← Back to context

Comment by derelicta

6 hours ago

[flagged]

If the people who attacked Ukraine without provocation - just as they attacked other neighbours in other regions - are attempting to bring down a democratically elected regimes across the region, so they can replace them with weak compliant puppets, the "thought crime" becomes straightforward self defence.

  • [flagged]

    • It was though. If Russia wanted to annex Ukrainian separatist states, it could have done so before they invaded.

      Since it didn't, Ukraine never attacked Russian territory.

      Then Ukraine the elected a Jewish person whose mother tongue is Russian and speaks Ukrainian with a slight russian accent. Which threw their 'Nazis who want to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainians' narrative in the trash, and maybe it was lived as a provocation since it made Russian propagandists looks like fools.

      2 replies →

Here are some facts for you:

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, they were officially neutral (law from 2010, pushed by Russia). At the time of the invasion, there was neither political nor public will to join NATO.

Another fact: Maidan was not about joining NATO, but having equal economic ties to both Russia and EU.

So can you acknowledge that Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of NATO expansion?

Does it sound weird to you that after Russia's invasion in 2014, Ukraine cancelled their neutral status and wanted to join NATO?