Yes, but you're clearly not reading what I'm writing. Why are you attempting a clear straw man argument? My statement was, “it was clumsy. But I want to make clear that it wasn't as it is being portrayed by the media” It is very important that the media is misrepresenting why action was taken
Let me make it clear for you. YOU! ARE! FCKING! WRONG!!!!!!!
lol, nope. I now that your little straw man failed you resort to simple name calling. the top leadership of the NABU & SAPO have been linked with Russia (spying, illicit trade, etc.). The reason for the action was valid, the action itself was clumsy See nako.org.ua/en/news/sbu-...
So what (by your logic), should Zelensky do regarding traitors within his Government? Just terminate the whole Government??? english.nv.ua/nation/how-a...
Did you forget your morning meds? The reason for the action was valid. The action taken was clumsy. And again, Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, head of NABU's IDU - accused of helping w/ illicit trade w/ Russia. Viktor Husarov (NABU D-2 Unit) detained on spying for Russia charges. There's much more.
Oh please F off with your teen comebacks with "morning meds". Read through what I wrote, again. And if it's STILL unclear of what I'm talking about, then I can't help you.
>what I'm talking about Dude, you keep on attempting straw man after straw man. Seriously, whatever your taking it isn't enough. There were valid reasons to act. The act was clumsy. nako.org.ua/en/news/sbu-...
Again, you F-ing simpleton. It doesn't matter whether there was a "valid" reason to terminate the anti-corruption bodies of the Ukraine. The MAIN point is how that will look in front of the world. ESPECIALLY EU! Because today, Ukraine depends SOLELY on EU!
Dude, you were caught attempting to lie. This you: "mess ... his Government has created, for NO reason!" Absolutely had reason - NABU & SAPO been linked with Russia (spying, illicit trade, etc.). The action was clumsy, the reason for acting was valid. Again, see nako.org.ua/en/news/sbu-...
You God damn inbreed, I was trying to say that there are other ways to deal with such situations.
So, then you agree that the reason for acting was valid (not like as being represented by common media) but the action, itself, was clumsy. haven't I been repeatedly stating that?