Quote (ferdia @ Mar 5 2024 07:29pm)
As I understand it yes (at least) 50,000 dead in eastern Ukraine for the period 2014 up until the outbreak of the Russian invasion. To expand on this there is ample records available (which have been posted) which document the shelling (using cluster munitions) of Ukrainian civilian populations, by Ukraine, and there are interviews from Zelensky related to his (wholly negative) view of the ethnic Russians living within Ukraine.
Even now Ukraine is bombing civilian centre's but this is not palatable so we dont see it on the BBC etc. My view is that a news broadcaster should be impartial.
When I referred to FSB actions I should be more specific, I mean the actions taken against protestors. As in themselves firing rifles from buildings into protestors or enabling Ukrainian services to do so at the behest of Yanukovych; Who it is fair to say was elected predominantly by Russian speakers in Ukraine, reneged on the agreed path of Ukraine towards EU membership and eventually ended up as a Kremlin stalwart in Ukraine. Wrongly or rightly.
So I refer to the actions taken around the time of what you said was a "US backed coup" and consider the FSB actions as opposing and equivalent.
Since we are considering this early period is it right to include the casualties of what I assume you are referring to as the "the war in Donbas" period in particular 2014-2022?
Also I assume the 50,000 number are casualties directly resulting from that conflict and not specifically Ukrainian shelling of Russian speaking regions?
Happy to be wrong in that assumption following your clarification of this.
So I would add that yes the CIA likely had involvement in any regional instability. Yes John McCain made a speech in Kiev; And yet concurrently FSB snipers or Ukrainian snipers at FSB instruction literally fired into demonstrators. So are those events at least equally deserving of derision? I would attest they absolutely are.
Just on a more general level, if we take what is claimed to be true. That Ukraine was in Russia's sphere of influence. Is it not fair to assume that Russia would be the principle actor in creating unrest and instability in that sphere?
After all it plays into the widely accepted policy of Putin to incorporate all of or as many of the Russian speakers outside the country, into the Russian federation.
This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 5 2024 02:07pm