The Donbass region was added to Ukraine only a century ago, and prior to that was Russian, with Russians living there predominantly and was culturally Russian. Legally Kiev pretends to offer protections, but in reality post 2014 when the west couped Yanukovych and installed Banderite Neo-Nazis, Russians in Ukraine have been the targets of ethnic oppression and slaughter.
Ukraine ethnically cleansing the Donbass region, which popularly supports Russia, is what started the war. The Euromaidan coup is what kicked off the war in 2014, Russia entered in 2022 after the Minsk agreements failed. Had NATO not couped Ukraine, the war would have never happened.
Russia did intervene, correct, after the west couped Ukraine and installed a Neo-Nazi regime.
Yanukovych was not overthrown by force. His authority collapsed after the use of lethal force against protesters, which resulted in more than 100 deaths and triggered mass defections from the Interior Ministry, individual police units, and regional administrations. After losing effective control of the security apparatus, Yanukovych left Kyiv and then Ukraine, ceased exercising presidential powers, and failed to fulfill his constitutional duties. Ukraine’s Parliament, including a large number of members from his own party of Regions, then declared him unable to govern and scheduled early elections. This reflects abandonment of office followed by parliamentary succession, not a coup.
As for Donbas, its earlier inclusion in the Russian Empire is irrelevant under modern international law. Donbas became part of Soviet Ukraine in the 1920s for political and economic reasons, remained within the Ukrainian SSR for nearly seventy years and was recognized as part of independent Ukraine by all parties (including Russia) in 1991. Borders established at independence were legally binding and internationally guaranteed.
Before Russia’s intervention in 2014, there was no armed conflict in Donbas and no evidence of genocide. Civilian life was normal by any reasonable standard: functioning schools, elections, media, and commerce. Claims of genocide appeared only after the conflict began and originate almost entirely from wartime propaganda sources. The simplest and most verifiable fact remains that the region was peaceful before Russian military involvement.
Russia initiated a war on false premises and later expanded it into a full scale invasion, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and economic costs measured in hundreds of billions of dollars and euros / trillions of rubles. These outcomes stem from deliberate political choices, not historical necessity or defensive obligation.
Blaming Yanukovych for the Maidan Massacre, a false flag committed by the Banderites now in control of Kiev, is exactly why you’re full of shit. The west orchestrated the coup and supported the Banderites for overthrowing Yanukovych, who chose the Russian loan over the IMF loan due to the IMF loan requiring austerity measures.
The Donbass region is where Russians are indigenous. You’re trying to erase that through the guise of “international law,” and again, after being linked proof of ethnic cleansing, you ignore it all. Even when you’re linked pro-western sources, you plug your ears.
The Banderites started the war by massacring civilians, committing ethnic cleansing, and cozying up to the west and NATO, breaking both Minsk agreements. Russia intervening after the Neo-Nazis in Kiev dramatically escalated their onslaught is the fault of the Banderites, not Russia and not the Donbass region.
This is on top of you defending a self-reported fascist, and acting like you’re “dispelling propaganda” while uncritically maintaining that any source, western or not, that disagrees with the neo-Nazis in Kiev is “propaganda.” More sources? Must be “gish-galloping.” You have a thought-terminating orthodoxy to defend fascists and neo-Nazis.
A few corrections. Ukraine is not run by “Banderites” or neo-nazis. Far-right parties have consistently received low-single-digit percentages of the vote for many years now (I found one small spike in the stats, but that seems like a moment-in-time protest vote, dropping off again) and they hold no real power. Zelensky was elected by a large nationwide majority, including in the east (with international observers).
No blaming, but there’s no credible evidence that Maidan was a nationalist “false flag.” Multiple investigations found that responsibility was complex and disputed, and not a takeover by extremists.
Donbas is historically multilingual (russian, ukranian, greeks, germans, jews, tartars, etc.) and not an “indigenous Russian” region, and no international body has found Ukrainian policy to be ethnic cleansing.
Minsk violations were documented on all sides by the OSCE, including Russia and Russian-backed forces.
Labeling modern Ukraine as “neo-Nazi” relies on WWII rhetoric, and not present-day political reality.
Groups like Azov have been folded in officially. The Kiev regime upholds Stepan Bandera and uses likeness for propaganda. Nazis infest Ukrainian leadership:
The east supported Yanukovych, and that’s why the far-right Banderites couping him kicked off the war.
Stop defending a fascist and the neo-Nazis both of you support.
Listing articles about the existence of far-right groups does not prove that Ukraine is “run by neo-Nazis”. They are two distinct claims.
Far-right parties in Ukraine have never held power and have polled 1–3% nationally since 2014. Zelensky is Jewish, ran on an anti-nationalist platform, and defeated the nationalist vote overwhelmingly.
Every country has radical groups. Russia has openly fascist and ultranationalist movements (e.g., Rusich, Wagner’s ideological core, Imperial Legion) that are far closer to the state than anything comparable in Ukraine.
Azov began as a volunteer unit in 2014 and was restructured, depoliticized, and made subordinate to the National Guard, and its original political wing collapsed electorally. Its membership was always a mixed group, not an ideological army.
There would have been no Azov, no mass mobilization, and no expanded Ukrainian military at all without Russia’s invasion. Russia did not respond to extremism … it created the conditions for militarization.
Bandera is a contested historical symbol and not state ideology. Modern Ukrainian law, elections and governance are civic and not ethno-nationalist.
The Donbass region was added to Ukraine only a century ago, and prior to that was Russian, with Russians living there predominantly and was culturally Russian. Legally Kiev pretends to offer protections, but in reality post 2014 when the west couped Yanukovych and installed Banderite Neo-Nazis, Russians in Ukraine have been the targets of ethnic oppression and slaughter.
From davel’s compilation:
Ukraine ethnically cleansing the Donbass region, which popularly supports Russia, is what started the war. The Euromaidan coup is what kicked off the war in 2014, Russia entered in 2022 after the Minsk agreements failed. Had NATO not couped Ukraine, the war would have never happened.
Russia did intervene, correct, after the west couped Ukraine and installed a Neo-Nazi regime.
Yanukovych was not overthrown by force. His authority collapsed after the use of lethal force against protesters, which resulted in more than 100 deaths and triggered mass defections from the Interior Ministry, individual police units, and regional administrations. After losing effective control of the security apparatus, Yanukovych left Kyiv and then Ukraine, ceased exercising presidential powers, and failed to fulfill his constitutional duties. Ukraine’s Parliament, including a large number of members from his own party of Regions, then declared him unable to govern and scheduled early elections. This reflects abandonment of office followed by parliamentary succession, not a coup.
As for Donbas, its earlier inclusion in the Russian Empire is irrelevant under modern international law. Donbas became part of Soviet Ukraine in the 1920s for political and economic reasons, remained within the Ukrainian SSR for nearly seventy years and was recognized as part of independent Ukraine by all parties (including Russia) in 1991. Borders established at independence were legally binding and internationally guaranteed.
Before Russia’s intervention in 2014, there was no armed conflict in Donbas and no evidence of genocide. Civilian life was normal by any reasonable standard: functioning schools, elections, media, and commerce. Claims of genocide appeared only after the conflict began and originate almost entirely from wartime propaganda sources. The simplest and most verifiable fact remains that the region was peaceful before Russian military involvement.
Russia initiated a war on false premises and later expanded it into a full scale invasion, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and economic costs measured in hundreds of billions of dollars and euros / trillions of rubles. These outcomes stem from deliberate political choices, not historical necessity or defensive obligation.
Blaming Yanukovych for the Maidan Massacre, a false flag committed by the Banderites now in control of Kiev, is exactly why you’re full of shit. The west orchestrated the coup and supported the Banderites for overthrowing Yanukovych, who chose the Russian loan over the IMF loan due to the IMF loan requiring austerity measures.
The Donbass region is where Russians are indigenous. You’re trying to erase that through the guise of “international law,” and again, after being linked proof of ethnic cleansing, you ignore it all. Even when you’re linked pro-western sources, you plug your ears.
The Banderites started the war by massacring civilians, committing ethnic cleansing, and cozying up to the west and NATO, breaking both Minsk agreements. Russia intervening after the Neo-Nazis in Kiev dramatically escalated their onslaught is the fault of the Banderites, not Russia and not the Donbass region.
This is on top of you defending a self-reported fascist, and acting like you’re “dispelling propaganda” while uncritically maintaining that any source, western or not, that disagrees with the neo-Nazis in Kiev is “propaganda.” More sources? Must be “gish-galloping.” You have a thought-terminating orthodoxy to defend fascists and neo-Nazis.
A few corrections. Ukraine is not run by “Banderites” or neo-nazis. Far-right parties have consistently received low-single-digit percentages of the vote for many years now (I found one small spike in the stats, but that seems like a moment-in-time protest vote, dropping off again) and they hold no real power. Zelensky was elected by a large nationwide majority, including in the east (with international observers).
No blaming, but there’s no credible evidence that Maidan was a nationalist “false flag.” Multiple investigations found that responsibility was complex and disputed, and not a takeover by extremists.
Donbas is historically multilingual (russian, ukranian, greeks, germans, jews, tartars, etc.) and not an “indigenous Russian” region, and no international body has found Ukrainian policy to be ethnic cleansing.
Minsk violations were documented on all sides by the OSCE, including Russia and Russian-backed forces.
Labeling modern Ukraine as “neo-Nazi” relies on WWII rhetoric, and not present-day political reality.
Ukraine is run by Banderite neo-Nazis. From davel’s compilation, again:
Groups like Azov have been folded in officially. The Kiev regime upholds Stepan Bandera and uses likeness for propaganda. Nazis infest Ukrainian leadership:
The east supported Yanukovych, and that’s why the far-right Banderites couping him kicked off the war.
Stop defending a fascist and the neo-Nazis both of you support.
Listing articles about the existence of far-right groups does not prove that Ukraine is “run by neo-Nazis”. They are two distinct claims.
Far-right parties in Ukraine have never held power and have polled 1–3% nationally since 2014. Zelensky is Jewish, ran on an anti-nationalist platform, and defeated the nationalist vote overwhelmingly.
Every country has radical groups. Russia has openly fascist and ultranationalist movements (e.g., Rusich, Wagner’s ideological core, Imperial Legion) that are far closer to the state than anything comparable in Ukraine.
Azov began as a volunteer unit in 2014 and was restructured, depoliticized, and made subordinate to the National Guard, and its original political wing collapsed electorally. Its membership was always a mixed group, not an ideological army.
There would have been no Azov, no mass mobilization, and no expanded Ukrainian military at all without Russia’s invasion. Russia did not respond to extremism … it created the conditions for militarization.
Bandera is a contested historical symbol and not state ideology. Modern Ukrainian law, elections and governance are civic and not ethno-nationalist.