I'm unequivocally against this. Firstly, the ones without Ukraine flag emojis in their Twitter bio don't deserve such a cruel fate. Secondly, the war will be over quicker if the Kiev regime has less bodies to throw into the meat grinder.

Edit: Similar things have been proposed in Europe too by the way, and here too it is both morally and pragmatically correct to oppose this idea.

Even if it means we have to continue to see their stupid flag-waving and keep hearing the same idiotic cliché phrases on repeat from all the annoying Ukrainian keyboard warriors who are cheerleading the war from the safety of western countries.

They keep talking about Ukrainian democracy but i can't find any. Maybe my definition of democracy is different.

Apparently, according to Bernie "Israel has a right to defend itself" Sanders, democracy is when you cancel elections, ban opposition parties, forbid peace negotiations, place all media under state control, arrest people for social media posts calling for peace, beat up priests, abduct men off the streets into vans and force them to go die in the trenches, murder journalists, and torture regime critics to death in secret prisons.

I truly doubt they'd be stupid enough to try it, but i'd like to see the complete political chaos that would ensure if they did.

Thanks for posting about this. I was actually looking for a good source to share.

Also, just fyi for those unfamiliar with the political situation in Georgia, a few tidbits of info:

1. The current president of Georgia who is conspiring with the opposition to try and deny the result of the election is actually a French citizen educated in the US. She barely even speaks Georgian.

2. The opposition is deeply tied not just to western intelligence agency funded NGOs but also to the Ukrainian Nazi movement, and a prominent Nazi who participated in the mass murder of pro-Russian protesters in Odessa in 2014 has recently been seen in Tbilisi.

Also, a bunch of Ukrainian and European politicians were literally on the ground and took part in the last attempt to overthrow the Georgian govenrnment when the opposition astroturfed protests against the anti-NGO law.

And yeah, i know that some people have pointed out in the past that Georgian Dream is by no means perfect and is or has been in the past associated with some notorious Georgian oligarchs with ties to the West (though, after all, the same can be said for Putin's party too). The fact remains that if both Nazis and Western imperialists want to overthrow you, you must be doing something right.

According to Twitter he has ties to Azov and was actively engaged in attempting to recruit and smuggle mercenaries from Central Asia to fight in Ukraine, and proposed doing the same for Taiwan. Unhinged psycho. Too bad these wannabe assassins are such rabid turbolibs...

The show ended in the most pathetically cucked liberal way imaginable.

Nuclear weapons are not a panacea. They do not replace a conventional deterrent. If all you have are nuclear weapons and nothing else then your enemy has escalation dominance and can keep pushing your red lines bit by bit. Think about it, are you going to respond with an all out nuclear attack to every provocation? Or are you going to let the enemy employ salami slicing tactics until they are in a position to take out your nuclear deterrent and leave you with nothing?

Moreover, a country with nuclear weapons but a weak or nonexistent conventional military is effectively inviting a first strike on its nuclear capabilities because if those get neutralized the enemy then knows nothing can stop them. We know that the US' leaders are increasingly irrational and delusional. What if they decide you don't have the guts to actually pull the trigger on nuclear retaliation for a limited incursion or bombing campaign? What if they think they can take your nukes out before you launch, or they convince themselves that your weapons don't work or that they can defend against them?

Another issue is that simply having nuclear weapons is not enough, you also need to be able to deliver them on target, and in sufficient quantities to make the enemy pay more than what they consider an acceptable cost for destroying you. The DPRK don't have nuclear submarines and they won't ever gain the aerial superiority required to deliver nuclear payload by bombers so they are left with only one leg of the nuclear triad which is ground launched missiles. And those can be intercepted, especially if the distance is long as it is to the US mainland and the enemy has a large military presence in between, which the US does with its navy and its many bases in the Pacific. And the DPRK don't yet, as far as we know, have the hypersonic technology that Russia has which would make interception much harder. They also likely don't have thousands of nuclear missiles so they can't just rely on sheer numbers and betting that enough will get through to cause significant enough damage.

It would be one thing if they were only facing the puppet regime in occupied Korea, they can more than likely level all their cities as the distances there are too short to intercept, but their real enemy is an ocean away, with a large territory and forces spread out all over the globe. The only real way to guarantee your safety is for the US to be aware that you have the capabilities to fend off at least partially any first strike attempt (i.e. you have a good integrated air defense), AND that even if nukes are never launched you can make any potential conventional war very unpleasant and costly for them.

Admittedly this is a big cost to pay for a small country like the DPRK, but unless you have a bigger country to protect you it's either that or inviting destruction.

I don't know if i'd describe it as "Keynesian" but yes you are right, it's not "centrally planned" in the traditional sense. Most of the countries i mentioned do not have centrally planned economies. This is not about central planning, it's about state driven vs liberal "free market" models. Economic planning is just one tool that a state can employ to guide and shape its economy. The key distinction here is about who ultimately has the power. Does the state control capital or does capital control the state?

The OG Nazis used a considerable chunk of their limited resources toward the end of the war on building Vergeltungswaffen, literally revenge weapons. These had very little military benefit and were mainly intended to terrorize the enemy civilian population. It's standard fascist MO to do this shit when they lose a war.

Why produce weapons and munitions yourself when you can just buy them from the US and enrich their military industrial complex? In fact from an American perspective, why does Europe need its own weapons industry at all? Better that they become fully dependent on the US, that way they are easier to control.

Purely performative gesture. If a city wants to show genuine support it can start by backing BDS.

Did all the Japanese get killed after they surrendered? Did all Germans? If they had surrendered earlier less of them would have died. The same goes for Nazi Ukraine. Their defeat is inevitable, and prolonging the inevitable only adds to the suffering...and to the list of war crimes that they will be charged with by Russia's tribunals afterwards. The West's "support" is literally destroying Ukraine and they have all admitted that they have no problem with this, in fact they profit from it.

The West is happy to "fight to the last Ukrainian" to hurt Russia, the Banderite Nazis are happy to die (and force their less fanatical compatriots to do so as well) for the West so long as it enables their genocidal urges, meanwhile the only ones who actually care about the Ukrainian people and have gone out of their way to try and save them from the Western imperialists and from themselves are the Russians.

It's actually really sad that there isn't a single country on the planet that cares about Ukraine except Russia (and maybe Belarus). To the West they're just a tool, useful idiot cannon fodder, to the rest of the world they're a tragic cautionary tale about what happens when you let the lunatics take over the asylum, which is what happened on the Maidan in 2014. If you really cared about Ukraine you too would want the flow of weapons and money to them to stop, because the longer this goes on the worse it will be for them.