//pyramid quotes
...
Besides all the childish name-calling let's see how they're doing now the populist party would win 21% support, putting it firmly in second place behind the center-right bloc of Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), which remain the strongest force at 27%, despite taking some small losses.
So you're saying the system is set up in such a way that to voice your disapproval will cause an automatic association with "braindead fascist party, where all the idiots are gathering"?
Yes, people voting for that AfD party in 2023 are well aware that it's a fascist party. ...
Besides all the childish name-calling let's see how they're doing now the populist party would win 21% support, putting it firmly in second place behind the center-right bloc of Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), which remain the strongest force at 27%, despite taking some small losses.
So you're saying the system is set up in such a way that to voice your disapproval will cause an automatic association with "braindead fascist party, where all the idiots are gathering"?
In January 2022, their last "moderate" voice in a leading position (Jörg Meuthen, AfD) left AfD because according to Meuthen, AfD is unable to get rid of their fascists and he argued that these fascists have basically taken over the party. Someone from AfD should know their internal idiots.
And AfD has not just only turned a fascist party, it's has also turned into a Putin asslicker party. So, it's not even a German patriotic party, it's a Russia loving bunch of traitors.
You just have zero clue about German politics, German history and obviously Ukrainian history as well.
It's always amazing to have dimwits like you talking about German politics.
So, keep embarassing yourself as a clueless Putin troll and fascist friend.
And this is Germany we're talking about? I guess the only logical solution is to continue oppressing them more, call them names, and don't consider any of their arguments or the root cause of such grievances, after all history taught us that it worked so well right before before WW1 and WW2.
LOL, you are really clueless how Hitler achieved to destroy the democratic system. He achieved it due to people like you in powerful positions underestimating Hitler and his fascist friends. 
You are so embarassing but let me give you some basic links to educate you about it:
You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen (Binging Hitler into power):
Ah yes and your take on NordStream sure must've aged just as well. Surely it was evil Russia let's get UN to investigate and get to the bottom of this:
Sure, let's quote again my text from earlier: Let's look at it:
Germany doesn't need to blow up this pipeline since it has been sure since Putin's illegal war, that NordStream 2 will never be activated and purchase of russian gas by NordStream 1 to Germany will stop as soon as possible. Germany has pushed very hard to get rid of russian gas and the pipeline has become basically irrelevant.
Why should they blow up the pipeline? Makes no sense at all.
After USA tried to lobby against NordStream 2 for years with massive efforts but has been unsuccesful so far because surprisingly, Putin has been the one who made their mission succesful on February 24, when Putin invaded Ukraine and isolated Russia succesfully from the West.
Surely, the USA would blow up a useless pipeline which will never get activated because Putin finished this Job already on February 24.
Surely, the USA would risk the alliance by blowing up a useless pipeline from an allied state (Germany) while there's no need at all to take such a risky adventure (will never get activated).
Surely, the USA would only blow up 3 streams and 1 of them, especially from NordStream 2, will stay intact, so that Putin can still potentially send gas to Germany.
According to some Kremlin trolls it can also be Ukraine. Maybe Ukraine rent a dolphin, a brave guy (Klitschko) with some dynamite swam on the back of the dolphin through Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, half of the Atlantic, through the English Channel, past Denmark and Sweden just to the Baltic Sea to blow up the useless pipeline.
Surely, Ukraine would risk the support from the west for blowing up a useless pipeline...
While Russia has a useless pipeline since German politicians have learned their lesson to abandon Putin and his gas. Since Putin invaded Ukraine, it was very clear that NordStream 2 would not be activated. While Putin continued his war crimes and now annexed 4 parts of Ukraine, it was very clear that Germany will stop purchasing Russian gas as soon as possible. Therefore, Putin run out of options what to do with his failed pipeling because Germany doesn't played his game and he looked bad.
Surprinsingly, one Stream of NordStream 2 is still intact, leaving it open for Putin demanding Germany to open it.
Let me guess which stories are plausible and which not.
But sure, the guy from Kremlin, who has lied basically every day, is not the one to blow up his useless pipeline and blame the west (as usual).
Idiots like you are his best asset - completely brainwashed...
Germany doesn't need to blow up this pipeline since it has been sure since Putin's illegal war, that NordStream 2 will never be activated and purchase of russian gas by NordStream 1 to Germany will stop as soon as possible. Germany has pushed very hard to get rid of russian gas and the pipeline has become basically irrelevant.
Why should they blow up the pipeline? Makes no sense at all.
After USA tried to lobby against NordStream 2 for years with massive efforts but has been unsuccesful so far because surprisingly, Putin has been the one who made their mission succesful on February 24, when Putin invaded Ukraine and isolated Russia succesfully from the West.
Surely, the USA would blow up a useless pipeline which will never get activated because Putin finished this Job already on February 24.
Surely, the USA would risk the alliance by blowing up a useless pipeline from an allied state (Germany) while there's no need at all to take such a risky adventure (will never get activated).
Surely, the USA would only blow up 3 streams and 1 of them, especially from NordStream 2, will stay intact, so that Putin can still potentially send gas to Germany.
According to some Kremlin trolls it can also be Ukraine. Maybe Ukraine rent a dolphin, a brave guy (Klitschko) with some dynamite swam on the back of the dolphin through Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, half of the Atlantic, through the English Channel, past Denmark and Sweden just to the Baltic Sea to blow up the useless pipeline.
Surely, Ukraine would risk the support from the west for blowing up a useless pipeline...
While Russia has a useless pipeline since German politicians have learned their lesson to abandon Putin and his gas. Since Putin invaded Ukraine, it was very clear that NordStream 2 would not be activated. While Putin continued his war crimes and now annexed 4 parts of Ukraine, it was very clear that Germany will stop purchasing Russian gas as soon as possible. Therefore, Putin run out of options what to do with his failed pipeling because Germany doesn't played his game and he looked bad.
Surprinsingly, one Stream of NordStream 2 is still intact, leaving it open for Putin demanding Germany to open it.
Let me guess which stories are plausible and which not.
But sure, the guy from Kremlin, who has lied basically every day, is not the one to blow up his useless pipeline and blame the west (as usual).
Idiots like you are his best asset - completely brainwashed...
It's quite interesting that you are doubling down on your Putin asslicking even if it's making no sense at all.
We all know it's either Poland, Germany, the US, the UK, France, Sweden or Ukraine but NOT Russia.
Isn't it embarrassing to defend Russia again and again, while you have already well realized how Russia is a big terrorist state?
Because dude, you know nothing, not about Ukrainian history, not about German history...
It's a mystery why those idiot AfD supporters don't like their critical infrastructure sabotaged by US/Ukraine. But don't let your destroyed credibility stop you, after all you consider your targeted audience to be complete idiots with a memory retention of a gold fish, so just keep posting some new stuff.
It's a mystery why idiots like you are cheering both for- AfD, a fascist party
- Putin and his criminal regime blowing up his pipeline after it got useless due to Germany not willing to fund Putin's war
Think you need more emojis and call me more names to convince the reader to the validity of the nonsense you spew. Are you a teenage girl by any chance
, because that would explain a lot, not that there's anything wrong with that 
it's great that you're involving yourself in politics at such young age, I'd just have to adjust my responses accordingly 
in a way that should be more comprehensible to you As you pointed out there a lot of negative stigma associated with AfD, this creates a huge barrier for Germans to voice their disapproval. Despite that, their support keep climbing this is what we adults call trends.
| Party | 26Sep21 | 15Sep22 | 03Aug23 |
| CDU/CSU | 24,1% | 28% | 27% |
| AfD | 10,3% | 14% | 21% |
| SPD Scholz | 25,7% | 17% | 17% |
| Greens | 14,8% | 21% | 15% |
Also, it's really mean to call 21% of your population idiots, even if you don't disagree with them. Now we adults also try to explain the trends, for that we either do our own research or look to the news, something like this
Ukraine has exposed the EU’s nationalism
...
Joining the EU meant that the national and popular sovereignty of these countries was immediately constrained. In the medium term, this produced a backlash against the EU, the effects of which we now see in Hungary and Poland.
...
urged Europeans to unite to become a “third force” in international politics and maintain their position of power in the world. Central to this thinking was the idea of Africa as Europe’s “plantation”.
...
many imagined that European integration would overcome not just national sovereignty but sovereignty in general as the EU became a kind of blueprint for global governance
...
The far-Right was rising and the centre-right began to converge with it, especially on questions of identity, immigration and Islam. The policy area where this convergence between the centre-right and the far-Right played out most clearly, and with the most horrific consequences, is immigration.
...
As Human Rights Watch put it recently, the EU’s policy can be summed up in three words: “let them die.”
...
Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.
...
Even as it continued to brutally push back migrants in the Mediterranean, it opened its borders to those fleeing from Ukraine and provided them with extraordinary support.
...
Perhaps the most peculiar feature of the European response, though, is the way that “pro-Europeans” have suddenly embraced a nationalist movement — as the ubiquitousness of Ukrainian flags illustrates. Traditionally, “pro-Europeans” did not distinguish between ethnic-cultural and civic versions of nationalism, but saw all nationalism as a dangerous force.
...
What makes the sudden “pro-European” identification with Ukrainian nationalism even stranger, however, is that it is not just any nationalism. Rather, it has a long history of anti-Semitism which extends from its 16th-century Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky to Stepan Bandera during the Second World War — both of whom are still venerated in Ukraine. Moreover, after 2014, much of the fighting in the Donbas was done by the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia that was integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard. Supporters of Ukraine claim that these neo-Nazi elements were later removed. But at least two of the five Azov commanders who Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky recently brought back to Ukraine as heroes are neo-Nazis who go back to the founding of Azov.
...
much bigger questions, such as whether, once in the EU, Ukraine would become a larger version of Hungary and Poland.
...
Joining the EU meant that the national and popular sovereignty of these countries was immediately constrained. In the medium term, this produced a backlash against the EU, the effects of which we now see in Hungary and Poland.
...
urged Europeans to unite to become a “third force” in international politics and maintain their position of power in the world. Central to this thinking was the idea of Africa as Europe’s “plantation”.
...
many imagined that European integration would overcome not just national sovereignty but sovereignty in general as the EU became a kind of blueprint for global governance
...
The far-Right was rising and the centre-right began to converge with it, especially on questions of identity, immigration and Islam. The policy area where this convergence between the centre-right and the far-Right played out most clearly, and with the most horrific consequences, is immigration.
...
As Human Rights Watch put it recently, the EU’s policy can be summed up in three words: “let them die.”
...
Thus when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was inevitably seen as a civilisational Other against which Europe must defend itself.
...
Even as it continued to brutally push back migrants in the Mediterranean, it opened its borders to those fleeing from Ukraine and provided them with extraordinary support.
...
Perhaps the most peculiar feature of the European response, though, is the way that “pro-Europeans” have suddenly embraced a nationalist movement — as the ubiquitousness of Ukrainian flags illustrates. Traditionally, “pro-Europeans” did not distinguish between ethnic-cultural and civic versions of nationalism, but saw all nationalism as a dangerous force.
...
What makes the sudden “pro-European” identification with Ukrainian nationalism even stranger, however, is that it is not just any nationalism. Rather, it has a long history of anti-Semitism which extends from its 16th-century Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky to Stepan Bandera during the Second World War — both of whom are still venerated in Ukraine. Moreover, after 2014, much of the fighting in the Donbas was done by the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia that was integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard. Supporters of Ukraine claim that these neo-Nazi elements were later removed. But at least two of the five Azov commanders who Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky recently brought back to Ukraine as heroes are neo-Nazis who go back to the founding of Azov.
...
much bigger questions, such as whether, once in the EU, Ukraine would become a larger version of Hungary and Poland.
You reap what you sow.
As far as other trends:
Ukraine and its supporters worry about losing control of the narrative
...
government in Kyiv is waging a different kind of battle abroad, trying to shape how the world perceives its counteroffensive.
...
Some U.S. officials privately expressed disappointment that the Ukrainians have appeared to hold back on deploying some of their most well-equipped and trained units, and that they have not necessarily applied the training principles they received. “There is a frustration that they have not used more of the combat power that they have,” one U.S. official said.
...
Another senior administration official said the Biden administration and U.S. allies have given Ukraine everything it requested for the counteroffensive, including 500 tanks and hundreds of armored vehicles.
...
“We are confident that they have significant combat capability available to them...” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters Thursday.
...
brigade commander had pursued direct assaults during the counteroffensive in hopes of a swift victory. The army sent infantry and armored units to attack the Russian lines across uncleared minefields and without suppressing enemy fire. The brigades were shredded by opposing forces, and the commanders were severely criticized internally for the unnecessary losses.
...
Volodymyr Zelenskyy...said they waited “because, frankly, we had not enough munitions and armaments and not enough properly trained brigades.”
...
Now, breaking through Russian lines across the dense minefields in the east and the south will almost certainly inflict high casualties on Ukrainian troops, U.S. officials and experts said.
...
There is a danger that “there might be the narrative of stalemate or the narrative of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive,” he said.
...
“We have launched a counteroffensive without any kind of air superiority — not in the air force, not in drones, not in helicopters. We have a little bit in terms of precision-guided artillery munitions,” said Polyakov, who works for a military think tank advising Zelenskyy. “But to talk about holding back without all these necessary components, it is ludicrous.”
...
But there has been no significant change in the front lines in the war for the past nine months. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces have failed to achieve major advances, and Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corp think tank, argues that neither side has a realistic chance of scoring a definitive victory. As a result, the U.S. should start preparing for an inconclusive outcome and explore options for an eventual diplomatic settlement, he said.
“It’s an indication of where things are going. There’s not going to be a decisive military outcome,” Charap said.
...
government in Kyiv is waging a different kind of battle abroad, trying to shape how the world perceives its counteroffensive.
...
Some U.S. officials privately expressed disappointment that the Ukrainians have appeared to hold back on deploying some of their most well-equipped and trained units, and that they have not necessarily applied the training principles they received. “There is a frustration that they have not used more of the combat power that they have,” one U.S. official said.
...
Another senior administration official said the Biden administration and U.S. allies have given Ukraine everything it requested for the counteroffensive, including 500 tanks and hundreds of armored vehicles.
...
“We are confident that they have significant combat capability available to them...” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters Thursday.
...
brigade commander had pursued direct assaults during the counteroffensive in hopes of a swift victory. The army sent infantry and armored units to attack the Russian lines across uncleared minefields and without suppressing enemy fire. The brigades were shredded by opposing forces, and the commanders were severely criticized internally for the unnecessary losses.
...
Volodymyr Zelenskyy...said they waited “because, frankly, we had not enough munitions and armaments and not enough properly trained brigades.”
...
Now, breaking through Russian lines across the dense minefields in the east and the south will almost certainly inflict high casualties on Ukrainian troops, U.S. officials and experts said.
...
There is a danger that “there might be the narrative of stalemate or the narrative of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive,” he said.
...
“We have launched a counteroffensive without any kind of air superiority — not in the air force, not in drones, not in helicopters. We have a little bit in terms of precision-guided artillery munitions,” said Polyakov, who works for a military think tank advising Zelenskyy. “But to talk about holding back without all these necessary components, it is ludicrous.”
...
But there has been no significant change in the front lines in the war for the past nine months. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces have failed to achieve major advances, and Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corp think tank, argues that neither side has a realistic chance of scoring a definitive victory. As a result, the U.S. should start preparing for an inconclusive outcome and explore options for an eventual diplomatic settlement, he said.
“It’s an indication of where things are going. There’s not going to be a decisive military outcome,” Charap said.
CNN Poll: Majority of Americans oppose more US aid for Ukraine in war with Russia
Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia,
...
Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.
Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the US role in Ukraine.
...
When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).
...
Republicans broadly say that Congress should not authorize new funding (71%) and that the US has done enough to assist Ukraine (59%). Among Democrats, most say the opposite, 62% favor additional funding and 61% say that the US should do more.
...
Independents mostly say the US has done enough to help Ukraine (56%) and that they oppose additional funding (55%).
...
There’s an even larger partisan gap over providing weapons to Ukraine, with 61% of Democrats behind that compared with 39% of independents and just 30% of Republicans.
Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia,
...
Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.
Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the US role in Ukraine.
...
When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).
...
Republicans broadly say that Congress should not authorize new funding (71%) and that the US has done enough to assist Ukraine (59%). Among Democrats, most say the opposite, 62% favor additional funding and 61% say that the US should do more.
...
Independents mostly say the US has done enough to help Ukraine (56%) and that they oppose additional funding (55%).
...
There’s an even larger partisan gap over providing weapons to Ukraine, with 61% of Democrats behind that compared with 39% of independents and just 30% of Republicans.
Americans Are Turning Against Ukraine Joining NATO
Support among U.S. voters for Ukraine joining NATO has gone down in the last three months
...
in 2020 conducted on April 5 with a 2.53 percent margin of error, just over half of respondents (55 percent) said that Kyiv should join the alliance.
...
a survey conducted on July 25 and 26 of the same size sample of voters, with the same margin of error, found that backing for Ukraine's membership of NATO had diminished. Support for Ukraine's membership had gone down by eight percentage points—to 47 percent, with 23 percent "strongly" supporting the move, and 29 percent neutral.
...
The proportion of those opposing Ukrainian membership of NATO went up by six percent, to 16 percent
Support among U.S. voters for Ukraine joining NATO has gone down in the last three months
...
in 2020 conducted on April 5 with a 2.53 percent margin of error, just over half of respondents (55 percent) said that Kyiv should join the alliance.
...
a survey conducted on July 25 and 26 of the same size sample of voters, with the same margin of error, found that backing for Ukraine's membership of NATO had diminished. Support for Ukraine's membership had gone down by eight percentage points—to 47 percent, with 23 percent "strongly" supporting the move, and 29 percent neutral.
...
The proportion of those opposing Ukrainian membership of NATO went up by six percent, to 16 percent
You can close your eyes and stump your feet really hard, but that's not going to change the trends, and you ignore trends at your own peril. In adult life facts don't always align with your wishful thinking regardless how unfair that makes you feel.
.
