Another ZeroHedge article about Ukraine - We weren't always at war with Eurasia.

[Original_Intent]

I have heard that ZeroHedge may not be the most neutral source regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That being said, this "version" of events makes far more sense than what we are being told by our own propagandists. If anyone can show that this article is factually wrong, I'd appreciate it. We need to find and support the truth, and the media and both political parties are just a little too unified in beating the war drums for us to get more involved in Ukraine.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-03- ... ar-eurasia

The White House seems to have taken a perverse pride in the death and destruction it helped incite in Eastern Europe. In April 2014, CIA Director John Brennan visited Kyiv, appearing to confirm the agency’s role in the coup. Shortly after came Vice President Biden, who took his own victory lap and counseled the Ukrainians to root out corruption. Naturally, a prominent Ukrainian energy company called Burisma, which was then under investigation for corruption, hired Biden’s son Hunter for protection.

In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign came calling on Ukrainian officials and activists to lend some Slavic authenticity to its Russia collusion narrative targeting Donald Trump. Indeed, Russiagate’s central storyline was about Ukraine. Yes, Trump had supposedly been compromised by a sex tape filmed in Moscow, but Putin’s ostensible reason for helping Trump win the presidency was to get him to drop Ukraine-related sanctions. Here was another chance for Ukraine to stick it to Putin, and gain favor with what it imagined would be the winning party in the American election.

We all know that there was dirty dealing between Ukraine and the Obama/Biden administration.

The U.S. reassured Russia that NATO would not expand eastward, and then did so.

Obama/Biden supported the "Revolution of Dignity" in 2014 to the tune of 6 billion dollars. (and saw to it that a more EU-oriented puppet, er. leader was installed.)

Russia has every right to be concerned about Ukraine entering NATO or the EU. This is Russia's Cuban missile crisis.

I encourage you to read the long-ish article linked above. At the very least, please try to be informed about what is happening and has happened in the area.

[InfoWarrior82]

.

[Artaxerxes]

I have heard that ZeroHedge may not be the most neutral source regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That being said, this "version" of events makes far more sense than what we are being told by our own propagandists. If anyone can show that this article is factually wrong, I'd appreciate it. We need to find and support the truth, and the media and both political parties are just a little too unified in beating the war drums for us to get more involved in Ukraine.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-03- ... ar-eurasia

The White House seems to have taken a perverse pride in the death and destruction it helped incite in Eastern Europe. In April 2014, CIA Director John Brennan visited Kyiv, appearing to confirm the agency’s role in the coup. Shortly after came Vice President Biden, who took his own victory lap and counseled the Ukrainians to root out corruption. Naturally, a prominent Ukrainian energy company called Burisma, which was then under investigation for corruption, hired Biden’s son Hunter for protection.

In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign came calling on Ukrainian officials and activists to lend some Slavic authenticity to its Russia collusion narrative targeting Donald Trump. Indeed, Russiagate’s central storyline was about Ukraine. Yes, Trump had supposedly been compromised by a sex tape filmed in Moscow, but Putin’s ostensible reason for helping Trump win the presidency was to get him to drop Ukraine-related sanctions. Here was another chance for Ukraine to stick it to Putin, and gain favor with what it imagined would be the winning party in the American election.

We all know that there was dirty dealing between Ukraine and the Obama/Biden administration.

The U.S. reassured Russia that NATO would not expand eastward, and then did so.

Obama/Biden supported the "Revolution of Dignity" in 2014 to the tune of 6 billion dollars. (and saw to it that a more EU-oriented puppet, er. leader was installed.)

Russia has every right to be concerned about Ukraine entering NATO or the EU. This is Russia's Cuban missile crisis.

I encourage you to read the long-ish article linked above. At the very least, please try to be informed about what is happening and has happened in the area.

Their evidence that the US was involved in the 2014 protests was that Brennan, then Biden went to Ukraine afterward? That's considered proof? Does the author not know that admin officials visit other countries like all the time?

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been. Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else? Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

I don't understand the defense of Russian imperialism? Why shouldn't Ukraine have the right to self-determination? Why shouldn't they want to get away from a mad man like Putin?

[Ciams]

Here are your options - Eastern European countries fall under the influence of a Moscow pact that borders Western Europe. Or Eastern European countries fall under the influence of NATO.

You don't get an option that eliminates the reality of gravity - ie, smaller objects gravitating towards larger ones. Take your pick.

While you're deciding, answer if NATO oriented nations are generally better paces to live than Russia oriented places.

Now, there's no doubt in my mind machinations are at work, but when the game has been rigged so that heads the powers win, tails the people lose, there's not much you can do other than prepare and pray for their machinations to collapse around them.

[Original_Intent]

I have heard that ZeroHedge may not be the most neutral source regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That being said, this "version" of events makes far more sense than what we are being told by our own propagandists. If anyone can show that this article is factually wrong, I'd appreciate it. We need to find and support the truth, and the media and both political parties are just a little too unified in beating the war drums for us to get more involved in Ukraine.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-03- ... ar-eurasia

The White House seems to have taken a perverse pride in the death and destruction it helped incite in Eastern Europe. In April 2014, CIA Director John Brennan visited Kyiv, appearing to confirm the agency’s role in the coup. Shortly after came Vice President Biden, who took his own victory lap and counseled the Ukrainians to root out corruption. Naturally, a prominent Ukrainian energy company called Burisma, which was then under investigation for corruption, hired Biden’s son Hunter for protection.

In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign came calling on Ukrainian officials and activists to lend some Slavic authenticity to its Russia collusion narrative targeting Donald Trump. Indeed, Russiagate’s central storyline was about Ukraine. Yes, Trump had supposedly been compromised by a sex tape filmed in Moscow, but Putin’s ostensible reason for helping Trump win the presidency was to get him to drop Ukraine-related sanctions. Here was another chance for Ukraine to stick it to Putin, and gain favor with what it imagined would be the winning party in the American election.

We all know that there was dirty dealing between Ukraine and the Obama/Biden administration.

The U.S. reassured Russia that NATO would not expand eastward, and then did so.

Obama/Biden supported the "Revolution of Dignity" in 2014 to the tune of 6 billion dollars. (and saw to it that a more EU-oriented puppet, er. leader was installed.)

Russia has every right to be concerned about Ukraine entering NATO or the EU. This is Russia's Cuban missile crisis.

I encourage you to read the long-ish article linked above. At the very least, please try to be informed about what is happening and has happened in the area.

Their evidence that the US was involved in the 2014 protests was that Brennan, then Biden went to Ukraine afterward? That's considered proof? Does the author not know that admin officials visit other countries like all the time?

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been. Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else? Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

I don't understand the defense of Russian imperialism? Why shouldn't Ukraine have the right to self-determination? Why shouldn't they want to get away from a mad man like Putin?

I did start out by saying ZeroHedge may not be the most neutral source.
I also feel that, while we may not have promised in writing not to expand NATO, I do believe Russia's claims that such reassurances were given to them privately, but fair enough, who the heck knows?

Mostly, I want people to become informed about the history, We know that Biden had ties to Ukraine and that his son, Hunter, was hired by Burisma for an extravagant, salary. We also know that Biden bragged about coercing Ukraine by threatening to withhold a 6-billion-dollar aid package.

As I said, the narrative of the article made more sense to me than the story our own media and leaders are feeding us. I think everyone would do well to consider what we are being sold and why.

[NeveR]

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been.

Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.

Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else?

It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.

Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

[Artaxerxes]

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been.

Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.

Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else?

It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.

Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

1. Where is the agreement? Agreements between countries get written down as treaties. They don't just take people's word for things. Which treaty says they won't expand?

2. How many members of Svoboda are even in the Rada? (Hint, it rhymes with fun). Every country, unfortunately, has ultra nationalist parties. Germany has the AfD, France has National Front/National Rally. Is Germany fair game because they have a few idiots in their country? Why does Ukraine having ONE member of Svoboda in the Rada make it lose it's sovereignty?

3. They absolutely did not ban the Russian language. The idea that they could ban a language is incredibly silly. What they did was make Ukrainian the only official language. It's like America making English the only official language (it isn't, but that's what people want). That doesn't ban anyone from speaking another language.

4. They're at war with a eastern factions that are being armed by the Russians. There's nothing genocidal about Ukraine trying to maintain it's borders.

5. If it's not a legitimate war, why defend Putin about his need for lebensraum? That's what the article is all about.

6. The idea of a genocide in Donbas is another Russian lie they're using to justify interfering in Ukraine, which they've been doing for decades. Their new justification is obviously just an excuse to continue doing what they have been doing.

7. The Nato thing is excuse 2 of 20. Ukraine hasn't ever asked to join Nato. It's an obvious strawman. Putin has made clear that he does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist and believes it belongs to Russia. That's what it's about. And no, he does not have a right to demand their neutrality. They're a sovereign country and they get to decide what defensive groups they join if they want.

[Sarah]

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been.

Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.

Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else?

It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.

Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

They didn't exactly ban Russian. People can still speak Russian. They just repealed a 2012 law. ( And what do you know, "On 9 February 2013, the authors of the 2012 language law, Serhiy Kivalov and Vadym Kolesnichenko, were awarded the "Medal of Pushkin" by Russian President Vladimir Putin for "great contribution to the preservation and promotion of the Russian language and culture abroad".)

The 2012 law made Russian an official minority language in that it was acceptable to use in government facilities in minority dominated areas. What the gov did in 2014 would be like our government telling CA teachers that they need to stop teaching only in Spanish, and need to teach the children the official state language of English. The Ukrainians are simply tired of Russians trying to infiltrate the place and turn it into Russia. They want to keep their language. They were all forced to learn Russian during the soviet era, and want their country to be Ukrainian, not Russian.

[Sarah]

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been.

Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.

Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else?

It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.

Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

"The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine."

Where is your proof that anyone proceeded with a genocidal war on ethnic Russians in East Ukranie.

[NeveR]

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been.

Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.

Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else?

It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.

Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

1. Where is the agreement? Agreements between countries get written down as treaties. They don't just take people's word for things. Which treaty says they won't expand?

2. How many members of Svoboda are even in the Rada? (Hint, it rhymes with fun). Every country, unfortunately, has ultra nationalist parties. Germany has the AfD, France has National Front/National Rally. Is Germany fair game because they have a few idiots in their country? Why does Ukraine having ONE member of Svoboda in the Rada make it lose it's sovereignty?

3. They absolutely did not ban the Russian language. The idea that they could ban a language is incredibly silly. What they did was make Ukrainian the only official language. It's like America making English the only official language (it isn't, but that's what people want). That doesn't ban anyone from speaking another language.

4. They're at war with a eastern factions that are being armed by the Russians. There's nothing genocidal about Ukraine trying to maintain it's borders.

5. If it's not a legitimate war, why defend Putin about his need for lebensraum? That's what the article is all about.

6. The idea of a genocide in Donbas is another Russian lie they're using to justify interfering in Ukraine, which they've been doing for decades. Their new justification is obviously just an excuse to continue doing what they have been doing.

7. The Nato thing is excuse 2 of 20. Ukraine hasn't ever asked to join Nato. It's an obvious strawman. Putin has made clear that he does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist and believes it belongs to Russia. That's what it's about. And no, he does not have a right to demand their neutrality. They're a sovereign country and they get to decide what defensive groups they join if they want.

1. Ask Matlock. Or do you think he's lying? There were several promises made and broken.

2. How many members Svoboda has in the parliament doesn't really matter when it has several well-armed battalions in the Ukraine military. Look up Azov and Aidar. Even our media has noted how extremely Nazi they are.

3. Well you can refuse to believe it, but Ukraine passed multiple laws over the years to limit or ban the speaking of Russian. This from 2014

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/do ... l?redirect

Others from 2019 and 2021.

4. The Ukraine govt launched a civil war on the ethnic Russian population in the east. When it began these people had no weapons. They acquired them from Russia as a means of defense. This is simply TRUE. I watched it roll out. At that point some US sources were telling the full story. Not now.

5. I'm not defending Putin, I'm trying to keep the facts straight.

6. The genocide is very real. There are genuine Nazis out there who treat Russians with the same contempt their ancestors showed to the Jews. These guys worship Hitler and wear swastikas. And they are not just a few nutcases, they are major battalions in the Ukie military.

They massacred unarmed Russian speakers in Odessa on May 2 2014. HORRIBLE. I can still recall the images.

7. Oh please. Really, this is just ridiculous. The possibility of Ukraine being in NATO has been on the table since 1990.

[Sarah]

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been.

Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.

Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else?

It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.

Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

"Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee."

Talk about double standard. Everyone has been pointing out that America threatens and tells other countries what to do, so why can't Russia tell Ukraine what to do. Well, if people think what America is doing is wrong, than what Russia is doing is definitely wrong too. No need to justify Russia's bad behavior with the phrase "America is doing it." And this idea that poor Ukraine, that battered ex-wife of Russia, just needed to promise she would never ask for help or arm herself, or else she would be harmed, is the most deceitful, manipulative statement ever. She has the right to cozy up with whomever she wants without the threat of violence.

[Artaxerxes]

You claim Nato promised never to expand eastward. That never happened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Well they would say that wouldn't they. But according to Gorbachev there was such an agreement and according to Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Moscow, there was such an agreement.

Ukraine didn't dish dirt on Putin or whatever because they DON'T want to be antagonistic to Russia, and haven't been.

Ukraine banned the Russian language in 2014. The new coup govt had representatives of Svoboda in it, a neo-Nazi party that hates Russians. The new govt formed two new militias - the Azov and Aidar battalions, whose badge was the swastika, to prosecute a genocidal war on the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine.

14,000 civilians have been killed in this war in the last eight years.

But apart from that Ukraine has been just peachy to Russia.

Zelenskyy won election as the neutral candidate against the anti-Putin candidate Poroshenko.

Yes. But his mandate to make peace with Donbass was thwarted by his own neonazi militias (see above) and pressure from the US and EU who do not desire peace in Ukraine for their own reasons.

Why is it legitimate for Russia to invade another country because it thinks it's too friendly with someone else?

It isn't. It's also not legitimate for the US to invade Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.

The problem is the double standard. The US has done 100 times the amount of harm Russia is now doing, killed millions of innocent people. But we were never sanctioned like Russia is now being.

Is it legitimate for Canada to invade us because they think we're cozying up with Mexico?

If Mexico was about to join a Russian alliance and host Russian missiles. And if it was killing US citizens in the border region - what do you think we would do?

Because I darn well hope we would do SOMETHING.

This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba has Russia military stationed there for decades after the Crisis. The issue was specifically about having nukes pointed at us. Putin just wants lebensraum, the same as dictators who came before him. It wasn't legitimate then, and it isn't legitimate now.

Russia asked for a simple guarantee Ukraine would not join NATO or host nukes. All we needed to do was give that guarantee.

1. Where is the agreement? Agreements between countries get written down as treaties. They don't just take people's word for things. Which treaty says they won't expand?

2. How many members of Svoboda are even in the Rada? (Hint, it rhymes with fun). Every country, unfortunately, has ultra nationalist parties. Germany has the AfD, France has National Front/National Rally. Is Germany fair game because they have a few idiots in their country? Why does Ukraine having ONE member of Svoboda in the Rada make it lose it's sovereignty?

3. They absolutely did not ban the Russian language. The idea that they could ban a language is incredibly silly. What they did was make Ukrainian the only official language. It's like America making English the only official language (it isn't, but that's what people want). That doesn't ban anyone from speaking another language.

4. They're at war with a eastern factions that are being armed by the Russians. There's nothing genocidal about Ukraine trying to maintain it's borders.

5. If it's not a legitimate war, why defend Putin about his need for lebensraum? That's what the article is all about.

6. The idea of a genocide in Donbas is another Russian lie they're using to justify interfering in Ukraine, which they've been doing for decades. Their new justification is obviously just an excuse to continue doing what they have been doing.

7. The Nato thing is excuse 2 of 20. Ukraine hasn't ever asked to join Nato. It's an obvious strawman. Putin has made clear that he does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist and believes it belongs to Russia. That's what it's about. And no, he does not have a right to demand their neutrality. They're a sovereign country and they get to decide what defensive groups they join if they want.

1. Ask Matlock. Or do you think he's lying? There were several promises made and broken.

2. How many members Svoboda has in the parliament doesn't really matter when it has several well-armed battalions in the Ukraine military. Look up Azov and Aidar. Even our media has noted how extremely Nazi they are.

3. Well you can refuse to believe it, but Ukraine passed multiple laws over the years to limit or ban the speaking of Russian. This from 2014

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/do ... l?redirect

Others from 2019 and 2021.

4. The Ukraine govt launched a civil war on the ethnic Russian population in the east. When it began these people had no weapons. They acquired them from Russia as a means of defense. This is simply TRUE. I watched it roll out. At that point some US sources were telling the full story. Not now.

5. I'm not defending Putin, I'm trying to keep the facts straight.

6. The genocide is very real. There are genuine Nazis out there who treat Russians with the same contempt their ancestors showed to the Jews. These guys worship Hitler and wear swastikas. And they are not just a few nutcases, they are major battalions in the Ukie military.

They massacred unarmed Russian speakers in Odessa on May 2 2014. HORRIBLE. I can still recall the images.

7. Oh please. Really, this is just ridiculous. The possibility of Ukraine being in NATO has been on the table since 1990.

1. Okay. Let's ask him:
"All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe."
"I personally opposed the way NATO was extended to Eastern Europe, but not because there had been a binding “promise” made earlier."
https://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-ex ... a-promise/

2. You seemed to care greatly about the number of Svoboda reps there were in the Rada, until the facts become inconvenient for your argument.

3. Your citation is an anonymous forum post? ... Okay.
What the bills actually did was require the use of Ukrainian in official communications and certain businesses, and things like that. None of it was a "ban" on Russian.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra ... SKCN1S111N

4. They absolutely did not launch a civil war. That's more Putin propaganda. Here is how it actually started:
"On 12 April, unmarked pro-Russian militants seized the Donetsk city office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and two other police offices in the oblast, although they were repelled after an assault on the general prosecutor's office and failed to take a police office in the city of Shakhtarsk.[73] Following negotiations between the militants and those in the building, the chief of the office resigned from his post.[73][74] Officers from the Berkut special police force, which had been dissolved by the government following the February revolution, took part in the seizure on the separatists' side.[75] After having gained control of the Donetsk RSA and having declared the Donetsk People's Republic, pro-Russian groups vowed to fan out and take control of strategic infrastructure across Donetsk Oblast, and demanded that public officials who wished to continue their work swear allegiance to the Republic."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

5. You're defending him when you argue that Russia has the right to impose it's will on another country. It doesn't.

7. It's on the table for 32 years.... and hasn't happened? Yup. That sounds like a pressing concern for all involved.

[Sarah]

The incident at Odessa was a lot more complicated than simply saying that "genocide against Russians was committed"

Here's what we have on wiki:

19 February, about 100 unidentified men wearing masks and helmets, and armed with baseball bats, assaulted a pro-Maidan demonstration.[21][22] Three journalists and two cameramen were injured in the clashes.[23] A number of Russian nationalist groups (Odesska Druzhyna, Anti-Maidan) were active throughout the period and actively supported by senior Russian politicians such as Sergey Glazyev.[24]

After the ousting of president Viktor Yanukovych by Euromaidan protesters in late February, heightened tensions between Euromaidan and anti-Maidan protesters began in Odessa Oblast. Police reported that 5,000 participated in a pro-Russian demonstration in the city of Odessa on 1 March.[25] Rolling demonstrations continued; on 3 March 2014, 200–500 demonstrators with Russian flags attempted to seize the Odessa RSA building.[26][27][28] They demanded that a referendum on the establishment of an "Odessa Autonomous Republic" be held.[27]

Meanwhile, several competing pro-Maidan demonstrations were also held in the city.[29] On 30 March, a 5,000-strong pro-Maidan protest was held in Odessa.[30]

On 30 March, Russian ultranationalist Anton Rayevsky was arrested and deported from the city for organizing pro-Russian subversive groups, allegedly for the Russian government. A member of the neo-Nazi Black Hundreds group, materials confiscated from Rayevsky called for the destruction of Ukrainians and Jews in the region, and for Russian military intervention.[31]

An 'Odessa People's Republic' was proclaimed by an internet group in Odessa Oblast on 16 April.[32] Members of the Odessa anti-Maidan protest group later swore that they made no such declaration, and the leaders of the group said they had only heard about it through the media.[33] The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine later confirmed that the situation in Odessa remained calm.[34] Local anti-Maidan and pro-Euromaidan leaders in Odessa Oblast voiced scepticism about the Geneva Statement on Ukraine on 20 April. The anti-Maidan leaders insisted that they aimed not at secession, but at the establishment of a wider federated state called 'Novorossiya' within Ukraine.[35]

A hand grenade was thrown from a passing car at a joint police-Maidan self-defence checkpoint outside Odessa on 25 April, injuring seven people, and causing heightened tensions in the region.[36][37]

On 2 May 2014, as part of the rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, multiple clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan groups broke out in the streets of Odessa.[41][51] Two pro-Maidan and four anti-Maidan activists were killed by gunfire during the clashes in the streets.[49][52][53][54] These clashes culminated in a large skirmish outside the Trade Unions House, an Odessa landmark located on Kulikovo Field in the city centre.[38] That building was then set on fire, resulting in the deaths of forty-two pro-Russian activists who had holed up in it.[45][55] The events were the bloodiest civil conflict in Odessa since 1918.[56]

A detailed minute-by-minute timeline of events has been compiled by "the 2 May Group", an organisation of 13 local journalists and experts investigating the tragedy on a volunteer basis.[57] The timeline's first version is published in 2014,[49][58] and an updated version in 2016.[52] According to Guardian, most of what is known today about the tragedy is thanks to the 2 May Group investigation based on analysis of amateur footage and interviews with witnesses.[57]

More details if anyone wants to read on...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes

[Niemand]

She has the right to cozy up with whomever she wants without the threat of violence.

Cuba's government would argue the same about themselves, but I doubt they have much support from anyone on here.

[Sarah]

She has the right to cozy up with whomever she wants without the threat of violence.

Cuba's government would argue the same about themselves, but I doubt they have much support from anyone on here.

Last I heard Cuba was still Cuba and not part of the USA.

[Niemand]

She has the right to cozy up with whomever she wants without the threat of violence.

Cuba's government would argue the same about themselves, but I doubt they have much support from anyone on here.

Last I heard Cuba was still Cuba and not part of the USA.

Cuba was under heavy US influence for many years, and its annexation was also discussed many times in Washington. There was the false flag USS Maine incident in Havana used to start the Spanish American war... the real reason it probably wasn't fully absorbed like Puerto Rico was that it was the playground of the rich and corrupt from the USA and it was in their interests to have it as a separate jurisdiction.

The corruption under Batista, who was partly propped up by the USA, is partly what led to Castro and his Communists gaining popular support there, and they haven't been pushed out since.

[Artaxerxes]

She has the right to cozy up with whomever she wants without the threat of violence.

Cuba's government would argue the same about themselves, but I doubt they have much support from anyone on here.

Last I heard Cuba was still Cuba and not part of the USA.

Cuba was under heavy US influence for many years, and its annexation was also discussed many times in Washington. There was the false flag USS Maine incident in Havana used to start the Spanish American war... the real reason it probably wasn't fully absorbed like Puerto Rico was that it was the playground of the rich and corrupt from the USA and it was in their interests to have it as a separate jurisdiction.

The corruption under Batista, who was partly propped up by the USA, is partly what led to Castro and his Communists gaining popular support there, and they haven't been pushed out since.

Or held real elections.

[Sarah]

She has the right to cozy up with whomever she wants without the threat of violence.

Cuba's government would argue the same about themselves, but I doubt they have much support from anyone on here.

Last I heard Cuba was still Cuba and not part of the USA.

Cuba was under heavy US influence for many years, and its annexation was also discussed many times in Washington. There was the false flag USS Maine incident in Havana used to start the Spanish American war... the real reason it probably wasn't fully absorbed like Puerto Rico was that it was the playground of the rich and corrupt from the USA and it was in their interests to have it as a separate jurisdiction.

The corruption under Batista, who was partly propped up by the USA, is partly what led to Castro and his Communists gaining popular support there, and they haven't been pushed out since.

At least what you've said here confirms my argument that America's meddling always ends up strengthening more dictators and communists.

And every time we place sanctions on a country, it strengthens that country's relationship with Russia and China, as is happening in Cuba. https://www.republicworld.com/world-new ... rticleshow.

It's almost as if we are helping them set up a communist world order.

[ajax]

Written formal agreement or not, NATO expansion eastward up to the Russian border is clearly provocative, antagonistic and most importantly DUMB. It has been warned about for decades.

The real question is "What now?" Push the envelope? De escalate?

[Vision]

While you're deciding, answer if NATO oriented nations are generally better paces to live than Russia oriented places.

Without actually living a lifetime in any country can you truly judge how the people actually live is better or worse?

[Sarah]

Written formal agreement or not, NATO expansion eastward up to the Russian border is clearly provocative, antagonistic and most importantly DUMB. It has been warned about for decades.

The real question is "What now?" Push the envelope? De escalate?

To a narcissistic bully, anything you do is interpreted to be provocative.

[Original_Intent]

It seems my post has, perhaps predictably, divided us into two camps.

I actually wish for a more moderate approach. Assume that at least some points of what you are told is nothing but war propaganda. If you say, "That doesn't happen in America!" then I guess the discussion is over. And I certainly agree that pro-Russian propaganda is also out there. But it is 100% clear the messaging of our media and administration.

Clearly it is in the US interest to move Ukraine in a pro-West direction, and in Russia's interest to move them in a pro-Russian direction. Certainly, invasion is a bad way to move things in your direction. In this regard, the US is far more guilty than Russia. That doesn't make what Russia is doing right - but it does mean that we should not hypocritically call out Russia for doing things that the US has done ten times as much.

I am trying not to be pro-Russia, but I am trying to encourage that we try to discover the objective facts of what is going on, and not simply swallow whatever the MSM serves up. The war drums are being beaten by both parties, and as most people strongly identify with one of the two parties, it is almost a given that the vast majority of people are going to be swept up in the common narrative in the U.S.

I do appreciate the fact-based opinions on both sides being expressed above. It seems that where the "facts" are in disagreement, we need to dig further, and see what facts actually make sense and match known facts. And I appreciate those that have provided such information.

There is no question that Hillary and the Dems shouted "Russia collusion!" for four years regarding Trump.

Hunter Biden definitely held a position at Burisma for which he had zero qualification.

Joe Biden definitely bragged about strong-arming Ukraine by threatening to hold back $6 billion in aid.

These facts and others make me skeptical that the war drums are being beaten solely for virtuous purposes.

"War is the health of the State."

[ajax]

Written formal agreement or not, NATO expansion eastward up to the Russian border is clearly provocative, antagonistic and most importantly DUMB. It has been warned about for decades.

The real question is "What now?" Push the envelope? De escalate?

To a narcissistic bully, anything you do is interpreted to be provocative.

If you know the reality, why push? Dick comparisons?

[Sarah]

War drums are beating because TPTB want us to enter into the next phase of WW3, where the West will collapse, our military defeated, and Putin and Xi can manage the West with their Western puppets. The constitution of the US is one of the main targets. They want to control as much land wealth as possible.

[Sarah]

Written formal agreement or not, NATO expansion eastward up to the Russian border is clearly provocative, antagonistic and most importantly DUMB. It has been warned about for decades.

The real question is "What now?" Push the envelope? De escalate?

To a narcissistic bully, anything you do is interpreted to be provocative.

If you know the reality, why push? Dick comparisons?

Well, that is what people say. Never argue with a narcissist because you'll never win. I just like to talk about the truth. And debate