I dunno man, could be a 10d chess game tbh

I’ll tell you what Bandera fought against. I’m 49 years old and I found the USSR. My grandparents lived in a village near Zaporozhye. And they sent me to them for the summer. And then one day I noticed that they had dry bread in their bed under the mattress. I asked why? After all, in the USSR the propaganda was very strong and they told us that ours was better. And damn it, the imperialists oppress the workers. And my grandmother told me about the Holodomor. When in 1933 all the food of the villagers was taken away, armed people went from house to house and took everything. In the summer it was still possible to live. But in the winter they ate all the cats and dogs. And then, since there were many children in the families, they ate the one who died first, so that others would survive. At the same time, the harvests were good. But they took the grain to sell it to the west and buy factories. At the same time, the law “about three ears of corn” was adopted; if people went to a field of wheat and took more than three ears of corn from the field, then they were given 20-25 years in prison. That’s what the Soviet Union was like. Stalin killed more people than Hitler. But history is written winners and they didn’t write this in school books. They wrote that the Soviet Union is justice and joy, and the West is capitalists and grief. But people lived and saw everything, but there were executions and exile to Siberia. But Bandera fought with the Soviets and that’s why he is portrayed that way. But the court in Nuremberg did not condemn him, although the Reds really wanted it. Of course, he is not a saint either, but he fought for freedom from the Red killers.

Crimean and the Donbas weren't territories that "didn't belong to a specific country" prior to 2014. They belonged to Ukraine. A country led by a legitimate elected government, with territorial integrity and representative democracy recognized by both east and west.
That country ceased to exist after a violent revolution in 2014 and the Maidan regime that took over no longer held control of the ethnic Russian oblasts which held independence referendums.
And that revolution then put all that international recognition and treaties into abrogation. As tends to be the case when a lawful democracy is overthrown by insurrectionists.

I'm not sure how you fail to grasp this very very basic concept of "Possession is nine tenths of the law". If you don't control a territory, you don't control it. Its a tautology. The Ukraine that existed prior to 2014 is not the same Ukraine that existed after the CIA-backed coup d'etat overthrew the democracy and replaced it with a US state department handpicked puppet government. Ukraine did have legitimate claim to Crimea, until they didn't. Ukraine existed as a country that encompassed those regions, until it didn't. The Ukraine that exists today has never held those regions at any point and has no claim to them. The violent revolution seized control of Kiev, but it did not seize control of Sevastapol.

Not an accurate representation of events in 2014.

"In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) began in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia. Earlier that year, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) had overwhelmingly approved finalizing the agreement with the EU.[26] Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it.

On 21 February, Yanukovych and the parliamentary opposition signed an agreement to bring about an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections.[32] Police abandoned central Kyiv that afternoon and the protesters took control. Yanukovych fled the city that evening.[33]

The next day, 22 February, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office by 328 to 0 (about 73% of the parliament's 450 members)."

In between these events on Yanukovychs orders 108 protestors were killed by security forces that included at least guidance from Russian FSB.

Following this Russia illegally annexed Crimea.

It's accurate to say Yanukoych had his core support in the East and Russian speaking territories. Perhaps it explains his decision to go against the diplomatic will of the Ukrainian parliament and its people, in abandoning the ratified decision for closer ties with Europe.
Perhaps it was Russian pressure, persuasion or threats. Maybe a combination.

It's not accurate to say this was a CIA invoked coup.
This was a popular uprising against what people saw as unconstitutional usurping of power by Yanukoych.

Russia then acted to consolidate Crimea and stepped up support for separatists in the East of Ukraine.
Putin was appeased over Crimea.

Obama, Merkel and other leaders failed to act and so Putin was emboldened causing him to blunder into a bear trap in the 2022 invasion.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Sep 18 2023 04:44pm

you're trying to back up kremlin propaganda by uncritically regurgitating more kremlin propaganda. i'd suggest you read into what really happened prior to russia's invasion, about the old guy, what he did, and why ukrainians got rid of him. you clearly have no clue what happened and just repeat whatever tucker tells you...

Totally incorrect; It was a constitutional vote.
Ukraine’s parliament voted 328–0 (about 73% of its 447 members) to remove President Viktor Yanukovich, who abandoned his Kiev office.
The "president" had to flee to his mother Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Fleeing_to_Russia
On a side note:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titushky
Titushky were employed by the Yanukovych government with a reported daily pay of 200 hryvnia. Some of them were also suspected to be illegal formations of combat troops carrying concealed pistols. Their aim was to intimidate and disperse demonstrations by opponents of the government, and attack participants and representatives of the media. The term is sometimes translated as "Rent a Thug."



Seriously ?



This post was edited by Meanwhile on Sep 18 2023 05:00pm

I said it was a CIA-backed coup d'etat that overthrew the democracy and replaced it with a US state department handpicked puppet government.



An uprising by an undemocratic minority against the will of the majority, seizing power by force.



Obama, Merkel and other leaders wanted to expand their sphere of influence by color revolutions and CIA shadow interventions and its just naked hypocrisy to call Russia's reciprocal actions illegitimate.
Both America and Russia played the game. It wasn't Russia who upset the status quo with a power grab, but once the cards are on the table it winds up with Russia in control of the strategically important areas of Ukraine and NATO getting a bombed out hellscape and flood of refugees.
I've said repeatedly, almost on a loop for 3523 pages of this thread, that any moralizing geopolitical argument or unilateral claim to international legitimacy is moronic and pointless. Outcomes are what matters. If America was playing this game and winning, that would be grand.
We're just speedrunning the Syrian War 2.0. Waves of refugees, social and economic repercussions, getting someone's country blown to smithereens in the name of some absolutely vain geopolitical crusade only for Russia to benefit in the long run.

New York Time smoked the rug or ?

I said it was a CIA-backed coup d'etat that overthrew the democracy and replaced it with a US state department handpicked puppet governmen



Russia never acted reciprocally. They have always acted this way.
Just look at its funding of far right parties in European countries to this day.

Imo you do not fully understand how Yanukovych essentially triggered the revolt against him.
Also it's worth mentioning he won the election in 2010 with a margin of 3%.
There was no landslide majority. Ukraine was clearly heavily divided with no one "side" having significantly more or less control.

I also don't subscribe to the US being omnipotent in all aspects of global subversion. Imo this is bordering hysterical conspiricism.
Its become the go to explanation for anything deemed to be negative that happens in the world.
There's an earthquake in Morocco and its linked through an email chain on a stolen laptop to Joe Biden cutting a fart after meatloaf day.
If the US really was as omnipotent as some people make out, wouldn't we expect Bin Laden to have been liquidated in a matter of months?
Kim Jong un would have had a plutonium enema already and the Mullahs in Iran would be on prime time TV at gunpoint singing George Michael tracks on karaoke.

Yanukovych should have be jailed just because of this haircut anyway.