Oh, you're so right, the Nazis are being totally rational and their views are not arbitrary. The predilection of Ukrainian oligarchs to favor integration with Europe is actually just an organic expression of the will of the people of Ukraine. Sure thing, 'socialist'.
Jesus Christ, why don't you address what was actually said, rather than this irrelevant strawman blather? Do you genuinely believe the only people who want to integrate with the European economies rather than the stagnant, decaying Russian economy are "oligarchs" and "Nazis"?
That's obviously not the case. The population at large was far more favourable towards integration with Europe than with Russia. And it makes sense: Russia offered a profoundly worse case for integration, whilst also constantly threatening their neighbours with destruction and invasion. And you're here telling me that only a "Nazi" wouldn't want rapprochement with the power that states it wants them destroyed? Only a "Nazi" wouldn't want rapprochement with the power
covertly sending its soldiers over the border, disguised, to fight against them?!
You're not that stupid.
Zelensky won his election campaign on a platform of rapprochement with Russia and peace in the Donbas (a platform that was of course never realized or seriously pursued). So like... NOT EVEN THE PROPAGANDIZED UKRAINIAN PUBLIC AGREED WITH YOU.
Zelensky's focus shifted quite drastically during the campaign. He was quite clearly combative towards Russia by the time voting was done. So no, the voters weren't tricked by a post-election bait-and-switch (like Yanukovych's voters were).
Could you summarize the situation in any more rosy and incomplete a way? They were getting arms from NATO countries including the United States. They were seeking NATO membership; NATO was publicly saying NATO membership could happen.
Yes indeed. Which is not a threat to Russia's existence. In eastern Europe, Russia has proven that being outside NATO puts one at a significant risk of Russian invasion or Russian-sponsored insurgency. It's sad, but NATO represents the only realistic chance of defence. Were you watching as Putin directly threatened Sweden and Finland? Or as Pushilin advocated for expanding territorial expansion into Moldova? Being outside NATO makes you one thing to Russia: vulnerable.
They were shelling the Donbas-- over eight years killing thousands-- and massing troops there despite treaty obligations to cease fire and grant autonomy.
Treaty obligations which were signed with Russia, and which Russia broke first, and far more drastically. The DPR and LPR being established and functioning as a Russian insurgency on Ukrainian territory.
What you're effectively preaching here is that one side has the right to break the treaty, and the other is bound by it. And that Russia can covertly set up a proxy and insurgency on foreign land, and even send in the troops (disguised), and the host country does not have the right to fight back.
There are seemingly countless stories about how the government incorporates or funds Nazi groups, glorifies Nazi collaborators, or how privately funded neo-Nazi paramilitary groups kill marginalized people in Ukraine e.g. Roma with impunity.
None of which had the
slightest impact on Russia's decision to invade. We know Russia has no problem with the presence of Nazi groups, Nazi collaborators, or privately funded Nazi paramilities killing marginalised people, because Russia
sponsors all of those things on a far larger scale. Are you telling me they take a principled stance against those things in Ukraine, while gleefully supporting them everywhere else? Once again, you're not that stupid, and this is just pretext.
What makes Ukraine a hotspot of nuclear escalation is: Ukraine is taking a very hostile line against Russia after a western-backed coup with continued western support.
Nope. Its "line against Russia" was absolutely nowhere near as hostile as the line Russia took against Ukraine, which you have zero problem with. And "western-backed coup" still just equates to... a paltry few hundred thousand dollars, arrayed against an incumbent would-be dictator sponsored by Russian investment of
a far larger magnitude.
If Maidan is a "western-backed coup with continued western support", then Yanukovych is a "Russian-backed dictator with continued Russian support", rendering Ukraine an illegally controlled proxy. But again, you have no problem with foreign meddling and foreign sponsorship... when it comes from one direction.
Meanwhile you're here worried about a Nazi-friendly government's "freedom to make its own foreign policy" which in practice amounts to joining a military alliance that attacks countries because their welfare state is a bit too generous and/or their government doesn't allow corporate campaign contributors to the Republican and Democratic parties to own their mineral and agricultural resources and allowing that military alliance to use their country as a launching pad for attacks. Such anti-imperialism, very principled. *everyone applauds*
Complete hysteria.
NATO is many things to many states, many of them aggressive and proscriptive. In Eastern Europe, it is presently the only realistic chance of defence against a nuclear neighbour which constantly attacks, invades, annexes and threatens outright destruction on its neighbours.
And the idea that NATO would launch a first-strike invasion or first-strike nuclear attack on Russia if it counted Ukraine among its members is frankly idiotic.
-- but I certainly don't think that.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/XXIOIU3VIBJVFDKNQ7PTBJGHDU.jpg)
