The head of Iran’s parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy said that by providing drone support to Israel, Ukraine has “effectively become involved in the war.”
Zelenskyy earlier stated that Kyiv has already deployed interceptor drones and a team of specialists to help protect US military bases in Jordan.
A reasonable person would assume that Ukraine sending small teams over is meant to encourage, or pay back favours in terms of support in their defence against a forgein invading genocidal ethnostate. On top of wanting to help deal with Iran seeing as Iranian drones have been bombing them for years now.
So what exactly is ironic? It’s very much in their best interest that Iran can no longer supply Russia with drones.
Iran no longer provide drones to Russis and ukraine is joining Israel who want another genocide in Iran. When are you going to call for bombing China?
Obviously not, they’re busy sending whatever they have at various military bases around the region.
I’m not going to argue against Israel wanting a genocide in Iran. I agree, they do want a genocide. I agree, it is bad.
What Ukraine is doing is offering their knowledge in drone interception. Seeing as they have years of experience when it comes to intercepting Iranian shahed drones.
Probably hoping to get some additional support when/if the war in Iran ends.
Why would I call for bombings in China? When have called for bombing anywhere? Please let me know. Because I can not recall doing it even once.
The bases in the Gulf are the eyes and ears of the USA and Israel. Helping the Gulf during the war is helping Israel and the USA who want to commit genocide.
Europe is now the main contributor to the defense of Ukraine. In the future, the USA’s support will become useless. All the consequences of the war right now benefit Russia, not Ukraine. The war will last years. Iran will never surrender even if the regime is falling. Zelensky meeting with the traitor, the son of the Shah, and with Trump not supporting him taking power shows to me that Zelensky wants to take vengeance on Iran for the Shaheds. If you can have peace talks with Putin knowing how untrustworthy he is, could Europe and Ukraine talk to Iran and try to detach it as a Russian ally with economic and diplomatic deals?
Isn’t it weird that there is talks with Iran for the civil nuclear program that Israel claims to be a program to build . A country with extremist religious leaderships will not disrespect and ignore a religious decree from the “supreme” leader banning nuclear weapons . How about the talk being centered on the Ukraine war?
Ukraine probably have their own goals in mind. Making sure Iran can’t export sheheds is good for them. Showing themselves as capable and offering help is a good way to also recieve help. I don’t think it’s about vengeance. It’s about practicality.
Yeah I agree, the war in Iran benefits Russia. As Oil prices go up, and Russia sells. That only benefits them.
I doubt there’s anything Ukraine and Europe can do in talks with Iran. Iran are the ones being attacked. What is there to say? It’s also not our mess. Europe is not particularly impressed by this attack. Morals aside. It’s clumsy, there’s no plan, there’s no contingency, the one obvious predictable counter-move by Iran was somehow not predicted!? And on top of it all, Israel is bombing water desalination plants which I think is an obvious war crime. Plain and simple.
You can’t bomb a nation into submission. We would never give up. So why would they?
Ok, I still don’t think China should be bombed. I don’t even think Iran should have been bombed.
I think there should be consequences enforced by Europe since it’s a war in our backyard. But not bombings.
Russia is now manufacturing it’s own drone based on the shahed drone, it no longer need Iran.
The nuclear deal was respected till trump teared up the deal and europeen refused to be clear that the 12 days war was started by the usa is Israel. Truth is regardless of how terrible the regime is to it’s people it is more trust worthy than the USA.
Pre ukraine joining the sanctions on Iran in 2007. Both ukraine and iran under the same regimw has normal relation
Reza pahlavi is an israeli agent who is unpopular within Iran. His father was a butcher too and he is fine with it. Zelensky has zero advantage to meet him. He could have stick with I support the iranian people
The Russian Federation is not an ethnostate lmao
Liberals aren’t even pretending to think words mean things anymore
Sure, let’s begin with the major events
The Circassian Genocide (1863–1878)
Decossackization (1919-1920s)
Holodomor (1930–1938)
Kazakh Famine (1931–1933)
The Polish Operation (1937–1938)
Then you have the deportation of entire ethnic groups such as
Crimean Tatars (1944)
Chechens and Ingush (1944)
You have partial mass deportations such as in the baltics in the 1950s
The next major event comes in the first and second Chechen wars (1994-1996 and 1999-2009)
And then you have the obvious present day war in Ukraine. With ethnic minorities facing disproportionate conscriptions and sent to the front.
Now that’s a lot of effort to reduce and relocate ethnic minorities! Almost as if we have a pattern of it dating back more than 100 years.
Just a few questions.
Why do you sesperate the “holodomor” from the Kazakh famine? It was the same famine, it also affected western Russia.
Why do you condemn the soviets retaking Ukrainian and Lithuanian land (that had only recently been lost) after the Polish government already fell? Not to mind the fact it slowed the Nazi advance and likely saved thousands at least.
Because I recognize “holodomor” as the Famine in Ukraine, and the Kazakh Famine as the Famine in Kazakhstan. They were both artificially created, which is part of the meaning of “holodomor”
But Ukraine had crops seized while Kazakhs had their livestock seized.
Not sure what you think I’m condemning, but first of all. Soviet and Nazi Germany carved up Poland together. It was a cooperation between the two.
Retaking land from an occupational force doesn’t make it ok to then a couple of years later deport the people that lived there and replace them with your own ethnic Russians.
I think you’re drawing lines history doesn’t support. The famine hit Ukraine yes but also Kazakhstan the North Caucasus Kuban the Volga region the southern Urals and western Siberia. Same drought same collectivization pressures same policy failures across all these regions. And it was worsened in large part due to kulaks land-owning peasants who burned grain and slaughtered livestock to sabotage collectivization. This resistance happened everywhere the policy rolled out. Also even scholars critical of the USSR don’t claim the famine was manufactured from scratch. The actual debate is whether policy errors worsened a crisis with environmental roots not whether Moscow designed starvation as a targeted ethnic weapon. If that was the goal why did those same populations grow industrialize and thrive in the decades after? And after 1933 that entire region never suffered a major famine again. Not during the war not after. The agricultural system was stabilized.
On Poland your framing ignores the diplomatic reality. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the last non-aggression deal the Nazis signed. France and Britain had already appeased Hitler at Munich and refused Stalin’s proposals for a collective security pact to defend Czechoslovakia. Poland itself refused to let the Red Army pass through its territory to confront the Nazis. So when the Polish state collapsed under German invasion in September 1939 the Soviets moved into Ukrainian and Belarusian lands Poland had taken in 1921. Yes the pact may have had secret protocols. But that buffer zone delayed the Nazi advance and kept those populations out of German hands for nearly two years that’s still positive. The USSR bought critical time to industrialize because it knew it would face the Nazi war machine largely alone. That’s important context (they were right 80% of the fight was on the Eastern front).
I’m not defending Soviet deportations or repressions. They happened they were brutal and they warrant criticism. But if we’re going to critique history we need accuracy not selective framing. Conflating distinct events or narrowing complex disasters to fit an ethnic narrative doesn’t strengthen your argument it weakens it. Call out the crimes sure but don’t reshape the record to do it or pad your list.
“Holodomor” is a Ukrainian word. One they used to describe the Famine in Ukraine. I do not think it’s unfair, to separate their Famine, with the one Kazakhs had. Kazakhs were by large nomadic. By siezing their livestock for collectivisation, they all but sentenced them to death by starvation.
They were two completely different people, living two completely different lives. Affected by the same policy which was the major contribution to the famines.
They were two separate people, living in two very different places. If your only criticism is that you think “Holodomor” should encompass both. I’ll gladly change it it “Ukraine famine”
What kolaks burned in protest and sabotage was what was going to be taken from them anyhow. So rather than giving it up, they destroyed it. It would not have changed much of the outcome, because they wouldn’t have had it anyway.
I strongly disagree that my framing ignores the diplomatic reality.
non aggression between nazi germany and USSR. But I don’t think Poland would agree with the notion of “non aggression”
USSR absolutely did not know they would face the Nazi regime “alone”. Stalin was literally speechless when the Germans went into USSR. They didn’t carve up Poland to “secure Ukraine” or “buy more time” they did it to seize more land. It having the side effect of slowing down Nazis entry into USSR is nothing but coincidental. And neither excuses the execution of over 100 thousand poles.
As of later, why would Poland allow the red army to go anywhere in Poland? “Hey guys, we’re not gonna kill you this time, we promise, we just want to go to germany”. Can you honestly even remotely blame them for not allowing entry? Why would they believe anything nazis or USSR said?
I’m not reshaping anything. Both the Ukrainian Famine and the Kazakh Famine was deliberate to weaken them while strengthening Moscow. If events such as droughts occur. You don’t go ahead and sieze your initial quota to leave the population with nothing. That is purposefully creating a genocide by proxy of famine.
USSR and later Russia have a history of systematically weakening and eliminating ethnic minorities while strengthening the ethnic Russians, a history which is continuing to the present day.
The major contributor to the famine was environmental, as it was every other time that region experienced famine. My criticism is that the Holodomor presentation is disingenuous. It wasn’t a man-made famine from scratch and it clearly wasn’t targeted. Kulaks destroyed food that was being collectivized for redistribution. That absolutely would have helped feed people. They burned it because they couldn’t profit from it in the crisis. If they couldn’t have it, no one should. That’s not noble resistance, that’s sabotage that hurt the very people they claimed to represent. This is an ahistorical framing.
On the Nazi invasion: Stalin being “speechless” is revisionist folklore. Hitler’s intent to invade Russia was literal doctrine in Mein Kampf. Everyone knew it was coming. When France, Britain, and Poland refused every pact the Soviets put forward to stop the Nazis, to defend Czechoslovakia, to form a collective security front, it was extremely obvious what was next. The USSR wasn’t naive. They were preparing for a war they knew was inevitable because the West wouldn’t ally with them to prevent it.
You say the USSR didn’t expect to face Germany alone. That ignores the diplomatic record. Stalin proposed collective security repeatedly. He was rebuffed. Poland refused Soviet passage to confront Hitler. The buffer zone gained in 1939 did delay the Nazi advance. Whether that was the primary intent or a side effect, it happened. That’s strategic reality, not apologism.
On the famine again: if Moscow deliberately seized quotas to genocide Ukrainians or Kazakhs, why did the same policies apply to Russian peasants in the Volga, Kuban, and North Caucasus? Why did party officials in those same regions starve? Procurement quotas were brutal and badly implemented, yes. But they weren’t ethnically calibrated. The suffering was cross-ethnic because the crisis was structural and environmental, not a targeted hit job.
I’m not debating the deportations. They were bad. Full stop. But you’re twisting history to pad the list. Conflating distinct events, ignoring environmental factors, and erasing the agency of kulak sabotage doesn’t strengthen your critique. It makes it easier to dismiss. Call out the crimes, but don’t reshape the record to do it. Accuracy matters.
Not at all. You’re just actively choosing to dismiss it because you want to dismiss it. I’m not going to argue with someone that desperately want to rewrite history.
The Famine in Ukraine didn’t kill millions because of environmental factors. It’s because their produce was confiscated, and they were left to die.
I’m sure to have an excuse for the kazaks whose livestock was confiscated too, leading to their Famine.
It’s not just deportations that were bad. The active genocide was worse.
I don’t know if you remember checnya. But I do.
Lol. Not beating the “doesn’t think words mean anything” accusations.
Yeah, I’m giving you a comprehensive list of events taken to perpetuate an ethnostate. But it’s not “beating the accusation” 👍
“Russia is currently an ethnostate because of something that happened 150 years ago”
You’re not even trying here
I’m sorry, so you think 1944 is 150 years ago? Is 1994, 150 years ago? How about 2005? No?
Hmmm… I know! Russia disproportionately conscripting soldiers from ethnic minorities to be sent to the front lines in Ukraine as of 2026. Now that’s 150 years ago for sure. Thank you for pointing that out.
Just firing that scattershot and praying
You can’t use the term genocidal ethnostate for any country you don’t like. Pick up a dictionary, mate.
They saw it used to describe Israel and assumed its just a synonym for “bad”, because they have the political understanding of a 12 year old
Sure, so that ethnic minorities in Russia have faced disproportionat military conscriptions and sent to the front as meat waves are just coincidence then.
Goebbels would be proud of the longevity of his bullshit. This is old nazi propaganda invented as cope to explain all the times they got outmaneuvered on the battlefield by the “Slavic untermenschen”.
Except we have thousands of hours of footage today. What would you call it when people are sent to cross open fields only to be mowed down by drones and artillery. Time after time after time again?
Was it cope from nazis? It’s entirely possible. Doesn’t make it untrue. And like I said. Today we have plenty of footage of it. Though if you want to call it something else that’s fine
If we had “hours of footage” it would have aired on every single ww2 “documentary” i ever watched on History channel as a 12 year old. If we had “hours of footage”, you would link me even a minute of it. I bet you a thousand bucks than if you show me anything, you show me a regular-ass WW2 infantry attack with like, a line of guys moving forward under artillery cover.
Ethnostates, known for their large number of ethnic minorities
A number shrinking by each and every year.
Russian minorities make up ~20%
Israeli minorities make up ~18%
Not exactly a large difference.
So what’s the percentage where a country becomes an ethnostate?
I dont think there’s an exact percentage. But rather distribution of power among the government and civilians. Who has power and influence? How is that power and influence used?
The classic hallmarks of an ethnostate would be to keep most if not all power among your ethnicity of choice, and systematically suppress minorities, their rights and influence, and work towards their active reduction, a common method seems to be genocide.
Something I think it’s clear both Israel and Russia have been doing for a long time.