Lol kyivpost really? Did you just give up on any attempts at finding any resemblance of an unbiased source? Sounds like desperate attempt at a damage control, could we get a full transcript of the speech in its original, shouldn't be too hard to translate and see what was really said
The source is not Kyiv Post, the source is the president's office.
Given that Ukraine doesn't have nukes and Russia does and Putler never did any "damage control" on his threats to use them, the accusation that Zelensky is starting a nuclear war is about as absurd as all the other Kremlin fantasies.
Now you're playing dumb and pretending to not even realize that Z was talking about what NATO should do? Not a good look
"Кaк этo былo дo 24 фeвpaля — пpeвeнтивныe yдapы. Чтoбы oни знaли. чтo c ними бyдeт, ecли oни иcпoльзyют [ядepнoe opyжиe], a нe нaoбopoт: ждaть ядepныx yдapoв Poccии, чтoбы пoтoм cкaзaть "Ax, ты тaк? Hy вoт пoлyчaй oт нac", — пoдчepкнyл пpeзидeнт. — Пepecмoтpeть пpимeнeниe cвoeгo дaвлeния — вoт чтo, я cчитaю, дoлжнo дeлaть HATO: пepecмoтpeть пopядoк пpимeнeния".
https://focus.ua/voennye-novosti/532089-nato-dolzhno-nanesti-po-rossii-preventivnye-udary-zelenskiy-video"Like it was before February 24 - pre-emptive strikes. So that they know what will happen to them if they use [nuclear weapons], and not vice versa: wait for Russian nuclear strikes, then to say," Oh, are you so? Well, take it from us," the President stressed. "Reconsider the application of its pressure - that's what I think NATO should do: reconsider the application."
Best argument i can see here is perhaps google translate got it wrong too?
“I once again appeal to the international community, as it was before February 24: preemptive strikes so that they [Russians] know what will happen to them [??] and not vice versa.”
https://www.kyivpost.com/russias-war/zelensky-reference-to-preemptive-strikes-forces-staff-to-clarify-statement.htmlDid Kyivpost straight up misquoted Z and just removed insinuation to nukes "
if they use [nuclear weapons]"
or did google translate added it? And then conveniently removed the ending of and not vice versa wait for a nuke and then say take it from us? Conveniently loosing more context?
You realize that you don't have to keep Z a saint and agree with every thing that he says, you can hold on to any remaining credibility you have left and just not comment, or argue that he made a mistake being under all that pressure etc... there are options besides everything Z says is holier than thou
We're pretending now that you can't read Russian?
What he seems to be saying is that (unlike sanctions after invasion) pressure needs to be applied to Russia to discourage it from using nuclear weapons, and not wait until it uses them (like sanctions after invasion). FWIW I don't think that makes much sense because Putin is about as irrational as it gets and doesn't need a reason or discouragement to use or not to use nukes, but nowhere in that sentence does Zelensky call for a
preemptive nuclear strike. He's talking about
preventing a nuclear strike.
You realize that you don't have to keep Z a saint and agree with every thing that he says, you can hold on to any remaining credibility you have left and just not comment, or argue that he made a mistake being under all that pressure etc... there are options besides everything Z says is holier than thou
I've never said or implied any of that, so it seems that you've ran out of arguments on the subject if you need to resort to making more shit up. I've pointed out that his office explained his position... whether he misspoke or was misunderstood or mistranslated or was just plain wrong - is irrelevant, and continuing to push the idea that he wants to start a nuclear war is absurd. And FFS make up your mind - is Zelia NATO/EU puppet, or is he puppeting NATO?
As for his holiness: I've pointed out many times that Kremlin's obsession with Zelensky's persona and every word he says (or Kremlin makes up about him) doesn't make sense and seems to be based on Putin's "tsar" image. That's not how a real president's office - with term limits and whatnot - works. Zelensky will be gone and Ukraine will still not love Russia. Go figure.
So by once again evading the question i take it's safe to assume that Kyiv Post totally fucked up the quote for damage control. We went from not a single word about preemptive nuke strike, to misquote by Kyiv post, to (mic drop) Ukraine doesn't have nukes, and now to here's what I think he seems to be saying
We get what
you think Z seems to be saying, instead of quoting him correctly
Kiev Post gave it's interpretation of what Z "seems to be saying",
his office explaining what Z seems to be saying, pretty much everything but what Z actually said. Is there no proper transcript of the full question and full answer without taking words out and changing context?
Edit:
“Mr President, in your remarks you mentioned nuclear blackmail,” the host said.
“Mr Putin told us the other day that he’s not bluffing. So may I ask you, do you believe that the likelihood of the use of Russian nuclear weapons against Ukraine has risen, and what more do you want NATO to do to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons?”
Mr Zelensky replied that NATO should “eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons”.
“But what is important, I once again appeal to the international community, as I did before February 24 – we need pre-emptive strikes, so that they’ll know what will happen to them if they use nukes, and not the other way around,” he said.
“Don’t wait for Russia’s nuclear strikes, and then say, ‘Oh, since you did this, take that from us!’ Reconsider the way you apply pressure. This is what NATO should do – reconsider the order in which it applies pressure [on Russia].”
https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/zelensky-calls-for-preemptive-strike-against-russia-in-speech-to-lowy-institute/news-story/80b4cd30b1ac06298d995ce96950d744Are Aussies making shit up for Putin too now?
So to the question "...what more do you want NATO to do to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons" the answer "...we need pre-emptive strikes, so that they’ll know what will happen to them if they use nukes, and not the other way around..."
and you're trying to spin this as if he was talking in past tense, like as if he was answering what NATO
should've done before Feb 24??
