[NicoJuicy]

A lot of weird insinuations from weird sources ( especially modern diplomacy, yikes).

You are very critical of right extremists that represent 2% of the population.

Note : I hate extremists left and right. But 2-3% doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

It seems that you are overrepresenting a minor group ( extremists ), that should easily be crushed by the majority you are presenting.

As far as I'm aware, in 2014 people in some eastern regions were 54% in favor of Russia ( not a clear majority either) and because of the gray zone invasion in 2014 that declined to 14% later on.

Considering that 17,3% in entire Ukraine identify as ethic Russians and not Ukrainians, I'm actually suprised by the weak support later on.

Eg. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60362274

Here a follow-up how life worsened under Russia's annexation of Crimea and that people were changing perspectives after years, they have regrets - https://youtu.be/lzO7gIT5GYU

[definataly]

How is Deutsche Welle a weird source?

> Deutsche Welle or DW is a German public, state-owned international broadcaster funded by the German federal tax budget.

Granted, "modern diplomacy" sounds a bit conspiracy leaning.

However, I think you missed my point. My point is not that Ukrainians are bad or Russians are justified. My point is that western media is making things oversimplified and polarized. Demonizing some people and cutting all support, treating others as heroes, arming them and forgetting their violations.

It's not about the % of extremists. It's that they committed several murders and went unpunished because the government / police turned a blind eye. It was convenient at the time because it silenced the pro-russian independent movements. Is that the hallmark of a western democracy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-o...

>> Here a follow-up how life worsened under Russia's annexation of Crimea

Again, I'm not arguing being under the thumb of an autocratic regime like Russia is good for anyone. But shouldn't populations make that decision themselves? Or do we get to decide what's best for them?

[NicoJuicy]

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

About the propaganda, the articles you linked give another meaning to me than what you are suggesting and suggesting "modern diplomacy" is "somewhat" conspiracy like is a severe underestimation ( i browsed through some articles)

The latest one you linked was literally when Russia also moved Russians within Ukraine to cause an uprising. That's what it's called a "gray zone war" in 2014...

Putin even acknowledged he had boots on the ground at that time - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukra...

No one said that Ukraine was already a perfect democracy either. Their independency is very recent ( since 1991 ) and even then they were heavily influenced by Russian leaders in their governement ( literally). You can't fix something like that in 10 years.

If you're argument is that it's not perfect there, I agree. But a lot of progress has been made in recent decades, which is what counts.

But that is by no means a reason to revert the progress that has been accomplished by them in recent decades.

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. The majority of Ukraine needs help against an autocratic regime and aggressor, that invests 6% of their GDP in military.

A leader like Zelensky currently could make great strides in a democracy in a short amount of time, if the invasion wouldn't have happened.

Nobody is suggesting he was/is perfect, but the current actions he's doing are formidable in many ways. He's clearly a man of many skills under very difficult circumstances. What you call "media heroes" isn't created by the media in the case. It's by Zelensky's "Fingerspitzengefühl", which he earned every bit of it on his own.

In the same logic, I'm not suggesting any system is perfect. My preference is the least bad one.