Posts by Kate Cook27

Arthur Watson4 said:The only thing Ukraine could have actually done was follow Belarus's lead and eventually become just another part of the Russian Federation.

Neutrality, demilitarization, or any of those Minsk agreements wouldn't have helped them in the long run.

It’s obvious they aren't looking for a deal on Donbas or Crimea; they want all of Ukraine, every single inch of it.

Unfortunately, looking back at everything since 2014, that seems to be the reality.
As for the nuclear issue? Well, Ukraine didn't really give that much thought at the time.

analogbear70 said:That comparison only works in an ideal world. Sometimes you just have to be smart—don't walk through dark alleys in a mini-skirt or withdraw cash from an ATM while a group of punks is lurking right behind you.
It doesn't excuse the attacker; it's simply about being smart enough to reduce your own risk. Russia is the aggressor, the occupier, and an imperialist power. However, if they are your neighbors, you have to play your cards more carefully to prevent this kind of thing from happening. That’s the plain truth. And again, Russia is the aggressor, and there is absolutely no justification for occupation.

So, what was Ukraine supposed to do?

Brandon Clark4 said:It is quite fascinating how this "leaked" into the press. Not even through WikiLeaks, mind you, but just... out in the open.
High-profile leaders within the European Union are pointing fingers like frantic children, insisting that Vladimir Putin is the sole architect behind the chaos looming this fall. However, I find myself skeptical that the average American will simply swallow such a narrative. As they say, you can't polish a turd.

This article has already made the rounds. The most striking part:
"I have no idea where your lawyers studied law when they claim that in a sovereign nation, legislative drafts should be proposed by separatists rather than a democratically elected government." Especially back in 2019, during the implementation phase of the agreements, Ukraine underwent a certain degree of demilitarization.

Just a bunch of twisting arguments about who didn't follow what or who violated which rule.

"Putin also claims that Kyiv possesses nuclear weapons 😲, which Emmanuel Macron finds hard to believe."

steelheron25 said:The global momentum was simply different during that era. By 2014, the world's attention was fixated on Syria and the Middle East, especially with the rapid rise of ISIS as a major global threat. At the helm in the US was Barack Obama, who, while arguably a great president in several other respects, often seemed hesitant or lacked that decisive edge needed to directly confront such blatant agitators in foreign policy.
Back in 2008, it was George W. Bush in charge, a man who seemed to be more interested in engaging in little sing-alongs and dance-offs with certain bad actors than anything else. Back then, the world still swallowed Russian propaganda quite readily, and honestly—much to our regret—who actually cared about what was happening in Georgia?

Yeah, the big stories on the world stage were ISIS and Syria. The US wasn't stepping in much, and as for Europe? Angela Merkel was basically asking why anyone would bother arming Ukraine. Everyone was chasing peace, but it never really stuck. You had Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, but those territories stayed occupied—leaving zero hope for getting back into those cities.

Kevin Hughes2 said:In my view, Crimea wasn't even the biggest blunder. The real failure was what happened in Georgia, where everyone just sat there twiddling their thumbs, acting like it had absolutely nothing to do with them. That’s just how this world works, isn't it? We just flip them the bird, shrug our shoulders, and go back to scrolling through news photos while pretending nothing actually happened. It feels too far away, like it doesn't touch our lives. Besides, we don't have much skin in the game over there—it's not like we're fighting over food supplies, oil, or natural gas. Honestly, who gives a damn? If the Russians want to tear it down, let them.

Yeah, it was the exact same deal with Georgia. And back in 2004, you were already hearing talk about Donetsk becoming its own thing if Viktor Yanukovych could somehow snatch the win. That was the era of the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko, the elections being declared invalid, Yanukovych claiming victory, and then the actual vote having fake results before they had to redo it and Yushchenko finally won. Only difference is, the public support wasn't quite as massive back then. Then came Georgia in 2008—success—then Ukraine in 2013—success—leading up to that messy situation that lasted until 2022. Moldova is in the same boat, too.

In my last post, I was strictly looking at the Russia-Ukraine situation.

Richard Wilson4 said:Russia occupied Crimea back in 2014.

Germany pulled the plug on Nordstrea 2 THIS YEAR...

That isn't being naive, man, it's being shady...

The Schwabo crowd would literally whip America over election laws in Canada, all while cutting deals with the Russians just to line their own pockets...

Crimea was the massive blunder here—Russia got hit with some symbolic sanctions, but they basically pulled off a full-scale heist. It isn't like the situations with Mexico or Taiwan; regardless of what anyone thinks of them, they function as independent states—some recognize them, some don't. But nobody is physically annexed to them. With Crimea, it was simple: troops moved in, territory was seized, there was a referendum, and then annexation. Period. Crimea is part of Russia now, Russia got some sanctions that look good on paper but barely bite in reality, and that's the long and short of it.

feralhawk45 said:I can't shake the feeling that the West handed Putin a window of opportunity to wrap up his business in Ukraine—maybe seven to ten days. That’s likely why they call it a "special operation." If he actually pulls it off, it would validate everything he's saying and suggest he has massive support within the Ukrainian people. Let's not forget that the West even offered to evacuate Zelensky & Co. out of there.
Zaheb hit the nail on the head. Zelensky & Co. held their ground, and the Ukrainian people put up a hell of a fight. But the Russians blew right through that grace period, and now we’re all stuck dealing with the fallout.
Don't get me wrong here—I am firmly on Ukraine's side. I truly believe the West needs to step up and provide them with every bit of support they need.

I'm with you on this. My take? They probably wanted Ukraine to end up like Belarus, with someone like Lukashenko in charge. The big question is whether Russia had intel suggesting most Ukrainians were on their side—which was a total miscalculation, by the way—and that things would go down without much pushback. Sure, Zelensky refused to leave, but resistance happened. It makes me wonder what was going on in Western political circles back then. Maybe they were just waiting for Kyiv to fall? There were endless headlines claiming Kyiv would drop in a day or two... once the capital falls, they grab or kill Zelensky, install a puppet, and the "special operation" is over.
We even saw statements from people like Macron, suggesting we shouldn't humiliate Putin and that concessions should be made to Russia. Those sentiments have vanished. I'm still sitting here wondering why the narrative shifted so fast. You still see the articles, but it's all "confidential sources" and hearsay now, whereas before, you'd hear someone like Scholz saying how much the times have changed.

Noah Sullivan said:My apologies—I'll dive into the details a bit later since I have to run, but for now:

Have you by any chance had the opportunity to read that Mearsheimer article in Foreign Affairs from 2014—the one linked earlier?
You can download it right here: In his piece "Why The Ukraine Crisis is The West's Fault : The liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin," Mearsheimer lays out a provocative argument regarding the origins of the current instability. He essentially contends that the West—specifically through its expansionist policies and the promotion of democratic ideals in regions where they don't necessarily take root—has inadvertently backed Russia into a corner. It’s a perspective that challenges the standard narrative of pure aggression, suggesting instead a series of strategic miscalculations by policymakers in Washington and Brussels. The core of the argument rests on the idea that the push to integrate Ukraine into the EU and NATO was seen by Moscow as an existential threat—not because of some inherent hatred of democracy, but because of the geopolitical reality of spheres of influence. Mearsheimer argues that the West ignored the basic tenets of realism, believing that moralizing about democratic values would somehow insulate them from the harsh realities of power politics. Instead, this approach triggered a defensive reaction from Putin that shifted the entire regional security architecture. It is a cynical, albeit structured, critique of liberal internationalism. He suggests that by attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western bulwark, the West actually destabilized the very region it hoped to secure, effectively handing Russia a pretext to intervene. It's the kind of high-stakes political chess where one side thinks they are playing a game of spreading liberty, while the other side sees nothing but a tightening noose.

Alright, I misspoke—I should have said "perverse coup." What was truly perverse wasn't just the event itself, but how the Western media later rebranded it as this glorious democratic revolution aimed at toppling a dictator. In reality? It was the removal of a democratically elected president.

The way Ukrainians freely and democratically elected him after getting burned by Yushchenko was exactly how they should have replaced him through standard democratic procedures—those very same procedures the West supposedly swears by (unless, of course, those in power decide otherwise). As you pointed out, the fact that Yanukovych said one thing, did another, and likely thought a third is just the standard playbook for politicians everywhere. In a functional democracy, the only remedy for that kind of inconsistency is voting them out during scheduled elections. In this specific case, there were two major reasons why things should have played out differently. First, the EU's offer was frankly meager compared to what Russia was putting on the table; from a purely economic standpoint, Yanukovych's decision—made strictly within his legal authority—was justifiable in the short term. If the voters felt that move was a mistake for their long-term future, they could have simply rejected him at the next election. Second, and more importantly, there isn't even any evidence to suggest that the peaceful phase of Euromajdan in late 2013 actually had the support of the majority of the population. To prove that, you need an election. Instead, we got that bloody period—the violent overthrow of Yanukovych in early 2014—which was orchestrated by a tiny minority of Ukrainians, specifically the extremists within the Right Sector. That’s why we didn't see a legitimate democratic transition following the established rules.

Of course, Afterward—once the dust finally settles and we can actually see through the smoke—we’ll be left staring at the wreckage of our own making. So, Yanukovych flees to Russia while they go ahead and annex Crimea—it’s a mess, plain and simple. His political faction didn't stand a prayer of winning another election even if things had stayed stable—but, of course, elections were still mandatory. So they went through with them, but under circumstances that were undeniably disastrous for democracy.

That coup—while perhaps not born of pure malice—was undeniably unjustified and illegal. Looking back, the whole thing feels downright absurd. It’s entirely possible the actors involved genuinely believed they were doing the right thing at the time, but history has a way of exposing those delusions. In hindsight, it seems they triggered a catastrophic chain reaction—one that has culminated in the current, massive evil we see today: an existential threat to the Ukrainian people and their nation, coupled with the terrifying prospect of even greater devastation—namely, the looming shadow of nuclear destruction.

I think you’d agree that, looking back, it would have been far better to simply wait for the elections—especially since Yanukovych was actually willing to call for early ones—rather than rushing headlong into that coup. Or am I missing something?

I'll pick this up later—right now, I really have to run.

Thanks for the reply—hope you can weigh in on this one too: How do you think the conflict in the Donbas is being ignored?

Everyone’s got their own take on this—obviously—but personally, I see the Maidan as a movement for democracy. Like I mentioned before, what happened at the Maidan was really just the people's response. The American people chose that path because promises weren't being kept, and they had every right to demand a resignation. Yanukovych actually agreed to step down early on—then he second-guessed himself and backed out.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake was letting them use live ammunition during the Maidan protests. That was a massive blunder—just like those "Dictatorship Laws" they pushed through.

I get where you're coming from—the Russian offer might have looked better on paper—but let’s be real about the specifics. We're talking about luxury yachts, massive villas, and all that high-end stuff. How much of that money would actually reach the people in Ukraine? Honestly, I suspect most of it would just end up in the pockets of a few well-connected elites. It's a bit of a pipe dream to think that kind of "aid" translates to actual help for the average person.

Most people—though a tiny fraction of the population—depend on how you define "majority." Would 20 million people out on the streets satisfy everyone? If areas that used to be heavily pro-Russian aren't like that anymore—stretching from places like Kharkiv to Odessa—does that mean the majority actually supported the Euromaidan, even if they weren't the ones marching in the streets?

Looking back, the best move at that moment would have been to act early. Instead, Yanukovych just dragged his feet—saying yes, then changing his mind—and eventually ordered troops to use live ammunition against the Euromaidan protesters. There were even snipers involved. Honestly, there were just so many wrong calls made.

Melissa Ward said:Honestly, the war is pretty much wrapped up at this point. Just a few more small towns and the whole Donbas region will be under control.

Nah, I wouldn't say that—unless you're only talking about Luhansk.

redtinker39 said:But wouldn't you agree that a Marshall Plan usually happens once the dust has settled after a war? It feels like just another way to help everyone move past what happened in Lysychansk and Severodonetsk, doesn't it? I suppose that might mean those places are essentially being handed over to Russia.

What do you mean by "handed over"? Are we talking about annexation? Or them becoming new independent states? If territory actually gets annexed, then yeah, we all need to buckle up for more conflict—there are plenty of people out there who still think certain lands belong to them.

Noah Sullivan said:Of course he wasn't a household name, though he was certainly well-known within political circles.
The American public—both then and now—has been quite successfully manipulated. They’ve essentially functioned as mere objects of policy rather than actual subjects of it. And honestly, they aren't even the only ones to fall for it.

Here, you can find some info regarding Mearsheimer on this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer#Ukraine
for all the necessary references. Regarding the nuclear weapons aspect, references [72] and [73] are the most relevant:

[72] Global Security Newswire March 3, 2014 Should Ukraine have Gotten Rid of Its Cold War Nukes? retrieved 14/10/15 http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/shoul...rid-its-nukes/

[73 ]Matthews, Dylan (February 16, 2022). "What we don't know about war and peace". Vox. Retrieved February 25, 2022. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...power-conflict

As for the broader situation in Ukraine, the following entry from 2014 is essential, number [74]:

[74] Mearsheimer, John J. (2014). "Why The Ukraine Crisis is The West's Fault : The liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin". Foreign Affairs. 93 (5): 77–89. JSTOR 24483306.
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf (PDF)
This is the famous Mearsheimer article(*) where he argues that the world was plunged into danger by the perverse coup that concluded the "Euromajdan" in early 2014. At that time, a corrupt—though undeniably democratically elected—president was ousted less than a year before scheduled elections by the extremely anti-Russia Right Sector (acting via foreign remote control), which in turn triggered a violent Russian response that was already underway in 2014—essentially a counter-response to those events.
Following that, the low-intensity conflict in the Donbas (which saw 14,000 deaths between 2014 and 2021—a fact largely ignored) escalated into the massive war involving Russian aggression in 2022, which now threatens the entire planet with nuclear annihilation.

Mearsheimer recently gave an "update" lecture in Florence, followed by a discussion with some of his critics:

-------
(*) The following reference [75] is the rebuttal from his critics:
Mearsheimer's article provoked Michael McFaul and Stephen Sestanovich to publish their response in The November / December 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs.[75]
[75] McFaul, Michael; Sestanovich, Stephen; Mearsheimer, John J. (2014). "Faulty Powers : Who Started The Ukraine Crisis". Foreign Affairs. 93 (6): 167–178. JSTOR 24483933. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483933

Ukraine didn't really have a say regarding the nuclear weapons. It would have been better if they'd kept them, but they didn't.

Ukraine was living under the Russian umbrella; the culprits behind the anti-Russian stance are actually Russian policies. The coup wasn't "perverse"—the American people (and Ukrainians) were fighting for a better future. If there wasn't a real reason, they wouldn't have been out in the streets. Even if there were Western-funded mercenaries at the Majdan, the vast majority weren't mercenaries—they were just people who believed in a better tomorrow.
If Yanukovych had actually stuck to his word and done what he said he was going to do—instead of saying one thing, doing another, and probably thinking something else entirely—this whole coup wouldn't have happened.
Can someone explain how the conflict in Donbas just got completely ignored?
Personally, I think the West's biggest mistake was Western Crimea. The real question is whether the West thought Russia would just stop at Crimea, or if they were trying to show some respect to Putin and Russia while looking for a way out?

"I'm not afraid of heading back to Kharkiv and facing the bombings—I'm just scared I might end up falling asleep under a Russian flag."

This is just a snippet from a longer video—looks like someone has already lost their mind.

steelheron25 said:Perhaps I missed it if this was already being discussed elsewhere,

Emmanuel Macron released a recording of his conversation with that absolute disgrace from The White House, occurring just four days before the invasion kicked off.

https://www.srf.ch/news/internationa...r-dem-krieg-ab

I haven't managed to track down the full transcript yet, but even the snippets currently circulating in the news media suggest, looking back now, that the individual in question was clearly suffering from some severe mental instability by late February—unless, of course, he is simply a notorious and shameless liar, which is also quite a possibility, isn't it?

There is a particularly absurd moment where he actually attempts to accuse Volodymyr Zelenskyy of trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

It's the usual stuff—distorting reality, claims of illegal regimes, illegitimate governments, and twisting everything to fit their own narrative.
Someone actually posted a video of Lavrov earlier—he didn't answer a single direct question; he just pivoted everything back to his side of the story.
They point fingers at Zelenskyy, conveniently forgetting he took office back in 2019. They also gloss over the 2019 demining agreements that were abandoned. First, they pulled back from the borders, then they backed out of the deals. Back then, Zakharov was even making statements saying they had zero interest in Ukraine 🤔.

Then there's the bit where Macron mentions looking at the Minsk agreement while wondering which agreement Putin is actually following. I can't tell if that's specifically in this article, but I've read about it elsewhere.

Per the article: People were being burned alive...
It likely refers to Odessa, but they always skip over how the euro Majdan and anti Majdan protests dragged on for months in Odessa, peaking in May 2014. That escalated because protesters weren't separated, and some people showed up armed. Those armed groups actually fired on the euro Majdan participants (whom the Russians call Nazis), though they were wearing masks. The craziest part is that they seemed to be hiding behind the police while shooting. I think about four people died there. Later, things spiraled out of control and crowds started clashing, throwing Molotov cocktails at each other—there were even reports of snipers firing on euro Majdan protesters from rooftops in Odessa. Any similarities to what happened in Kyiv? Pure coincidence, apparently. That's how the tragedy, the fires, and the deaths of about 48 people happened, and it was never properly investigated. Later, guys in balaclavas showed up hitting everyone in sight, though videos suggest they were targeting those exiting buildings—the "evil Nazis." Some of the armed individuals were identified, but naturally, they're all in Russia now, along with the legitimate president, Yanukovych.

Jessica Peterson2 said:The Russian Ministry of Aggression just dropped their latest press release: they claim they hit military targets in Kremenchuk, and supposedly struck a cache of Western (lol) ammunition located near a closed (!) shopping mall, where the resulting explosion allegedly just caused a fire in a completely empty building (!!)
https://ria.ru/20220628/ukraina-1798631692.html
Yesterday, I realized that throughout the entire day, every single regime-controlled TV channel was hammering home the narrative that there was no missile strike at all—that this "so-called fire" was nothing more than propaganda fabricated by those despicable Ukrainians.
Was anyone seeing similar nonsense over on the American forums?

My apologies, Jessica—I actually remember you mentioning something about high schoolers being recruited for the military in Russia. In an occupied area near Nikolska, they had a camp set up—not sure if it's still running. They seemed to be recruiting guys. A friend's brother was separated from his family; they gave them passage into Russia, but sent him toward Donetsk instead—he’s only 17. They basically told him he’d become an adult once he reached the front lines, handed him a uniform and an empty rifle, and told him to scavenge for his own ammo from whoever he could find on the ground. 😢Luckily, they managed to get him out—they were moved into Russia first, then eventually made it back to Ukraine.

As for the post itself—was someone claiming there was likely ammo at a certain location just because there were a bunch of guys in olive green nearby??? Same thing was being said about Kyiv, implying there was some military connection there too??

Someone was talking about this earlier, but I can't seem to scroll back far enough to find the specific post.
It’s true that Bandera used this greeting—and so did the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, among plenty of other groups. It wasn't some unique thing; everyone used it. That said, the phrase didn't actually originate then—it's tied back to the War for Independence from 1917–1921. During that conflict, the Ukrainian forces were defeated by the Red Army and Poland (there were several players involved), eventually leading to the formation of one of the republics within the Soviet Union. The phrase "Slava Ukraini" was used during that war.
By the 1920s, the expression "Slava Geroyam" emerged as a way to honor those who lost their lives in that struggle for independence. Then, throughout the 1930s, "Slava Ukraini" became a rallying cry for national groups both within Ukraine and among refugees dreaming of an independent nation.

The earliest written traces of "Slava Ukraini" can be linked back to Taras Shevchenko in 1840.

Our thought, our song

Shall not die, shall not perish...

From whence, people, comes our glory,

Slava Ukraini!

That’s just a snippet.
The full version is here: http://litopys.org.ua/shevchenko/shev113.htm
And in English: https://taras-shevchenko.storinka.or...rkconnell.html

Later on, the phrase was used specifically in Kharkiv—by members of the Revolutionary Party toward the end of the 19th century, and also by students there.

Russian aggressors shelled Lisičanska for ten straight hours—it was a struggle just to establish a connection to call for a ceasefire. Once things actually quieted down, they started firing on people waiting in line for water 😢, and children were among those killed.

Someone mentioned people supporting Russia earlier. It’s not really surprising since there are Russians who side with Russia, but that doesn't apply to everyone—there are also Russians fighting in the Ukrainian military, specifically the Ukrainian Russians I'm talking about here.
Then you have the pro-Russian crowd who back Russia for all sorts of different reasons, mostly because they're against the West and things like that.
A smaller group is nostalgic for the Soviet Union; they're basically waiting for the Soviet Union to come back, though that's mostly older folks.
And then there are people who just refuse to leave their homes because it feels safe there—it's familiar, it's where they belong. It’s like when someone freezes up in a dangerous situation.

There's been an increase in strikes on civilian targets: Kyiv, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk 😢.

Some people from Bucha are still being held in captivity by Russia. Basically, some civilians were kept in the city while others were hauled away to Donetsk or into Russia, since they have their own "detention centers" in Donetsk too. I know some have been exchanged, but for others, there hasn't been any news at all—and it's already been three months 😢.

In this post, I’m going to touch on the current status of Ukrainians. It’s that well-known narrative—that Ukraine isn't actually a real country, that it's all a mistake, that Ukrainians are just Russians, that everything is part of Russia, and that Ukrainians are suffering from "Ukrainism."
The labels used for Ukrainians: Nazis, fascists, Banderites, ukros, gravediggers, nationalists, militants, traitors, spies, ukro-cannibals, Jew-Banderites...

I’ll break down the most interesting ones:
-Jew-Banderites—if you recall Lavrov’s comments about how Hitler was a Jew, this follows a similar logic. Bandera is branded a Nazi, he allegedly killed many people, and so on. He was a massive nationalist who wanted an independent Ukraine—that was his goal. He was exiled from the Soviet Union, I believe just before the war, and spent time in a camp during the conflict. The independence movement was named after him; in reality, anyone wanting an independent Ukraine could join that movement—Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, Jews... That movement fought against both the German army and the Red Army—they had two fronts to deal with. Bandera himself was later assassinated on Stalin’s orders. People can view Bandera however they want. From there comes the term "Banderites"—people who want a sovereign, independent Ukraine rather than being part of Russia, which is a major sore spot for the Kremlin.
As for why "Jew-" is included—it’s short for Jew, following that line of reasoning from Lavrov suggesting Hitler was a Jew, implying somehow that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust. That’s essentially how the story goes. Have there been soldiers coming forward claiming Jews were fascists and were killed because of it? I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but that’s their explanation—that’s how they see it, and that’s how they landed on the term Jew-Banderite.

Ukro-cannibals—there's this rumor circulating that Ukrainians eat Russian children; it goes so far that some people talk about videos showing Ukrainians cooking and eating Russians. The second half of this label stems from the horrific Holodomor, when millions of Ukrainians died of starvation. That period, 1932–1933, was a dark time for Ukraine—sources suggest between 7 and 13 million Ukrainians perished. Because of the repression, people weren't allowed to speak about this for nearly 60 years; stories only circulated privately among survivors. Sadly, during that dark era, when everything was stripped from Ukrainians—food, livestock, property, forests—they weren't even allowed to burn their own furniture or hunt birds. In those desperate times, people did resort to cannibalism 😢. It was a time when a parent might consciously choose to die so their child could live, or parents would hide their children so they wouldn't witness the deaths. Entire villages vanished because everyone died. We will never know the exact numbers, and once it was all over, people were buried in mass graves 😢.
Based on these events, the "cannibal" label was applied to Ukrainians because, under such extreme circumstances, people turned to human flesh 😢 just to survive—something no one should ever have to face. Those who survived moved elsewhere, and some were deported to Russia. That’s where the "cannibal" label comes from.

The "Ukrainism" sickness—the idea that Ukrainians aren't truly themselves, but are instead brainwashed. They supposedly need to be "de-Ukrainized" and return to their roots, which means becoming Russians again. There was even a saying on certain pro-Russian media outlets—which are now banned—that "anyone who doesn't recover from this sickness belongs on a gallows in Red Square." Some people cried out, asking what kind of democracy allows media to be banned. Those same outlets also claimed that Ukraine doesn't exist, that Ukraine will collapse, that Ukrainians don't exist, and that the Ukrainian language doesn't exist. They even suggested that anyone speaking Ukrainian is a spy or a traitor who should be reported immediately.

ironseal said:I’m sitting here watching Puhovski on the news right now. To him, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is somehow identical to when the USA invaded Afghanistan back in the day. He’s actually drawing direct parallels between phrases Bush used then and what Putin is saying now—claiming they're basically the same thing. Are people like Puhovski just missing half their brain cells? How can they not see the massive, fundamental differences between those two wars?

I'd say they just don't want to see it. It's like they think if Ukraine gives up territory now, every other country will just start looking at old maps to see what used to be theirs, and we'll all end up in another massive global conflict. Losing Crimea was a huge mistake.

Henry Sullivan4 said:Thanks, Kate, for clearing all that up—👍Glory to Ukraine!

No problem at all—hope I didn't ramble too much.

Ukraine has not yet perished, glory and freedom

I'm not sure how long this post is going to get, but I wanted to clarify a few things:

1. Regarding the genocide against Russians in Donbas—it’s important to note that Russians don't live there alone; they make up about a third of the population.
2. While Russian is the primary language in many parts of eastern, northern, and southern Ukraine, that doesn't mean everyone speaking it is Russian.
3. As for the death toll (which ties back to my first point), most sources estimate around 15,000 people killed since 2014—roughly 12,000 soldiers and 3,000 civilians.
4. Not all of those killed civilians were Russians.
5. Since 2014, about 1.5 million people have been displaced within Ukraine, while estimates for those who fled to Russia vary wildly—anywhere from 75,000 to 300,000 depending on which source you trust.
6. People claim the West was behind the Times Square protests—and sure, there might have been mercenaries involved—but the real catalyst for Times Square was Yanukovych’s lies. He promised a path toward the European Union and then backed out at the last second to retreat into Russia's embrace. Plus, the country was basically on the verge of bankruptcy.
7. There were also Times Square-style protests in Donbas, often even larger than the anti-Times Square ones.
8. Russia actually invaded back in 2014. They never officially admitted it—just claimed they were "Russian volunteers"—but there were definitely Russian soldiers and mercenaries on the ground.
9. Back in 2014, Russia rolled tanks into Ukraine and supported the Donbas separatists with gear and troops. But because they kept claiming it wasn't the regular Russian military, it was labeled a civil war.
10. It's a mistake to think everyone from Donbas is a separatist; back in 2014, plenty of locals actually stood with the Ukrainian military and fought alongside them.
11. Regarding the Minsk agreements—those were signed under pressure from the West. Since Ukraine is a smaller player, the terms were heavily skewed, yet they agreed anyway. So, what happened? The separatists and Russian soldiers holding the lines never actually pulled back. Often, the Ukrainian army would retreat, and the separatists would just push forward and attack the retreating forces. Ukraine was supposed to regain full control of its territory, but they couldn't manage it because the other side kept interfering.
12. Ceasefire violations and crimes happened on both sides—there are always people out there fueled by hate who just want blood.

I hope this isn't too much off-topic. Mods, please don't delete this—I really think it helps provide some perspective on the situation.