "guaranteed" Ukraine's territorial integrity, making it "inviolable", as a "quid pro quo" for giving up its nuclear weapons.
This is completely false.
The treaty he refers to is the so-called "1994 Budapest Memorandum", whose full text you can read here: https://t.co/pzxrXmtjw6
What the U.S. (alongside Russia and the UK, the other signatories) did commit to is "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," to refrain from the threat or use of force against it, and to refrain from economic coercion.
These are promises about each signatory's own behavior: the US promised not to violate Ukraine's borders ITSELF, it did NOT guarantee their inviolability against anyone else - contrary to what Rees-Mogg is saying.
Steven Pifer, one of the US negotiators, wrote about this in an article he titled "Budapest Memorandum Myths" for Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation (https://t.co/xmzUppnGTT). He writes that the claim that "the United States and Britain violated their Budapest commitments by not going to war against Russia on Ukraine’s behalf" - what Rees-Mogg is essentially saying - is "a myth."
In another article he wrote for CNN in 2014 (https://t.co/Jqfut0lbsq) the same Pifer explains that "U.S. negotiators — myself among them — discussed this point [i.e. the absence of security guarantees] in detail with Ukrainian counterparts so that there would be no misunderstanding."
The only thing the U.S. (and the other signatories) committed to do if Ukraine was attacked was "to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine" - and even that only in case of an aggression "in which nuclear weapons are used."
And the U.S. did go to the Security Council, but given that Russia is a permanent member of the same UN Security Council, it's of course completely useless.
Rees-Mogg is also lying on the other half of the supposed "quid pro quo": the fact that Ukraine supposedly agreed to get rid of "its nuclear weapons," emphasis on the "its."
The nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil were never theirs to keep, and they never had operational control of the weapons: the launch authority was always in Moscow and, even if Ukraine had wanted to launch the weapons, they couldn't have because they didn't have the launch codes.
As Ramesh Thakur, former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, explained in a 2014 article titled "the myth of Ukraine’s nuclear deterrent" (https://t.co/14sroLdyzs), the bombs on Ukraine's soil "were always Russian bombs that happened to be based in Ukraine" and "were not in fact Ukrainian, any more than NATO nuclear weapons stored on West European soil or U.S. bombs that used to be kept in South Korea belonged to the countries on whose territory they were located."
So there you have it, Rees-Mogg is your classic Eton-educated British politician: extremely posh and very well-spoken, supremely confident in everything he asserts, and... a shameless liar, peddling thoroughly debunked myths.
Notice how those who are telling you that burning a bystander’s face constitutes protesting against insufficient funding for schools are also repeatedly scaremongering about the rise of the ‘far right’ in Europe.