> Crimea was annexed by Russian troops, as admitted by Putin, and it takes quite an interesting mindset to deny it.
If you'd ever followed Ukrainian politics before the Orange Revolution, or since independence, you'd know Crimea has always been very pro-Russian, and always voted for the pro-Russian candidate going back decades. They also tried to separate from and then gain autonomy within Ukraine.
In the case of Crimea, it was undoubtedly the will of the people.
> T-72B3s, Grads, BTR-82s were rolling into Donbas.
Proof beyond shitty pictures on the side of a road, followed by a shitty picture of a road sign? Or pictures from inside a video game? Or shitty YouTube videos? Or videos from Georgia, or inside Russia itself?
If there was evidence that wasn't potato-quality YouTube videos and images of dubious quality and value, I'd be a little more impressed.
For such a large invasion, the proof is amazingly poor. Especially since it's in the west's interest to provide proof - you'd think there'd be detailed satellite images or something.
A US senator presenting images of the wrong war to his fellow senators. Do you not understand how this looks like a bad joke? A full-scale invasion, and the US government can't provide any real images of it.
> But as I said, I understand perfectly your beef with the leaks.
As everyone should. Most people are completely ignoring the western leaders who are named, instead focusing on Putin who isn't named.
I'm sure the Russian government is plenty corrupt. But excuse me for not believing 100% of what our news/propaganda tells us. What's amazing as well is their lack of consistency. They praise the Orange Revolution, then when it falls apart, nothing. Maybe the odd piece throwing Tymoshenko under the bus. Then she's a martyr when she's prosecuted for crimes she likely did commit. Then Maidan arrives and when the western media realizes she's unpopular, she's once again forgotten. She's in these leaks too BTW.
Seriously though, it's hard to look at history, at the news, to follow the news consistently for an extended time, and to believe that what we're told is 100% 'factual'.
If you'd ever followed Ukrainian politics before the Orange Revolution, or since independence, you'd know Crimea has always been very pro-Russian, and always voted for the pro-Russian candidate going back decades. They also tried to separate from and then gain autonomy within Ukraine.
In the case of Crimea, it was undoubtedly the will of the people.
> T-72B3s, Grads, BTR-82s were rolling into Donbas.
Proof beyond shitty pictures on the side of a road, followed by a shitty picture of a road sign? Or pictures from inside a video game? Or shitty YouTube videos? Or videos from Georgia, or inside Russia itself?
If there was evidence that wasn't potato-quality YouTube videos and images of dubious quality and value, I'd be a little more impressed.
For such a large invasion, the proof is amazingly poor. Especially since it's in the west's interest to provide proof - you'd think there'd be detailed satellite images or something.
Here's a good example of the fakery: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4528166/senator-inhofe-shows-f...
A US senator presenting images of the wrong war to his fellow senators. Do you not understand how this looks like a bad joke? A full-scale invasion, and the US government can't provide any real images of it.
> But as I said, I understand perfectly your beef with the leaks.
As everyone should. Most people are completely ignoring the western leaders who are named, instead focusing on Putin who isn't named.
I'm sure the Russian government is plenty corrupt. But excuse me for not believing 100% of what our news/propaganda tells us. What's amazing as well is their lack of consistency. They praise the Orange Revolution, then when it falls apart, nothing. Maybe the odd piece throwing Tymoshenko under the bus. Then she's a martyr when she's prosecuted for crimes she likely did commit. Then Maidan arrives and when the western media realizes she's unpopular, she's once again forgotten. She's in these leaks too BTW.
Seriously though, it's hard to look at history, at the news, to follow the news consistently for an extended time, and to believe that what we're told is 100% 'factual'.