LondonRake
I don't think I have problems seeing things "clearly" actually.
You are deluding yourself!
YOU do have a problem and you demonstrate it every time you comment! Mostly you attack individuals for having views particularly on Ukraine, that you disagree with and, when you actually comment on any ‘
Ukraine’ subject, you are clearly and vehemently so, anti-Russian. You deny you are brainwashed but your posts show that you always toe the US/UK/NATO line on every occasion without question.
Read the second two paragraphs of Michael Hudson’s piece that I quoted! What he says is factually correct and the evidence is all available if you look for it and all from Western sources! YOU ignore it all and leave it out of your narrative completely, or if do you mention it you scathingly label it as ‘
Russian Propaganda!
Despite Putin and Lavrov lying about it several times (fair enough) 190,000 Russian troops invaded Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022.
You conveniently missed out the 160,000 Kyiv troops that, supplied by the US with more weapons, were moving to the Minsk LoC at the same time and who invaded Donbas on the 15-16th Feb 2022. The Russians had the intelligence of the plan beforehand .... so did the US!
You also conveniently ignore the eight year war of genocide Kyiv carried out on ethnic Russians that killed 14,000 between 2014 and 2016.
An armoured Russian column, over 40 miles long, headed for Kyiv. At the same time Russian airborne forces attacked Antonov airport, 10kms from Kyiv, in order to establish a strategic airbridge close to the city. If you don't think the intention was to take Kyiv and in essence the entire country - replacing it's government with a Lukashenko clone - then I submit you're deluded.
So you REALY think 30k Russian troops and a 40km line of military vehicles and the required supplies would be enough to ‘
take’ a city/region like Kyiv with a 4m+ population and a garrison of 160k troops, and then depose its government?
Unlike a NATO operation there was no massive build up, no blitzkrieg and no air bombardment campaign. The Russian column didn’t even fire unless they were fired on! Most villages/towns they went through without resistance they left medical teams behind and supplied medicines and food parcels. The Ukrainians that took advantage of that aid were later treated as Russian collaborators by Kyiv and treated accordingly ..... Bucha as an example!
Both efforts were rebuffed, due to unanticipated strong Ukrainian resistance.
Really, who told you that? Zelenskey? When the feints had achieved their goals and the Crimea – Russia Land Bridge was secured, the Russians announced and then withdrew back from whence it came. There was little or no ‘
Ukrainian resistance’! The Russian action just kept 160k troops defending the City, when they could have been used to counter the Russian gains in the East/South. After Putin’s announcement of the withdrawal the Ukraine forces moved into the vacated Russian areas (
Kyiv/Summi/Karkov) as the Russians retreated back to Belarus/Russia. Zelenskey (
and Paphitis ) then claimed this as a great victory over the Russians and that they had ‘
driven’ the Russians out.
Putin's publicly declared objectives at the outset were to "de-nazify" and "de- militarise" Ukraine. Clearly, those couldn't be achieved by merely occupying parts of southern and eastern Ukraine. You needed to take the whole country.
The evidence clearly shows Putin didn’t want the whole country? He HAS de-nazified to a great extent. He has also de-militarised Ukraine several times over! But the West dusts down the remnants of the Ukie army, gives them more weapons and sends them back to die for the US grand plan of things.
Repeating something, over and over, doesn't make it true.
Well said.......
THAT IS PROPAGANDA and as the UK/EU blocked all access to Russian ‘
propaganda’ from 2014 onward all you have to watch, listen to and read about is progressively more-and-more Ukraine/Western propaganda! You seem unable to comprehend that!
What do yourself/Pyrpro/RH (I don't include Lordo. The man's a a sycophantic idiot) want?
Pedantic I know but it's "take a horse to water" .
I could ask you the exact same question! What do you want to prove? Why do you always leave out the inconvenient facts that prove your version of history is so badly distorted and then give a view almost totally the reverse of the truth?