Grames

Chemical weapons
https://youtu.be/Wn9V41asoxs
 

The U.S. is not and never has been a democracy.  Not should it ever be.  Democracy is not a good thing.  The U.S. is a republic and the U.S. Constitution requires that every state have a republican form of government.  "Republic" means "not ruled by a monarch" but the U.S. Constitution also has provisions against the forming of an aristocracy.  To have "republican spirit" as exhibited during the French Revolution is not to be merely anti-monarchist but to be fully committed to egalitarianism.
Technically Russia is also a republic, as is China and North Korea.   A country's form of government and its practice with respect to human rights are two different issues which can be in complete contradiction. 
Any moral claims the U.S. might have due to its intermittent internal respect of human rights have no impact on what it may do in foreign policy.  Being a good boy at home does not justify a world wide war of conquest.  Everyone has rights, at home and abroad.  The CIA and the State Department and its "NGO" apparatuses such as the National Endowment for Democracy or The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has no formal requirement to respect or recognize the rights of people in other countries to self-governance, so they don't. 
Next up is an operation against Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary.  
 

This framing of US foreign policy is certainly consistent with an objective view of lead up and execution of the current war in Ukraine.
https://swprs.org/us-foreign-policy/

Ayn Rand has no authority, she is the standard for clear thinking here. 
I don't to write the full essay all at once, it gets boring to read and to write.
There is no legitimate gov't on Earth by Rand's standard.  All this breast-beating about illegitimacy by Americans is self-serving moralistic rationalizing so you don't have to feel guilty about sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths.  Make no mistake, that is what has happened here and America is the cause and bears responsibility.   

Ayn Rand has no authority, she is the standard for clear thinking here. 
I don't to write the full essay all at once, it gets boring to read and to write.
There is no legitimate gov't on Earth by Rand's standard.  All this breast-beating about illegitimacy by Americans is self-serving moralistic rationalizing so you don't have to feel guilty about sending hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths.  Make no mistake, that is what has happened here and America is the cause and bears responsibility.   

Putin apparently expected good prospects for further cooperation with Ukraine in the future on the basis of past ties and shared history and ongoing economic involvement.  When the U.S. simply overthrew the gov't in 2014 Putin should have begun to realize the ruthlessness of the opponent he was dealing with.  All agreements ever made with the Ukraine government had been abrogated when the U.S. dissolved that gov't in 2014 and made it a U.S. puppet state.
So what makes a government legitimate?  What does "legitimate" mean in this context?  There must be an objective definition of "government" so that we know what the referents are before it is possible to distinguish better or worse within the category.  Calling the Russian government illegitimate doesn't make it go away or make it any less of a government.  You must admit it to the category of government before you can begin to apply the standards of a proper government to it.   
Rand's definition of government A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.
Defining and defending the territorial integrity of a country is one of the essential defining attributes of government.  The Russian government is not illegitimate for doing what a government does by its very nature and identity.  Anytime a government does something wrongly or incorrectly it does not cease to be the government (if only government reform could be so easy!).   
Also from the Lexicon, from Galt's speech we have The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” The objective form in which consent manifests is acting in compliance with the government exercise of authority.  Governments collapse when a critical mass of people simply stop complying with it.  Up until the moment that happens governments wield real authority. 
The distinction between wielding real actual authority and wielding legitimate authority is reached by applying a normative standard to government actions.  The Objectivist philosophy of government is that government action should be about defending human rights.  There are people in this world who are not Objectivists and not even philosophical who have different opinions about what government action should be about.  Objectivists do not have the right to murder people with different philosophies or no philosophies because those people are still humans with their own rights.  The American government, which is not in the hands of Objectivists, does not have that right.  
 

Putin apparently expected good prospects for further cooperation with Ukraine in the future on the basis of past ties and shared history and ongoing economic involvement.  When the U.S. simply overthrew the gov't in 2014 Putin should have begun to realize the ruthlessness of the opponent he was dealing with.  All agreements ever made with the Ukraine government had been abrogated when the U.S. dissolved that gov't in 2014 and made it a U.S. puppet state.
So what makes a government legitimate?  What does "legitimate" mean in this context?  There must be an objective definition of "government" so that we know what the referents are before it is possible to distinguish better or worse within the category.  Calling the Russian government illegitimate doesn't make it go away or make it any less of a government.  You must admit it to the category of government before you can begin to apply the standards of a proper government to it.   
Rand's definition of government A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.
Defining and defending the territorial integrity of a country is one of the essential defining attributes of government.  The Russian government is not illegitimate for doing what a government does by its very nature and identity.  Anytime a government does something wrongly or incorrectly it does not cease to be the government (if only government reform could be so easy!).   
Also from the Lexicon, from Galt's speech we have The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” The objective form in which consent manifests is acting in compliance with the government exercise of authority.  Governments collapse when a critical mass of people simply stop complying with it.  Up until the moment that happens governments wield real authority. 
The distinction between wielding real actual authority and wielding legitimate authority is reached by applying a normative standard to government actions.  The Objectivist philosophy of government is that government action should be about defending human rights.  There are people in this world who are not Objectivists and not even philosophical who have different opinions about what government action should be about.  Objectivists do not have the right to murder people with different philosophies or no philosophies because those people are still humans with their own rights.  The American government, which is not in the hands of Objectivists, does not have that right.  
 

Putin apparently expected good prospects for further cooperation with Ukraine in the future on the basis of past ties and shared history and ongoing economic involvement.  When the U.S. simply overthrew the gov't in 2014 Putin should have begun to realize the ruthlessness of the opponent he was dealing with.  All agreements ever made with the Ukraine government had been abrogated when the U.S. dissolved that gov't in 2014 and made it a U.S. puppet state.
So what makes a government legitimate?  What does "legitimate" mean in this context?  There must be an objective definition of "government" so that we know what the referents are before it is possible to distinguish better or worse within the category.  Calling the Russian government illegitimate doesn't make it go away or make it any less of a government.  You must admit it to the category of government before you can begin to apply the standards of a proper government to it.   
Rand's definition of government A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.
Defining and defending the territorial integrity of a country is one of the essential defining attributes of government.  The Russian government is not illegitimate for doing what a government does by its very nature and identity.  Anytime a government does something wrongly or incorrectly it does not cease to be the government (if only government reform could be so easy!).   
Also from the Lexicon, from Galt's speech we have The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” The objective form in which consent manifests is acting in compliance with the government exercise of authority.  Governments collapse when a critical mass of people simply stop complying with it.  Up until the moment that happens governments wield real authority. 
The distinction between wielding real actual authority and wielding legitimate authority is reached by applying a normative standard to government actions.  The Objectivist philosophy of government is that government action should be about defending human rights.  There are people in this world who are not Objectivists and not even philosophical who have different opinions about what government action should be about.  Objectivists do not have the right to murder people with different philosophies or no philosophies because those people are still humans with their own rights.  The American government, which is not in the hands of Objectivists, does not have that right.  
 

Putin apparently expected good prospects for further cooperation with Ukraine in the future on the basis of past ties and shared history and ongoing economic involvement.  When the U.S. simply overthrew the gov't in 2014 Putin should have begun to realize the ruthlessness of the opponent he was dealing with.  All agreements ever made with the Ukraine government had been abrogated when the U.S. dissolved that gov't in 2014 and made it a U.S. puppet state.
So what makes a government legitimate?  What does "legitimate" mean in this context?  There must be an objective definition of "government" so that we know what the referents are before it is possible to distinguish better or worse within the category.  Calling the Russian government illegitimate doesn't make it go away or make it any less of a government.  You must admit it to the category of government before you can begin to apply the standards of a proper government to it.   
Rand's definition of government A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.
Defining and defending the territorial integrity of a country is one of the essential defining attributes of government.  The Russian government is not illegitimate for doing what a government does by its very nature and identity.  Anytime a government does something wrongly or incorrectly it does not cease to be the government (if only government reform could be so easy!).   
Also from the Lexicon, from Galt's speech we have The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” The objective form in which consent manifests is acting in compliance with the government exercise of authority.  Governments collapse when a critical mass of people simply stop complying with it.  Up until the moment that happens governments wield real authority. 
The distinction between wielding real actual authority and wielding legitimate authority is reached by applying a normative standard to government actions.  The Objectivist philosophy of government is that government action should be about defending human rights.  There are people in this world who are not Objectivists and not even philosophical who have different opinions about what government action should be about.  Objectivists do not have the right to murder people with different philosophies or no philosophies because those people are still humans with their own rights.  The American government, which is not in the hands of Objectivists, does not have that right.  
 

KyaryPamyu, I doubt that a robot which was not artificial life could obtain any understanding at all or is capable of meaning anything to itself in its computations. And without those, an OR scenario for the robot cannot take on meaningfulness that choices of alternatives for animals have. Hence choice of alternative by a silicone brain, not living and not in a living robot, cannot amount to a volition. 
Of related interest: Ascent to Volitional Consciousness by John Enright.

Russia is a small population and small economy country that is getting older and smaller demographically every year so "problems with Putin's Russia" have never really mattered.  Eventually Russia will not even be able to afford its nuclear weapons, or will reduce to a merely token nuclear capability along the lines of North Korea or Pakistan.  Russia is not a threat, it a bogeyman displayed to secure funding for bloated American bureaucracies that have no purpose without an enemy to fight.  
Among the more absurd things that have happened within your lifetime, the change within the Democratic party from Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State visiting Vladimir Putin with her misspelled "Reset" button and Barack Obama at a presidential debate looking on with bemused incredulity as Mitt Romney claimed Russia was a threat to America to the present day Democratic party and the same people now seeing a Russian behind every rock should give you whiplash.  The pattern is: the party out of power uses Russia as an external enemy to rally support under a fake patriotism appeal.

Allow me.
I incorporate by the reference the basic facts about Catherine the Great, in particular "..With the support of Great Britain, Russia colonised the territories of New Russia along the coasts of the Black and Azov Seas. "  and " ... Many cities and towns were founded on Catherine's orders in the newly conquered lands, most notably Odessa, Yekaterinoslav (to-day known as Dnipro), Kherson, Nikolayev, and Sevastopol. "
Crimea as it is known today in its non-Muslim form is Russian.  It was founded by the Russian government by Russian people speaking the Russian language and keeping the Russian cultural norms in entirely new cities.  To this day it still is populated by Russians speaking Russian and keeping Russian cultural norms.  Crimea has been Russian for longer than Texas has been American.  Khrushchev reassigned administrative control of the Crimea region to the Ukraine region for some reason, some kind of political payoff or perhaps he just wanted to reduce the paperwork crossing his desk.  In no way did this administrative maneuver change anything about who was living in the Ukraine.  When the Soviet Union collapsed the technicality of Khrushchev's act meant Russia lost control of Crimea.  It is as absurd to think Russia would just let the Crimea go as to think America would let Texas go back to Mexico or become independent if some irregularity were newly discovered in the process of Texas' admission to the Union of States.  

The CIA toppled the existing legimate government of the Ukraine in 2014.  Having failed at the espionage game of force, Putin trumped the Americans by resorting to more direct force.   Americans started this shit.  

What does "machine" mean and imply? There is an error in philosophy Rand to referred to as the "mind-body dichotomy" which insisted consciousness and all things spiritual was immaterial and that the body was material and therefore mechanical.  "Machine" means and implies the "body" side of the mind-body dichotomy and so by definition cannot be conscious or ever volitional.  In addition to all the arguments against the mind-body dichotomy which Rand had made I have my own ontological insight which I owe to modernity and science.   
Philosophy is often said to start with Thales who tried to assert "everything was water".  Fast forwarding through thousands of years, we have Newton and others teaching that there is matter and energy.  Then Einstein taught that matter and energy are the same thing, in that one can be transformed into the other.  But the man the people forget is Claude Shannon who founded information theory as a field of study.  Fundamentally what exists is matter/energy and information.  All information exists in the form of some mass/energy and no mass/energy can exist without bearing information.   There can be no "pure mind" or "pure body", only ever a comingling of both.
All discrete systems from inert rocks to microbes to people can be graded on a spectrum as to how elaborate is their information processing capacity.  Somewhere on the higher end consciousness becomes possible and then beyond that volition.   This is why I conclude volition is possible in non-human and even non-organic forms.  

What does "machine" mean and imply? There is an error in philosophy Rand to referred to as the "mind-body dichotomy" which insisted consciousness and all things spiritual was immaterial and that the body was material and therefore mechanical.  "Machine" means and implies the "body" side of the mind-body dichotomy and so by definition cannot be conscious or ever volitional.  In addition to all the arguments against the mind-body dichotomy which Rand had made I have my own ontological insight which I owe to modernity and science.   
Philosophy is often said to start with Thales who tried to assert "everything was water".  Fast forwarding through thousands of years, we have Newton and others teaching that there is matter and energy.  Then Einstein taught that matter and energy are the same thing, in that one can be transformed into the other.  But the man the people forget is Claude Shannon who founded information theory as a field of study.  Fundamentally what exists is matter/energy and information.  All information exists in the form of some mass/energy and no mass/energy can exist without bearing information.   There can be no "pure mind" or "pure body", only ever a comingling of both.
All discrete systems from inert rocks to microbes to people can be graded on a spectrum as to how elaborate is their information processing capacity.  Somewhere on the higher end consciousness becomes possible and then beyond that volition.   This is why I conclude volition is possible in non-human and even non-organic forms.  

Excerpt:
"Russia refuses to accept a negotiated outcome that entails its retreat from the Donbas or Crimea. Moscow now insists that Ukraine accede to the suicidal Minsk II agreement that would effectively convert Ukraine into a confederation whose sovereignty could be punctured at any point by the Donbas, much as the confederacy attempted to destroy the Union in the American Civil War 150 years ago. Yet it remains the case that the real problem with the Misnk II accords is that Russia has never even bothered to hide its refusal to comply with it in any form. Thus its demands are without merit and a dodge to avoid compliance. At the heart of this crisis is the fact that Russia still cannot accept Ukraine’s de jure independence as a sovereign and separate state. In Moscow, power rests on the notion of an imperial state to whom all other members of the former Warsaw Pact must surrender part of their sovereignty".
I maintain "propaganda" on this article. A load of assertions creating a 'flipped narrative'. Perhaps and unsurprising not being mentioned much in the msm, but in the past year, ex-Ukraine President Poroshenko, the ex-Chancellor Merkel, and ex-President Hollande have each confirmed independently that their meetings at Minsk were never meant to bear fruit, "suicidal" for Ukraine - or life-saving for the Donbass.
They reiterated the same duplicitous purpose, Minsk in 2014/15 was "to buy time" to build the Ukraine Army for - obviously - wiping out the Donbass resistance - and its coming, anticipated encounter with the Russian Army.
As everyone should know, Zelensky was elected on the platform "peace in Donbass": he backed down to threats from his ultra-nationalists and continued the (civil) war with a vengeance. Not the only time, he again backed down to Johnson/Biden just before beginning negotiations with Russia in March that could have ended hostilities (by simply implementing "Minsk" and declaring Ukraine neutrality). He is a traitor to his country. He sacrificed his people to Western blandishments and promises of a glorious victory over Russia...
 

My premise was/is the invasion , by the lying, dictatorial, murderous Putin in 2022 was his last ditch effort to gain and or keep control of the Crimean Peninsula without having to commit to total war.
Romainia, Bulgaria and Turkey are NATO countries, so you may have something there, they should have sold Crimean to Romania and Putin would most likely not have annexed it in 2014 , or if NATO had admitted Ukraine prior. Why didn't NATO incorporate Ukraine sooner? Or better yet , why did Khrushchev 'give' Crimea to Ukraine?

America can't lose and exit the situation without financial obligations without Russia winning.   Even a military draw with present frontlines as new borders means Biden's Billions and his kickbacks keep flowing forever.

The CIA toppled the existing legimate government of the Ukraine in 2014.  Having failed at the espionage game of force, Putin trumped the Americans by resorting to more direct force.   Americans started this shit.  

The U.S. has always been an empire, both legally and culturally.  Ever encounter the principle of "Manifest Destiny" in American history?  What is new is the degenerate corruption, arrogance and recklessness of the de facto ruling class.  It is a consequence of the ending of the long Cold War with the Soviets, who by simply existing at least kept the American leaders somewhat in check.  It is now a unipolar political world, a world organized around only one great power, America.  There is no one and nothing to dispel the illusions and self-deceptions of the American leaders, except the eventual disasters that bad policy creates, and not even then as long as some other country does the suffering.

The idea of an animal with volition is preposterous until you concede that humans are animals.

In the present post, I want to draw attention to and to dispute a recent attack on Rand’s idea that consciousness stands as a philosophical axiom. The criticism of this idea comes from Prof. Fred Seddon (Philosophy) in his recent review of a book titled EXPLORING “ATLAS SHRUGGED”: AYN RAND’S MAGNUM OPUS (2021). That book is a collection of essays by Prof. Edward Younkins (Business). Seddon’s review is in the December 2022 issue of THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES, to which my page citations refer in the following.
Seddon’s springboard to this issue is a statement by Younkins that an axiom “cannot be reduced to other facts or broken down into component parts.” Seddon responds: “Yet consciousness depends on other facts, like the brain or body. Consciousness is an attribute, not a thing, and attributes depend on the entity of which they are attributes.”(p. 237) Furthermore, secondly, “unlike existence and identity, consciousness did not always exist. For billions of years there was no consciousness.” Thirdly, “there is no proof by denial for consciousness. It makes perfectly good sense to say there was no consciousness, whereas it makes no sense to say there was a time when there was no existence or identity.”
Concerning Seddon’s third criticism, I say: proof by contradiction in denial of an axiom is indeed a traditional necessary condition that Rand accepted for having the status of a philosophical axiom, as she indicated in Galt’s speech and in ITOE. The fact that consciousness has not always existed does not change the circumstance that to affirm existence or any facts of existence implicitly affirms the fact of consciousness at work in mustering the assertion. To say that consciousness is identification of existence is to define the fundamental nature of consciousness from which all other episodes that are ordinarily spoken of as consciousness are causal and conceptual derivatives (such as dreams or hallucinations). Consciousness as identification of existence is an axiom for an epistemology, specifically a stand on the relation of mind to world informing and constraining all right additional epistemology.
“Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that IT exists and that you KNOW it.” (AS, pp. 1015–16)
In my own modulation of Rand’s metaphysics, as set out in my fundamental paper “Existence, We”, the axiomatic concept consciousness is continued as fundamentally consciousness of existence, but the fundamental division of existing things into existence and consciousness (the existent that is consciousness) is kicked upstairs a bit by the division: existence and of-existence, where the latter includes any living existent, including the living existent that is consciousness. Nevertheless, what Rand said about the way in which consciousness is an axiom still holds. The circumstance that consciousness and life did not always exist, Seddon’s third rub, is irrelevant to the point of having a set of axioms needing to be put to work, according to Rand, for the human level of consciousness. My reply to Seddon’s third criticism also replies to his second criticism.
To Seddon’s first criticism, I say: To say, as Seddon does, that consciousness is an attribute, not a thing, and therefore consciousness is fundamentally dependent (on things, on entities), is to hold Rand’s division of identity into categories (entity, action, attribute, relation) to an exclusivity standard, which was held for Aristotle’s categories, that she did not accept. In Galt’s Speech, Rand refers to the solar system as a thing, as an entity. Yet it can be allowed also, considering further aspects of the solar system, to be a thing composed of component things and their motions. Rand did not take up the picture in which if something belongs to one metaphysical category, it can in no wise ever belong to another category. Indeed any action (one of Rand’s categories) when considered in its systematic situation can also be an entity. The system that is the instrumentation and master control system of an animal can also be a combine of entities as well as a combine of activities. Where that system amounts to consciousness of existents as entities, we rightly say all of these: Mind is a system, which is to say, an entity; mind is an activity, which is to say an action; mind is an attribute of certain animals, which is to say that mind is an attribute. It is invalid to think, as Seddon reasons, that because consciousness is an attribute of certain things, it is, tout court, dependent on other things and therefore cannot qualify as an axiom.
To say, in Rand’s meaning, as Younkins reported, that the axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness “cannot be reduced to other facts or broken down into component parts” is not to say that consciousness cannot become explained by facts of life and brain operations, but that one will not come such explanation or explanations of anything else without consciousness of existence and apprehension that one is conscious of existence, and those things are first-apprehensions in the order of knowledge. If one does not already have those in hand, one can be told nothing of anything nor understand anything.

The U.S. has always been an empire, both legally and culturally.  Ever encounter the principle of "Manifest Destiny" in American history?  What is new is the degenerate corruption, arrogance and recklessness of the de facto ruling class.  It is a consequence of the ending of the long Cold War with the Soviets, who by simply existing at least kept the American leaders somewhat in check.  It is now a unipolar political world, a world organized around only one great power, America.  There is no one and nothing to dispel the illusions and self-deceptions of the American leaders, except the eventual disasters that bad policy creates, and not even then as long as some other country does the suffering.

Over the past decade or so it has become much more acceptable to "punish" people because of their opinions -- because they expressed them, or just because they have them.
It has been pointed out that there is a big difference between the government carrying out this "punishment," such as by throwing people in prison, and private individuals (or groups) carrying it out, such as by denying service at a bar or a bank. In the latter case, property owners are merely exercising their right to their own property, and their right to choose who they associate with, and if somebody were to force them to serve people they don't want to, even if this force is only forcing them to do what is in their actual best interest anyway, then, as Leonard Peikoff puts it, the act of forcing it on them makes it wrong.
However, in some cases the motivation behind using your own personal property to do something, and using the government to do it, can be the same, and in the case of "punishing" opinions, the motivation is wrong in both cases, even though initiating force is the only thing that should properly be illegal.
It is proper to address the motivation and expose its incorrectness even if it is not (yet) infringing anyone's rights. By doing so, it may be possible to talk people out of acting on it.
One can say that, for example, nihilism ought to be legal if you don't infringe anyone's rights, but one can also say that it is still wrong.
My point is: the motivation for punishing people's opinions contradicts the motivation for having free speech, which means, a person can't consistently support both. When you see more and more people "punishing" opinions, and supporting the punishment of opinions, you can know that the days are numbered for free speech, even if the government itself has not yet begun to act against it.
The motivation for free speech is confidence in reason (and reality). We can afford to allow people to state falsehoods because we have confidence that reason will expose the falsehoods as such. Free speech also ensures that it's possible for people to speak the truth even when it's controversial, so that the truth can also be exposed.
This confidence is what allows a store owner to let people he disagrees with walk into his store and buy stuff. He knows that their opinion, even if wrong, is not a threat to him; he knows that reality and reason will prevail in time; he can count on the police to be on his side if they initiate force, so he can just smile and sell them their goods.
When people have abandoned reason, when they believe they are the exclusive owners of truths that cannot be reached by means of reason (or "reason alone"), when they decide that "unbridled" reason is a threat to their point of view, when they find that reason (and ultimately reality itself) can be "misleading," they do not feel that confidence, and they seek to suppress contrary opinions.
If they cannot do it through the government, then they can do it through their own private property, but if they don't see the problem doing it with their own property, they will not see the problem with using the government to do it.
So, in that sense, saying "it isn't really censorship if they're using their own private property" is true, but it's not addressing the root of the problem.
The real problem is that people have abandoned reason -- and without reason, the distinction between merely using their own property and using government force to go beyond it will be abandoned, too. It's only a matter of time. (Actually it has already been abandoned. The separation between usage of private property [i.e., economics] and government powers [i.e., state] has never been formally recognized and has been on the way out for decades; however, it cannot be upheld unless reason itself is upheld.)
The notion that "free speech is dangerous," that "free speech corrupts people" and so forth, is coming from both political parties. Because of its widespread popularity, even if you do not see it affecting government policy now, it is going to affect government policy sooner or later, unless it can be exposed as the mistake that it is.
Exposing the mistake -- and defending free speech as such -- requires a defense of reason.

THE DPRK FOREIGN MINISTRY CONDEMNED THE SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINIAN REGIME AND THE DISSOLUTION OF RUMORS AROUND COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA

On January 29, the head of the DPRK Foreign Ministry Department for US Affairs, Kwon Jong-geun, published the following press statement.

"In connection with the press statement by the deputy head of the Department of the Central Committee of the CPC, Kim Ye Jung, condemning the US decision to transfer Western-made tanks to Ukraine, on January 27, a representative of the White House National Security Council said that the American side would continue to supply Ukraine with weapons necessary for self-defense against the "aggressive war" allegedly unleashed by Russia.

Such formulations are nothing more than a ridiculous and hypocritical absurdity, which, however, fits into the perverted paradigm of the United States, which often pulls its nuclear strike weapons to the Korean peninsula under the pretext of "expanded deterrence" in response to someone's "provocation".

If the United States had not forced the planned expansion of NATO to the east to the detriment of Russia's just security interests, the conflict we have today would not have broken out in principle.

The behavior of the United States, which, despite the just concern and condemnation of the international community, persistently tries to pump Ukraine with offensive weapons, such as main battle tanks, is an anti-human crime aimed at maintaining international instability.
 
It's 2023 and North Korea is the voice of sanity.  smfh