[Kevmo]

The trick is to take the biased source from one side, and the biased source from the other side, and see what they both acknowledge as facts. Even the author attempts this in one paragraph: The characterization of the Ukrainian paramilitaries as “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis” is considered Russian propaganda. But that’s not the view of the Times of Israel or the West Point Academy’s Center for Counterterrorism. In 2014, Newsweek magazine seemed to associate them more with… the Islamic State. Take your pick!

In addition, the trick is to look at the facts the other side simply ignores. By starting his observations at 2014 rather than 2012 discovery of oil/gas reserves, or earlier at the Budapest Accession to the United Nations Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty wherein Russia signed assurances towards Ukrainian defined borders in 1994 in exchange for nukes. If the Ukes had not given up their nukes they never woulda been invaded, twice.

[JoSixChip]

Russia signed assurances towards Ukrainian defined borders in 1994 in exchange for nukes

And assurances from the US that NATO would not expand one inch toward Russia. You seem to miss that point all the time. If you want sources, start with James Baker.

[PIF]

2012 discovery of oil/gas reserves
—
Oil and gas reserves were drilled in the Donbas region - proved quality was poor and was not economical to frack. Western Ukraine has one of the largest known deposits of NG in Europe, however.

See War in Ukraine, I don’t know the date.