The Azov Battalion does not run the country. I hate to break that to you. The neo Nazi elements of the Azov Battalion were pegged from it, BTW.
Putin, however, did put two Nazis in charge of the sham breakaway regions he created.
Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky were both very clearly Nazis and both were installed by Russia.
As for ballot stuffing:
Anybody claiming that was a legitimate election is not arguing in good faith.
I don’t recall WP or NYT articles about the US giving money to Russia for an invasion…
Leading up to? Cherry picking a small time period is not a good look. Decades of Russification and displacing Crimean Tatars (and straight up starving them) damn near eliminated them from the peninsula for years. In 1989 Crimean Tatars made up 1.6% of the population compared with a third 50 years prior. After a couple decades with Ukraine, about 11% of the peninsula are Tatars now.
Ukraine had an election. They elected Zelenskiy.
Russia has sham elections that are fraught with ballot stuffing.
Russia installed several Nazis in the areas they occupied.
Same went for “Texans.” When you displace the local population and move in your people, you tend to get pretty high approval ratings.
LOL
Sure. Just like when the US flooded Tejas with Americans and then the US helped liberate Texas from Mexico. Liberation through imperialism is not real liberation. Don’t be so naive.
Ukraine is a democracy so your entire premise is way off. Try again. Russia, however, is a fascist dictatorship and Portion has put many Nazis into power on occupied territories.
The US did not give any money to Russia so your statement about Nazis makes no sense.
Removed by mod
Better at being authoritarian and definitely smarter.
Are a couple hundred thousand dead Russians not enough for Putin? Does he get off on more dead Russians? He needs to stop the death of Russians by getting them out of Ukrainian territory.
Why does Putin want so many dead Russians? It’s disgusting. He should stop now to save lives.
No. So many people misunderstand that. No, it does not simply mean you automatically sacrifice longterm profits. Fiduciary responsibility is pretty widely open to interpretation because shareholders overall can want different things. Some stocks barely budge in price but the board gives good dividends. Some companies make no profit for years upon years because they are pushing for growth. Just chalking this up to fiduciary responsibility is misguided and misses many big reasons why many boards choose short term profits while sacrificing longterm sustainability. Many get most of their earnings in stock. As long as they can keep the share price up long enough for them to make bank, they have little care about the longterm health of the company. This is one of the reasons that stock buybacks have been so big over the last decade.
The hate that I spewed? You are the one posting neo Nazi shit! You thought a neo Nazi story was interesting? That sure says a lot about you.
George Lincoln Rockwell the neo Nazi? Not surprising that it is prayed on rumble. The person who posted this is also a fucking neo Nazi who likes the OKC Bomber. Fuck this bullshit. If you like this shit, you are almost certainly a neo Nazi too.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Coming to terms with the realities of first past the post is far from fascism. I actively advocate for voting systems that would make third parties viable. Until then, vote progressive in the primaries and send money to progressive candidates in the Democratic party to get them to change their platform. Voting for a different party altogether is not going to change their platform.
deleted by creator
Sorry but that is not really how our system works. Feel free to advocate for changes to our voting like ranked choice but until then voting strategically is the only real way to go. Voting third party as a protest vote does not do shit. It does not get the Democratic party to change their platform. Vote for a progressive candidate in the primaries of you want something to actually change in the Democratic party. Neither major party actually cares about third parties. The last time a third party candidate got a large chunk of the vote was Perot and neither party changed positions afterwards.
You can vote for a super progressive third party candidate in the election but that helps out the candidate least like your position if you are in a swing state. If you are not in a swing state, vote however the fuck you want because your vote largely means nothing until we change how voting works.
Removed by mod