Everything everywhere is biased at this point, it’s just nice to hear a different point of view than we’re used to hearing in the western media. Seems like before February, it was the pro-Russian side who hand their hands tied behind their backs. Also, this article does a good job of explaining the nuance of separatists, vs people simply seeking autonomy. Either way, Zelensky is going to lose the Donbass for good this time, and in my opinion he doesn’t deserve them.
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.
You need to start understanding where those of us are against our involvement in this conflict and why we are against any involvement by the U.S. in this conflict. Whether it be supplying military arms, money, and most definitely not American combatants on the ground.
Nor did we have our hands tied behind our backs. Instead we were dealing with people who refused to look beyond the fact; Russia invaded Ukraine, because there was so much that led up to Putin making that decision and people were unwilling to accept those realities.