Trump & Vance Humiliated Zelensky

Can you provide any guarantee that he isn't corrupt? We know well that the position of being a bishop, right down from the very top, being the Bishop of Rome, is no guarantee of incorruption. The argument from authority is always the weakest defense in any case. Just think of all the bishops who protected sodomising priests, not to mention those who did the sodomising themselves. Were they corrupt, yes or no (not implying any such behaviour in the case of Bishop Sus, but the principle is what counts-there are cases of corruption of which the perpetrator might not be aware, although a bishop should be, such as confusing patriotic feelings with morality)?

 

It is a cycle of hatred that will only end, perhaps, with the conversion of Judaism and the Islamic faith—Jews at the end of history as a sign of the Second Coming, and Muslims possibly through the fulfillment of God's promise to Ishmael's descendants that they would become a great nation.

 

A great synopsis. Europe is proposing to spend fortunes on United States weaponry that have already being proven obsolete by Russian armoury that is being produced at a fraction of the cost. This reminds me of the Russians producing innumerable T-34 tanks in WWII, which were easily serviced and cheaply produced, in contrast to the expensive and unreliable German Panthers. Not bad for people classified by the Nazis as untermenschen; and frankly, this opinion seems to have sustained in some quarters. Well...bring it on (not really).

 

Absolutely.

 

According to a report in Catholic World News, a Vatican spokesman has criticised the EU/NATO (whatever they're calling themselves) for giving more money to the Ukraine for weapons and has asserted that they should instead be cooperating with the Trump Administration in ending the war.

 

You mean the prophecy timeline, right.
Because I always have that in mind, it influences my personal assessment of political events and I'm also glad that someone has drawn up a plausible timeline.
Of course, one can't be sure about that.

I have to correct the username it was @FiliMariae.

If you are reading this FiliMariae, thank you for your contributions
I think you're not even twenty years old yet, right.

 

Yes, the Russians were and are resilient.
It's also difficult for the European mainstream press to get out of this situation. Not just for the politicians.
‘we will defeat the Russians militarily’; ‘our sanctions will destroy the Russian economy’ - everything became a boomerang.
Europe's military resources are relatively depleted, and the economy and debt are causing problems.

 

Something major is probably going to happen this year. I don't see how things can keep going as they are... I don't remember which apparition it was but Mama Mary said when all hope seems lost God will intervene - I think we're already there... A lot of ppl are becoming depressed & despairing. Or hope is always in God but it's a lot, the rubber band will break!

 

Some foreign country had already intervened in Ukraine at that time. What is it that prevents you grasping that fact? And it is a fact with more than enough substantiating evidence. All you do is repeat the propaganda of the intervening country and its vassals. Even the BBC did a wishy washy backtrack on the story of the Maidan deaths. (That was probably before USAID paid them to promote the woke agenda in whatever country was next on the hit list for "freedom and democracy".

I don't know where you got the notion that I think Putin has a "sanctifying Midas touch" because he is anti-Western. It's downright childish to make such an accusation. I've always said that having patently evil detractors doesn't make Putin good. There's clearly no doubt that his detractors make Putin look like a statesman and a competent leader of his country. The sad truth for us is that they are so incompetent Mickey Mouse would appear to tower head and shoulders above them.

You repeat Western propaganda as though it were Gospel truth. Now take a look at what the Russians saw and think what Slava Ukraine means to them.



Many Russians believe that Putin has been far too pro-Western and that he isn't hitting Ukraine hard enough. Remember that he he could up the Special Military Operation to total war and he has all the resources he needs to win an all out war whether or not European boots are openly on the ground. Should that happen, Zelensky won't be telling Trump that Ukraine's cities are not destroyed.

 

I don’t blindly repeat Western propaganda as if it were the gospel truth—far from it. I simply don’t fall for the illusion that there is any world leader who is truly good for Catholic Christians, whether in the woke West or in Russia, where Soviet-era nationalist nostalgia is mixed with state religion, treating us Catholics as second-class citizens.

Putin offered the mineral exploration deal just a few days ago, and it is not impossible that the Democratic Party could return to power in a few years and take control of Ukraine’s resources—which, in my view, is the real reason behind the invasion. As I have said before, Putin would have cut the problem at its root if separatist movements had emerged within his own territory.

It seems difficult for you to understand what I am trying to say here.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, I think both sides are to blame but that was a 35 year old letter to the leader of the USSR which no longer exists. Since the USSR fell, agreements and understandings changed.

 

I thought of Myrna Nazzour and family in Damascus.
Our Lady of Soufanieh

I hope they are somewhere safe.

 

You are right, both sides are to blame. But I do believe the greater portion of the blame lies with the West by far.

The USSR no longer exists but the core of the USSR, Russia and the Kremlin still exist. Their over six thousand nuclear weapons still exist.

I had heard of this assurance given to the Soviets in the Kremlin before, but it seemed a bit nebulous and I wondered was there any concrete evidence of it written down. The document shows the stark contrast between the assurances given by the West and the downright trampling over those assurances perpetrated by the West. (We know how they fund these ideological metastases programs.)

It is one thing for the many former Soviet republics, who were still in the Russian sphere of influence, to opt for the European economic model, but it is quite a another matter for them to join Nato. In fact we saw how the Maidan revolution was triggered when Yanukovych was given a choice of a European loan or a Russian loan but opted for the Russian one. It seems the West and its aggitators did not like that one bit.

Russia, I would say tolerated seeing all of these eastern European countries joining Nato, but when it heard that Ukraine and Georgia were to eventually join Nato, it issued, quite understandably, its red line.

What part of this red line is not understandable by the West? The West understood it alright, but it simply ignored it believing that "democracy" is right - in fact that "Russia is a gas station" and "might is right".

There were no understandings with Russia, no agreements with Russia on the issue of their red line. I can to some extent understand that when confronted with this reality, Putin said that this would therefore have to be decided on the battlefield - "do your best to overcome us". All the technological, economic and military assistance of Nato and the US has not been able to defeat Russia because it believes it is fighting for its survival. Besides, Europe should know that it is not possible to militarily defeat a nuclear superpower such as Russia. But Europe's leaders lost touch with reality a long time ago. The important thing now is to stop the killing, as Trump says, and to get a realistic peace.

 

If you believe that Putin engineered the divisions in Ukraine, you have swallowed the Western propaganda. The facts show clearly that the entire disaster was pre-planned by the US with the co-operation of some European politicians. They organised a violent coup, removing the democratically elected President, having chosen his replacement. Then they installed the replacement and used extreme force to suppress all opposition to their illegal acts. The Russians took Crimea where they had a warm water port essential to their country's security.

The majority of people in Crimea voted to secede from a State which had, effectively, been taken over by a foreign power. The foreign power made numerous announcements that the people of Ukraine would decide their own future. Well, those people of Ukraine did exactly that democratically, their region chose independence, requested to be reunited with Russia and the Russians acceded to their request. Three other regions followed suit by voting for independence. All this happened while Kiev was in the control of the regime installed by the US. That regime tried and failed to overpower the people who had chosen secession so they made agreements for ceasefires and autonomy which they failed to keep while NATO helped them build up an army to overpower the secessionist regions. That army was massed on the border ready to invade when the Russians finally came to their aid militarily. Now all those regions are Russian territory according to that country's constitution and Putin has no choice but to defend them. He can't bargain away that territory even of he wanted to. As to the argument that the secessions were illegal under Ukrainian law, international law acknowledges that people's right to self determination can conflict with the existing law. Ethnic Russians in Ukraine being subjected to ethnic cleansing had a right to exercise their option of self-determination.

Everything that happened after the violent coup was a consequence of the coup itself and Putin had no hand, act or part in the coup so the mess in Ukraine is Obama's fault and the fault of his successors for not pursuing a path of peace. The machinations may well have preceded Obama because Nuland was a holdover from previous administrations. Nuland is now on the faculty of an American university. I don't know what she teaches but if it has anything to do with democracy or statecraft, I wouldn't let any young impressionable person within an ass's roar of that University.

My own view is that the Americans knew that Putin would have no choice but to take Crimea and that's why they had NATO, the EU, and their UN puppets lined up in readiness to condemn Putin, thinking that thr international pressure would cause the Russians to depose him. It's a terrible indictment of Zelensky that he continues to send Ukrainians to their death knowing that the Americans have boasted in front of the whole world that Ukraine was used as a tool to weaken Russia without the loss of a single American soldier.

Putin isn't squeaky clean regarding the responses to the coup but that's all the ripple effect of the coup itself which was far from peaceful or legal and was all down to the Americans and their European vassals.

 

The referendum in question was completely illegal, considering that Russian troops were present in Crimea before and during the vote, which can clearly be interpreted as an element of coercion. Moreover, the options on the ballot were limited to either annexation by Russia or greater autonomy within Ukraine, which certainly does not reflect a truly free and independent choice, free from Soviet nationalist nostalgia.

You swallowed Russian propaganda and continue to spread it in the forum. In fact, given that Putin's enemies seem to have a certain "predestination" for falling into disgrace, speaking out against him would hardly be a wise choice for many

The fact that even the most optimistic interpreter of the Fatima prophecies believes that the 1984 consecration led to the collapse of the Soviet Union on Christmas 1991 already shows that there is something very wrong with a nostalgic movement for the Soviet Empire—a regime that was a central theme in the Fatima message.

If there were a separatist movement in Russia, Putin would have crushed it from the outset, and there would still be those who defended him as acting within international law.

 

Talking about the principle of self-determination of peoples in the hands of a man who does not even allow the Catholic religion to exercise its right to proselytize is, at best, a tasteless joke.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw...rimeia-antes-de-anexar-regi%C3%A3o/a-17574837

 

The Russians were also in Crimea before the coup. I'm sure that ethnic Russians were very grateful for that after the treatment some of them received when attempting to travel to an anti-Maidan demonstration in Kiev. One of them was shot.

They chose Russia. Overwhelmingly. They had seen US-Ukrainian democracy.

Are you calling me a Putin puppet? Seriously? Have you seen who were the main players from the US at that time? Obama. John Brennan head of the CIA. Samantha Power US Ambassador to the UN. Arch Zionist and war monger Victoria Newland. You'd need to exorcise any room after a gathering of that bunch.

Using Fatima to justify the attempted destruction of today's Russia is disgraceful.

 

You practically called me a puppet of the West earlier, saying that I swallow Western propaganda, even though I have always believed that neither side is sanctified and that God would raise up Russia precisely to punish the West’s apostasy.

What is truly shameful is using Fatima and its mention of Russia’s future conversion to force others to believe that this positive prophecy implies that Russia is morally closer to conversion, being a country that treats Catholics as second-class citizens. Even more shameful is accusing Ukrainian bishops of inciting hatred against Russia when they are the ones actually suffering persecution.