But let's say there are two men. One of them is black. The other calls him the N word and a whole bunch of other really nasty things, to such a point where the black dude can't take it anymore, and he strikes the former. When we try to find the aggressor, we see that it's the black guy. But we shouldn't ignore that he was goaded into a response.

Changes what facts? I don't think anyone seriously disputes that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 to seize control of the country.

Except that isn't what happened at all. Russia wanted Ukraine as a puppet state and actively made efforts to subvert their Democracy to get there. The USA's "aggression" was to undermine those efforts. As evidenced by Yanukovych defying the will of the people and their parliment to associate more closely with Russia and not the EU. In response to the protests he cracked down on free speech and started enacting violence on the protesters.

It is patently obvious that the will of the people was overwhelmingly to move closer to the West, and it was only the result of Russian meddling that the Eastern part of the country and Yanukovych were trying to associate more closely with Russia.

What level of integrity do you assign to Ukraine's democratic process, particularly in the emergence of separatist regions?

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Mar 23 2023 09:34pm

He didn't defy the will of the people, though. He defied the will of "some" people. It's not like his support in the east and south was manufactured, they voted for him and rose up violently when he was overthrown. Denying this is mental illness.

Maybe the US shouldn't have meddled in another country's affair. I don't care if there's any "atrocity" being committed or how human rights are being violated or how democracy is being subverted. The US is not the world's police. And if she insists on being the police, then she should be consistent and intervene in ALL countries who transgress. And while we are at it, the US should intervene in the cases of animals being abused/tortured, too. This issue is important to me, just like how human rights issues or democracy...etc are important to someone. I don't see why the US should carry out some random person's will but not mine.

They "rose up violently" when Russia sent in troops, arms, and fomented a rebellion. Russia doesn't even deny this anymore.

Without Russia's active effort to cause a rebellion none exists.


Ukraine isn't a perfectly united nation by any means. There's lots of serious divisions, but Russia went to pretty extreme lengths to create the current situation. I find it really hard to believe Ukraine isn't still a peaceful country without Russia's interferrence.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 23 2023 10:53pm

Well there should be repercussions for harassing Trump with endless lawsuits. IF it turns out to be a nothing burger again Trump can claim a billion dollars in reperations and a public apology.
I personally would take a pinky finger of the prosecution but we live in a different timeline

Enough that both east and west found it reasonably functional and democratic and considered the elections legitimate, prior to Euromaidan.
because as said;


the fact was the democratic will of the Ukrainian people was behind a Russian-aligned regime, because the country was majority Russian-aligned. It was a minority who rose up and rebelled, which was possible because the capitol was deep in the EU-aligned region. A bit like if the residents of a heavily democratic Washington D.C. were to riot and overthrow a Republican administration in a mass revolt, how would Floridians and Texans stop them? But that same Russian aligned majority, when separated from the rest of the country by civil war, was even more Russian-aligned in their own borders and clearly supportive of the referendum to join Russia. Which of course, we don't recognize as Democratic even though it had overwhelming support.

So like I've said from the beginning, the status quo ante was a reasonably functional democracy that east and west agreed was legitimate, which was still in Russia's sphere of influence. It was wrested from them by a coup d'etat backed by western powers, and the ensuing 'regime change' micromanaged by Washington. Whether you want to pin that directly on the CIA, state department or more specifically Joe Biden, I don't think the distinction matters when they operated as one entity, and all profiteered blatantly from it. I mean, Hunter Biden was literally joined by a CIA head on the board of Burisma, they weren't being coy about it. This war was Joe Biden's handiwork, the product of his foreign policy from his days as VP, and now we're seeing its logical conclusion. Same reason the """""whistleblower""""" the Democrats weaponized against Trump was himself a staunch Ukrainian partisan nationalist who was itching for war against Russia and a siege of the separatist regions, who was directly involved in that shadow US intervention. Is the result everything Joe Biden hoped for?

Thanks for sharing, just curious your initial perspective. I'm not well-informed enough on this topic, and will need to look into this more.