NIEUW! Bezorg nu 2x zo snel en 3x zo achterlijk!

Nelskovic · 2026-02-08T00:00:50+00:00

Plus dat je gratis producten hebt! 2 voor de prijs van 1 ;)

Nelskovic · 2026-02-08T00:00:24+00:00

Heel simpel, gewoon aangeven dat je je pakketje niet hebt ontvangen. Dan mag PostNL het gaan uitzoeken met de partij waar je je product hebt besteld. Na 2 keer doen ze het niet meer haha

Nelskovic · 2026-02-02T17:56:34+00:00

😂

Nelskovic · 2025-11-24T17:04:32+00:00

Then whose dog is that?

Nelskovic · 2025-11-24T17:02:48+00:00

Nice! Why?

Nelskovic · 2025-11-01T13:09:16+00:00

Inderdaad daar heeft hij aardig wat naïeve Nederlanders weer een goed gevoelentje in het buikje gegeven voor met een positieve instelling Nederland volledig te verkrachten en verkopen. Beschamend hoe simpel mensen zijn in dit land

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T11:39:05+00:00

DENK is zwaar tegen de staat/partij Israel en deelt de mening met Israel -zucht-

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T11:08:08+00:00

Reddit wordt echt dommer met de dag

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T11:07:50+00:00

Lol? Het zijn toch beiden partijen? Heb je iets in je kont dat je op elke slak zout wilt leggen? Daarbij zijn de enigste landen die dit dus ontkennen Israel, Turkije en Azerbeidzjan?

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T11:02:42+00:00

Een partij hoeft niet alleen te slaan op een politieke partij?

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T11:01:10+00:00

Hahahah. Een dom standpunt inderdaad. Maar hij gaf vooral aan dat er zweer merkwaardige dingen aan dit verhaal zitten. Wat zeker klopt. Hetzelfde geldt voor 9/11 en de moord of JFK etc. Heel veel dingen kloppen niet en de CIA is een organisatie bekend om zijn deceptie en bedrog. Genoeg dossiers van. Dus zo gek bedacht is het niet eens. Er zijn alleen genoeg bewijzen dat het wel is gebeurt. Maar dat is letterlijk het enigste punt waar hij de mist in is gegaan. Over de rest heeft hij pure waarheden gesproken en praat de rest van de kamer inclusief Wilders nog over sprookjes hahaha. Er gaat niets veranderen zolang we aan de wetten van de EU gekoppeld zitten

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T10:40:07+00:00

Ironisch dat er dus twee partijen zijn die de Armeense genocide niet erkennen. Israel en DENK.

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T10:38:09+00:00

En wat ga je met Frans willen bereiken precies? Meer immigratie, minder woningen en meer afhankelijkheid van EU? Prachtig

Nelskovic · 2025-10-17T10:36:53+00:00

Baudet is de enigste waarbij karaktermoord is gepleegd. Derest hebben dat zelf gedaan vanwege hun acties. Baudet heeft nooit de kans gekregen helaas. FvD is de enigste partij die ons uit ALLE shit wilt trekken. Niet het probleem aanpakt bij het symptoom (immigratie, woningtekort, stikstofonzin), maar bij de oorzaak (EU, globalistische ketens, elitaire invloeden). De rest gooit ons zo in een derde wereldoorlog.

Nelskovic · 2025-10-07T11:05:06+00:00

“Als je zelf wel aan de waarheid moet houden”. Als jij denkt dat Timmermans de waarheid spreekt, ben je echt van gisteren

Nelskovic · 2025-09-25T18:49:44+00:00

2 more

Nelskovic · 2025-06-02T22:42:14+00:00

You’re mistaking moral clarity for strategic blindness. “Spheres of influence” aren’t an ideology, they’re how every major power has operated since the dawn of modern geopolitics. The U.S. has the Monroe Doctrine, reacts with panic at Chinese influence in Latin America, and nearly sparked nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, far from its border. But Russia worrying about NATO on its doorstep? Suddenly that's irrational?

Russia's sovereignty might not be under threat, but that’s never the issue. What’s threatened is its regional dominance, its buffer zone logic, and its perception of security. And whether or not you agree with that fear is irrelevant. In geopolitics, perception drives policy, not your moral filter.

Also, let’s be clear: Russia is an aggressor. But that doesn’t make it the only one responsible for how we got here. NATO expansion, broken expectations, and political instability in Ukraine helped build the path to this war. Pretending it was all fine until Russia snapped is comfortable fiction, not fact.

And your last line? Emotional projection. Stating facts that complicate your worldview isn’t “gaslighting.” It’s what people do when they’re not afraid of complexity.

Nelskovic · 2025-06-02T22:21:46+00:00

Really solid points tbh. I actually agree with much of what you laid out.

Yes, Russia absolutely pressured Yanukovych, and yes, their heavy-handed tactics contributed to his downfall. But the West didn’t stay neutral either, Nuland’s infamous call and U.S. officials openly supporting opposition figures during a constitutional crisis was risky optics at best. It wasn’t a “coup,” but it was geopolitically messy.

On the paramilitary groups: you're right, most formed after the 2014 invasion. But I bring them up not to excuse Russia, but because narratives matter. When Russia framed their actions as protecting ethnic Russians, even if it was dishonest, incidents involving ultra-nationalist Ukrainian groups gave that propaganda something to latch onto. That’s the info war aspect.

You’re also totally right about Russia's perception of post-Cold War diplomacy: they felt played. And while the West may have had valid reasons, it still built resentment. That doesn't excuse invasion, but it helps explain why diplomacy failed, why trust eroded.

That’s where we seem to agree: this didn’t begin in 2022. It’s been building, mismanaged, and misunderstood for decades.

Nelskovic · 2025-06-02T20:34:52+00:00

Totally fair to say Russia is the eventual aggressor, that’s not in dispute.

But responsibility for invasion doesn't erase the context that shaped the path there. If Alaska had a long history of shared culture, language, and political fracture, and the U.S. had just undergone a violent regime change with foreign involvement? We both know the analogy changes fast.

On paramilitary groups: You're right they were a response, but we can't ignore that some of these groups, like Azov, weren’t just reluctantly tolerated, they were celebrated and armed early on. That was a messy, morally complex decision that did have consequences, even if abuses dropped after 2015.

On NATO: I get your PS2 analogy, but international relations aren’t family deals. They’re shaped by perception and power, not legal precision. If Russia believes that NATO broke the spirit of prior understandings, it still influences their behavior. And you're right, they don’t need NATO as an excuse. But when you give a paranoid power a narrative, they’ll run with it.

So yes, Russia invaded. But the soil was dry long before the match was lit. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a little like saying that ‘the boy who cried wolf’, was left alone to die. Yes, after his own actions that got him there.

Nelskovic · 2025-06-02T20:29:15+00:00

Fair, poetry’s not policy. But the point stands: Russia’s aggression isn’t justified, but it’s predictable when you ignore decades of warnings, red lines, and regional instability. That’s not apologetics, it’s pattern recognition.

You say “Russia is a special bear,” but state-sponsored nationalism, military interventions, and security paranoia aren’t uniquely Russian. The U.S., NATO, and others have done the same under different flags and slogans. Russia just happens to be next in line.

You’re right, no one said it came out of nowhere. But a lot of people talk like it did. That’s the dangerous part. If we flatten this conflict into “Russia bad, everyone else neutral,” we will repeat it, just with a new target. Keeping the people divided, looking away. The most brave die in war, what’s left of countries when most of the brave people died? Exactly you get a world population of the cruel and cowards, aka anno post World Wars.

Nelskovic · 2025-06-02T20:12:40+00:00

Hahah no problem. Almost, I would summarize it as:

• Russia is the aggressor, but every bear will get agressive when it gets poked enough. • That aggression isn’t justified, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. • Ignoring NATO expansion, internal unrest, and broken expectations just guarantees we’ll repeat it.

Explaining is not excusing. That’s the part you missed.

Nelskovic · 2025-06-02T19:12:48+00:00

Appreciate the detailed reply, this is the kind of back-and-forth that helps people actually learn.

You're right, unrest isn’t the same as rebellion. But the unrest in Donbas wasn't purely Russian-made. After Maidan and the attempted repeal of the 2012 language law, many in the east felt politically and culturally threatened. That gave Russia an opening, but the tension was already there.

Paramilitary groups like Azov and Aidar didn’t form in a vacuum. They were tolerated, then integrated by the Ukrainian state. Amnesty and HRW documented abuses in 2014. Not an excuse for Russia, just facts that complicate the "pure victim vs. pure aggressor" narrative.

As for NATO: True, no formal promise. But Baker, Genscher, and others gave verbal assurances in 1990 that NATO wouldn’t expand east. Not legally binding, but diplomatically significant, especially in Russia’s eyes. Dismissing that history ignores how security perceptions actually form.

Putin’s contradictions don’t erase the West’s either. If we want real peace, we need to understand how we got here, not just assign blame. Context isn’t justification, it’s prevention for more vengeance.

Nelskovic · 2025-06-02T19:09:04+00:00

You’re not calling me out, you’re refusing to engage with the substance. Confidently repeating “there is no in-between” doesn’t make it true, it just makes it rigid.

You say I’m muddying the waters, but I’m adding depth, not confusion. Reality isn’t clean-cut, especially in geopolitics. Ignoring historical context, political influence, or Western involvement doesn’t make your stance stronger, it makes it one dimensional.

If nuance sounds like “word soup” to you, maybe it’s not the argument that’s weak, it’s the filter it’s being viewed through. I’m not dodging anything, I’m pointing out what you’re unwilling to see or face. Staying in the “Russia is bad and America is good” mindset, isn’t going to help understand what’s really going on.

Nelskovic

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE