Replies

As it has been pointed even more times, the CIA executed a color revolution to remove a duly elected president …

It has been claimed many times but that does not make it true. The protests against Yanukovych were spontaneous and genuine, not the product of CIA agitation. He was removed not by a CIA coup, but by the democratically elected parliament after he panicked and fled the country, abandoning his office. Subsequently there have been two national elections, something that the Russian apologists always leave out. The last two presidents of Ukraine were elected by the people, not installed by the west.

He was actually going to sign both trade agreements, but the EU threatened that if Ukraine accepted Russia's trade agreement, they would rescind their offer.

What you are conveniently leaving out is the economic blockade that Russia had imposed on Ukraine in opposition to the EU deal. The Russians have been no boy scouts in all of this.

You really have no knowledge beyond Russia.

So, you are actually ill informed, beyond Russia invaded, which they had every right to protect themselves.

A typical leftist ploy that has no place on Free Republic. If you read my former posts, which I believe you familiar with, you will know that I am well aware of all the points you raised and have addressed all of them many times. It is not a question of ignorance, but that I disagree with your characterization of events. While trying to claim the high ground, alleging ignorance of the other party is actually a lazy man's response, a shield behind which he does not have to make logical arguments.

But even more glaring is your omission of 2 Minsk accords that were signed but never implemented & hostilities erupting in eastern Ukraine.

They were never fully implemented not because of the Ukrainians, but because of the Russians. Ukraine actually fulfilled its obligations by passing a law twice granting Donbas autonomy, and by preparing to conduct the required referendum. Russia broke the accords by failing to withdraw its forces, failing to hand the border over to Ukraine, and by blocking the aforementioned referendum.

Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that there would never have been a need for the accords if Russia had not invaded in the first place. I am always amazed at the position that Russia can seize Ukrainian territory but it is somehow illegitimate for Ukraine to gain it back.

You ignore that Ukraine started this whole mess by basically outlawing the Russian language in government buildings & schools.

Ukraine did no such thing. All it did was mandate that government activities and school instruction should be done in Ukrainian. Russian apologists are always exaggerating the extent of Ukraine's language law. They also ignore the fact that, in compliance with the Minsk accords, they also passed a law granting Donbas autonomy. In any case, this is a question of internal Ukrainian politics, and is none of the business of Russia. Would you be opposed to a law mandating the use of English in government activities and in school instruction? Would Mexico be justified in invading the US if there were such a law?

You are correct that neither nation is a NATO nation, but they kept promising Ukraine that they would become a NATO nation. That is without question for anyone with a thinking brain, a threat that Putin was not going t tolerate as he stated in 2008.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Ukraine was barred from joining NATO by the NATO charter itself as long as there was a territorial dispute with Russia. And again, you are failing to answer the question that I posed, if this is about NATO expansion, why did Putin reject Zelensky offer of no NATO?