And... rightly so? I mean, we know who we want to win here. There's a good side and a bad side. Have we really gone so far down the rabbit hole of "media neutrality" that a unilateral military invasion needs to be protected as... a form of speech, I guess?
No, that's wrong. Russia is wrong. Limiting Russia's ability to invade its neighbors isn't being "biased" in a discussion about different perspectives, it's doing the right thing.
At some point, there's a line drawn at the limit to tolerance. And Russia literally rolled tanks over it.
Could you please stop spouting Russian propaganda at every step? Russia has a far bigger Neo Nazi problem then Ukraine, on top of that it isn't exactly the Ukranian Neo Nazi's that are currently invading another country to slaughter their citizens.
Neo Nazi's are unfortunately all too common, in the context of Ukraine they are merely a very convenient excuse to invade another sovereign country.
Help me understand what I said that is Russian propaganda. I don't think anybody denies the Ukrainian Azov Battalion is clearly Neo-Nazi. Are you saying this is one of those things that is best left unsaid, since it is an uncomfortable truth? Is that what makes it propaganda in your mind? Because nobody denies the accuracy of it.
It's especially odd that you call it Russian propaganda since in the same sentence I call out the Russians for invading a sovereign country.
> Are you referring to the Ukrainian Azov Battalion with their Nazi ideology, or the Russians who have invaded a sovereign country?
> The choice may seem simple to you, but it's not as easy as you might think for many to side with avowed Nazi's either..
What you're implying is that there is some moral justification to invading Ukraine if the goal is to eliminate the Nazi Azov battalion. That is false -- there is no justification at all. The reason is that if you applied this standard equally to all countries (i.e. "if x% of population is Nazi, then invade"), then you could invade 90%+(just to be conservative) of the countries in the world: how many people are there in the Azov battalion? 2k? 3k? 5k? Ukraine has a population of 44 million. How many Nazis are there in the United States? How many Nazis are there in Germany? How many Nazis are there in Mongolia? And how many Nazis are there in Russia itself? If you're not planning to "de-naizify" all of them, then "de-nazification" is but a meaningless excuse to your invasion, aka -- propaganda.
The comment was in response to the statement that "the choice was clear" on who should be supported. Except it's not. There is a lot of blame to go around, it's been abundantly clear for 25 years that NATO expansion to Ukraine & Georgia would result in war[1]. So when we have continually pushed for that, we have been pushing for war.
Also, we can't ignore the US-backed Ukrainian coup/revolution in 2014[2] which then resulted in the invasion of Crimea. Nor can we ignore that after the democratically elected government in Ukraine was removed via that coup/revolution, that the US handpicked the post-coup leadership in Ukraine and helped rewrite the Constitution to put NATO membership back on the table, knowing this would antagonize Russia.[3]
Should we not consider all of these things? Russia is clearly being the aggressor now that they have decided to invade Ukraine, but that didn't happen in a vacuum. Our actions in the West are what has led to this, either intentionally or though incompetence. Ignoring everything that happened before February 24th is ignorant.
However I do not expect this to stop you from continuing to peddle the same misleading talking point to each new passer-by who didn't think to check just how one-note your comment history is.
You linked to people who disagree, or have a different take on the situation. I'm not sure what you think that means.
I have simply pointed out that the revolution/coup of 2014 that installed the current Ukrainian government was A)Unconstitutional and B)Supported by the US, which is obviously the main adversary to Russia. I also pointed out that the idea of pushing Ukraine and/or Georgia towards NATO has been known for the last 25 years to be a guaranteed precursor to war with Russia.
These facts aren't in dispute, so there is nothing to call me out on. Now, you can have the opinion that the coup was a good thing for the Ukrainian people and that it's ok to install a pro-US government in Ukraine or that they should be in NATO regardless of how that concerns Russia. Those are opinions and can be debated. But you can't dismiss facts. And the above are facts.
> These facts aren't in dispute, so there is nothing to call me out on
Yes, very nice.
however as stated before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30665507 Your argument is at best semantic; and entirely misleading, in a propagandistic way. I call you out on that, and I am not the first
> Supported by the US
Citation needed. You called it "CIA-backed" earlier, which is a worse smear. You can deny the Ukrainian people agency over their own fate then, as a precursor to denying it to them now.
The facts on the ground say otherwise. Ukraine is not behaving as if they have an "illegitimate regime". Implying otherwise - and doing so repeatedly - is behaviour that shows that you have an agenda.
> I also pointed out that the idea of pushing Ukraine and/or Georgia towards NATO has been known for the last 25 years to be a guaranteed precursor to war with Russia.
"look what you made me do" is again, the logic of an abuser.
Your citations provided upthread say nothing of the sort. This is pretty misleading stuff.
Regarding "ok to install a pro-US government in Ukraine" is a complete mischaracterisation; the question is whether it's OK for a nation to determine their own fate or not. Regardless of which power they choose to be "pro". I'm of the opinion that it is vital; you're clearly against that self-determination, calling it a "coup", repeatedly, for tendentious reasons.
Seems like this took place after the transfer of power. You can't cause a transfer of power after it happens. But I don't think you're that stupid,. you're just trying to fool people with misleading links.
Government behaving badly? isn't the answer - according to you - to wait until the next election and change leaders (1)? "That is how democracy works."
Oh wait, Ukraine did that in 2019 when they elected Zelensky by a wide margin (2). Job done. right? Problem solved, no need to bring it up again.
All this irrelevant frothing about CIA, US is designed to misdirect away from Ukraine's self-determination. Who they align with or not is their choice. In 2014, 2019 or any other year.
Zelensky was elected in 2019, five years later, does that change yours? Are you even going to talk about that at all?
> So no, that is 100% incorrect.
Funny that Wikipedia lists a lot of things happening in December and January too. "100% wrong" is misleading as always. Looks like the Ukrainian people took the initiative on this one.
Those goal posts must be getting heavy. So to recap, the US was involved in the 2014 coup and picked their guy to take power in Ukraine. Learning that, your opinion has not changed at all. So, now we see what this is.
"thier guy" You are studiously avoiding mentioning that this was the guy before the guy before Zelensky. Deceptive as always. Zelensky was elected in 2019, five years later. Are you even going to talk about that at all?
Imagine the Jan 6th events unfolded differently and they actually installed Trump or someone else as President instead of Biden, and then rewrote the Constitution.
If that happened, would you then say future "Presidents" under that illegitimate system are legitimate?
No, that's wrong. Russia is wrong. Limiting Russia's ability to invade its neighbors isn't being "biased" in a discussion about different perspectives, it's doing the right thing.
At some point, there's a line drawn at the limit to tolerance. And Russia literally rolled tanks over it.