I’ve finished state with Ukrainian as a primary language of instruction, being a Russian speaker. That was long time ago, more than 15 years.
To be honest, it is not a big deal, you use both languages daily, you watch movies in both languages and so on.
I also don’t get “among neo-nazis” line.
In any case language question is more a Russian propaganda talking point, I don’t see it being major topic in the Ukrainian political life.
This sharing of video by Kremlin apologist needs to stop.
Why Westerners have so much taste for Russian state propaganda?
If something is “logical”, doesn’t mean that it is true.
Russia has tried to subdue Ukraine since Putin came to power, courting Ukrainian political parties at least since 2002. When “soft” approach failed miserably in 2014, he went for military interventions.
It doesn’t matter what West was doing at the time, picturing every political development in Ukraine as a result of Western interference is really it’s own way of saying - “Ukrainians are stupid and all their political life is just a proxy for competing foreign powers”
The real world is not some intellectual tongue in cheek discussion between liberals and conservatives.
It is no surprise for me that westerners couldn’t care less about suffering of “other people”. You don’t need to invent complicated reasons why you do not care biggest war in Europe since 1940’s, or the lives of Eastern Europeans.
I never said I didn’t care about the suffering of other people. I said I don’t care about Ukraine.
I’ve read the CIA world fact book entry on it; I’ve listened to a lot of the rhetoric, and I just fail to see any interest there compelling enough to make me support war with Russia.
If “suffering” is the bar for involvement, why didn’t we do anything about Rwanda?
Why is it unethical for me not to support involvement in yet another war, when I’ve been lectured for the last two decades about how bad it is for my country to go to war. Seems like cherry picking.
The American public is tired of wars and the USA is not in financial shape to begin a multi trillion dollar war, especially if there is no compelling national interest. If Europe cares, let them fight the war.
If Putin attacks a NATO country then we should fulfill our treaty obligations.
Other than that, we can’t fix all the problems in the world.
Besides, we are extremely likely to end up in a war with China when they invade Taiwan; we do have a national interest there (semiconductor fabrication) and we can’t afford to be bogged down in Ukraine with that looming.
The only reason why there isn't a NATO base in Ukraine is because Russia has taken measures to make sure that doesn't happen. NATO pushed you into a war by installing a puppet regime, publicly speculating about Ukraine joining NATO for decades and supporting Ukrainian neo-nazi groups. It's an old divide and conquer recipe that worked well so far, you fell for it too.
It is not a binary world. You absolutely do not have to support the Western interference in Ukrainian politics. You do not have to support Putin either.
This is not good vs bad.
It is great powers exploiting weaker countries.
Russia too did interfere a lot in Ukrainian politics, with methods similar to Western.
It's like people live in a paradigm "West good/Russia bad" or "West bad/Russia good", yet miss the real picture - "West bad/Russia bad".
He tells you the facts that you want to hear, that is all.
His view is Kremlin-apologist.
You are not in Ukraine, you rely on second-hand account. So for any 'facts' you have to rely on someone. Ukraine is a complex topic, and 'things the way they are' is extremely hard to get, there is an ideological lens to everything.
His lecture was shared recently on some Ukrainian forums and widely derided as just repeating Russian state propaganda talking points.
SHIT, Ukraine is not in NATO, it is not on track on joining NATO,
It was clear for everyone in Ukraine that with Crimea and LNR/DNR nobody would accept Ukraine into NATO.
There wasn't much support for NATO in Ukraine internally before seizure of Crimea.
Who's in the wrong here? Hmm, I don't know.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine?
And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers, that's why he became a PM, not because Americans have put him there.
> Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine?
It has to do with the fact that the country has been in a civil war [0] since he came into power after the "revolution of dignity", not only him, but literally Americans who were fast tracked Ukrainian citizenship [1] so they could act as minister.
But a whole lot of people in those East Ukrainian territories liked the old government, they voted for it, and they saw their votes burned in a revolution to be replaced with Americans and people sponsored by them.
Which prompted them to do the same in their parts of Ukraine, leading to the separatists territories and a low to high intensity civil war that has by now been lasting 8 years.
> And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers
In elections where the old party was not even allowed to be voted for anymore, consequently, those elections were boycotted in territories that voted for the old government.
Are you seriously giving me links on this? I was there, I participated in those elections.
Yanukovych was nearing the end of his term, he ordered snipers to shoot at protesters, it was only right for him to step down. The next step was re-elections.
And believe me, people never really liked Yanukovych so much to take arms. The leaders of “separatists” were literal nobodies, nobody knew who they are.
Members of Yanukovych party themselves did not en masse supported separatists.
Second, politicians from Party of Regions participated in both 2014 and 2019 parliamentary elections. Same politicians, top Yanukovych lieutenants, with the same oligarchic sponsors.
Third, those elections were not “boycotted” people still participated, on territory controlled by Ukrainian government.
You were there and then missed the following 8 years of civil war, complete with separatist territories, to now ask "What has any of that to do with the invasion?"?
> Yanukovych was nearing the end of his term, he ordered snipers to shoot at protesters, it was only right for him to step down.
Afaik there was no order for government snipers to shoot protesters, those sniper shots hit protesters and police alike, using hunting cartridges, and the government probe into those shootings was extremely flawed [0]
Just like to this day nobody was ever charged for shooting police officers.
> The next step was re-elections.
As somebody who was apparently there, do you remember who provided "security" for those elections at the Rada?
> The leaders of “separatists” were literal nobodies, nobody knew who they are.
Quite an accomplishment for "nobodies that nobody knows" to be representatives of state parliaments, like that of Crimea.
Nobody is pressing citizens to join territorial defense, they do auxiliary duties, they are not surrogate for proper army.
Ukrainian army uses artillery, attack drones extensively, so your point of people with rifles has no value.
Whatever, you don’t get what is happening in Ukraine.