Support is a strong word. I am neutral, but only because I do not like war. I believe this war is 90% not the responsibility of Russia and I will explain why. Bare with me this is a long answer, and I will go into detail.

And I hope this is a neutral space, available for discussion - and not automatically considered a bot because I happen to not agree with the most popular view on this space. There are some spaces, surprise, who do not allow intellectual discussion of this sensitive topic. However, in saying that I will not be replying to any ad-hominem comments nor to people who obviously have not read this.

I think the reason I consider myself neutral has to do more with my inquisitiveness to try to find the truth and to try to find the underlying causes of conflict. As an academic I think its really important to question things, question where we get our information from, who has interest in that information and to ask ourselves ‘Why?’, even if its not to point blame but at least to try to understand a situation so that it may be prevented from happening again.

Firstly some context. I became interested in Ukraine and the Crimean situation back in 2014. I was studying social science (Australia) at the time but for some reason I found the whole Ukrainian situation fascinating. I did a little bit of study on the history, and causes and went about it with neutrality. Its one reason I feel that not only was Russia correct in the Crimean conflict, but they were treated unfairly which probably paved the way for this invasion.

Crimea has an interesting history. I won’t go into ancient past but when Ukraine declared independence in 1991, Crimea also did and joined. Crimea regretted that decision and soon after wanted to separate, potentially rejoining Russia. The people, who had overwhelming ethical ties to Russia, spoke Russian and considered themselves Russian, held a few referendums which passed at a regional level during Ukrainian control . But these referendums were never recognized by the Ukrainian government. And this continued until 2014.

Before 2014, Crimea as other parts of eastern Russia were extremely pro-Russian. As stated, they felt more Russian then Ukrainian. And this divide was easily represented in political demographics, ethnic demographics, language demographics. In fact some of this divisiveness within the country stemmed from before World War 1.

Here is a demographic to show the political divide in 2014 Ukraine…

As you can see there is a stark divide between two different ideologies. This divide is represented by all demographics and pretty much all of Ukrainian political history since independence. Some history of each area…

The red, is an area of pro-EU sentiment. Prior to the soviet Union, much of this area was under different countries rule, especially the north west. In World war 1, a large part of the north west fought against Ukrainians who were with the Russian Empire at the time. In World war 2 this area was under German control for an extended time. Some people here at first celebrated German invasion, before the Germans started killing Jews.

The blue, is an area of pro-Russian sentiment. Much of this area harbored Soviet resistance during World war 2. Also being closer to Russian traditional lands, were more integrated in terms of populace.

So as you can see any arguement that this is a country of solidarity is flawed. This is a highly divisive country with two opposing sides who are at strong odds with one another especially on one particular political issue. And that political issue was, pro-EU or pro-Russia.

Now I think this conflict we have today is an accumulation of a huge range of factors. And many which we probably are not even aware of. But essentially this division is one of the largest. And today, we can probably see that this division can no longer be reconciled.

I think its also important to note that this division above is highly represented by this graphic, to show partly where this division comes from…

If you notice the lands added to Ukraine after WW1, except the land in the far west, represent pretty much identical to the political demographic. The reason for this is that the Soviet Union handed these lands to Ukraine to administer, as a process of de-centralization. But they were previously essentially Russian lands full of Russian people as was Crimea, prior to this. But there are some loose ancient ties to Kievian people of the 11th century.

Now lets talk about NATO briefly and the Soviet Union.

NATO was an organization that was created by the allies after WW2 specifically to counter balance the Soviet Union which rose to power in WW1, but gained a large influence in and after WW2.

Soviet Ukraine was not a friendly place. Policy often ebbed and flowed between forcing Russification, a process of forcing culture and language upon a people, and one of relative autonomy… It often depended who was running the country and who was running the Ukrainian Communist party as to which policy they would adapt. Often Ukrainians were brutalized and oppressed, language and religion was suppressed at times also. Even still, there was a small underground who always wished for independence from the Soviets.

Lets zoom past that Soviet history. When the Soviet Union split, many of these countries gained independence with no change to their republic borders. These borders which were never drawn to take into account language, ethnic ties, culture, religion, politics etc. They were lines on a map, to help govern a huge nation. And I believe this is why there are so many conflicts from ex-Soviet states. Cutting off minority Russians like in South Ossetia or strong local minority non-Russian populations like Chechnya, was bound to bring about conflict as when minority groups with a strong cultural history are not-represented, their voices cannot be heard within new governance. It is difficult to find a nation where two so widely different views have been able to integrate peacefully. So I do believe the way these countries gained independence, and their borders was also a key component to understanding this conflict.

So lets get back to 2014.

Leading up to this the Russians have had stake in Ukraine and other ex-soviet states. By stake I mean they have had their interest in these territories whether that was economically or politically, and have perpetuated that interest by supporting the pro-Russian demographic in these places to keep this strong support. This at times has lead to corruption, assassinations, coups attempts, but also often in contrast economic and social aid to these areas. For the ordinary citizen not involved in politics, Russians were often regarded positively.

Likewise, the US too have been involved in many countries around the world, and that includes the Ukraine. It is well known to political circles that sometimes this involvement actually becomes active to the point where they undermine the elected government or regime. This is well known, its even in Wikipedia…

For balance, I will post this here too..

So we know this stuff does happen on both sides… But in the specific case of Ukraine something unique happened, there was a leak..

The leak was over the US government, actively choosing the new Ukrainian parliament, while the President was still in power. In other words the US backed, supported and highly likely had an active hand in the coup in 2014. Some sources indicate that the US had been trying to harness this element of unrest in the country since 2011. However in terms of 2014 a Ukrainian citizen of Kiev recounts what happened…

Many Ukrainians supported this US backed coup, especially the ones in the pro-EU area. But often these protests were made up of far right-wing elements, backed by Ukrainian Oligarchs with ties to the US. As the UK’s guardian and the independent Cato institute reported…

The target of the coup was President Yanukovych, a pro-Russian president, democratically elected in 2010 ( or as close to democratically as you could reasonably expect from a developing nation). His term was to be until 2016. During the coup, before fleeing to Russia, his last act as a President was asking Russia to enter Crimea and secure it, which they did.

In fact the Russians were already there. A large military base in Sevastopol was operated by the Russians.

Curtis Schaefers answer is very good, it explains it in better detail as well as giving a history of politics in the Crimean region. But if you don’t wish to read it, I will give some excerpts of his points.

Schaefer’s arguement was that as the Russians were already there it did not constitute an invasion. There was no hostile intent, in fact the people wanted them there. The president while in power officially and legally asked him to be there and that a declaration of independence was made. He points out this part of international law which states that a declaration of independence is not a violation of international law. He also questioned, because of the coup, the legitimacy of the Ukrainian constitution at this time, which would have freed Crimea from Ukraine. Also its important to note that since Russia has occupied Crimea there has be zero anti-Russian unrest.

Now remember that Crimea has tried to run a referendum a few times since 1992, while under Ukrainian rule, but was turned down by the Ukrainian government. Often these referendums were passed at 90%+ or greater approval for reintegration. After Russia occupied the area, they held a referendum with 96% Russian approval, but it was not recognized internationally due to not have sufficient international scrutiny, as well as having a military presence in the area.

But the European courts did not see it the same way, who happened to be closely partnered with NATO / US. They ruled it as an illegal occupation. Whether or not either side was wanting control over Crimea due to the gas reserves off the coast discovered in 2012 is not that important. What is important is the will of the citizens who live in this area.

At the time I was dumbfounded at the international reaction by the west especially over Crimea through sanctions. As someone who does strongly believe in self-determination, with certain caveats, how can the international community justify forcing these people into a country they do not wish to be in? And while I believe the Russians should have undergone International scrutiny to secure the Crimean more recognizably, I understand their decision not to considering the influence of the US in the other parts of Ukraine and the long standing distrust with NATO.

After the Russians took control of the area, Ukrainian government decided to turn off Crimean water supply, include drinking water. There is only one source of fresh water in Crimea, and that is from a river which flows through Ukrainian territory, and over a dam. After this Russia had to cart water into Crimea. But this also polarized the Crimean people further towards pro-Russian sentiment. Many Ukrainians left Crimea and many Russians settled there, further changing the demographic.

After Crimea, Donbas regions also declared their wish for Russian occupation, but as peace talks were already underway, Putin decided it was too risky. This is what sparked their desire for autonomy, which I will discuss a bit more later.

There is more to this of course, but I just wanted to give an overview of my thoughts on the history of this conflict.

So time moved on. I have heard a lot of hearsay over politics inside Ukraine since then, most suggesting extensive US foreign involvement. The US has since then, supported the country with military training, aid, weapons, advisors and the like. Not surprising, that prior to the coup in 2013 the US were considering sanctions and strongly condemning Ukraine who then had a pro-Russian government. I think this really highlights how foreign policy, can dictate whether a country is seen to be ‘co-operative or not’, but it also shows that the cold war in the minds of US foreign policy never really ended, it just moved to the Ukraine.

n.b. I also want to point out that while no hard evidence was presented to confirm US involvement, Russia claimed the US tried to enact a similar style coup in 2021 Belarus. Immediately after the coup was apparently thwarted, US issued a pile of economic sanctions on Belarus - for a range of very questionable reasons which were not otherwise considered prior to the alleged coup attempt.

But a lot of reports during this time were also hearsay and cannot be proven. A friend of mine a few years ago, who I used to play online games with lived just outside of Kiev. He was LBGT+. We used to joke a bit about Putin coming to spread communism and what not, harmless stuff. Once he said ‘Its not the communists you need to worry about, its the Nazi’s’ I paid no real thought to it at the time.

So at this stage, I forgot all about Ukraine and didn’t pick it up again until a few weeks ago, when I tried to find as much information I could from good sources. One of the first things I found was an old video from a political expert from the US explaining how the conflict in 2014 Ukraine was the Wests fault. Its a bit outdated, but in the video he basically predicts the current situation. This is purely from a US foreign policy perspective, it does not include other factors that much but I strongly recommend having a look….

I will also provide this updated more current video from a German professor who uses the Mearsheimer video as source material.

If you do not wish to watch these videos, their arguement is that the US had no reason to press their interests in Ukraine, in 2014 and into present day. It makes it clear that the Ukraine is extremely important to Russia and by trying to undermine Russia, you effectively turn Putin into a Pariah, someone who is desperate and can potentially do anything. The arguement centres around the fact that just because appeasement did not work for Hitler, it doesn’t mean the opposite strategy would work either.

Putin has stated for twenty years his concerns in Ukraine and NATO expansion. He has clearly stated that Ukraine was a line in the sand for Russian security concerns. It’s not something he woke up in February and decided to pursue. So just remember that going forward.

Russia is a very traditional place, with a long proud history. Its a place where respect, handshakes etc still mean something. Its also a place which still strongly believe in the east-west political dynamic. In fact, Russians often support leaders which stand up to the west, you can see this will correlations between conflict with the west and public governmental support. They demand this respect in their culture which culminates on the international stage. The respect to be listened to about what they saw was their principle foreign policy concern.

So this was not unknown. Putin's interest in Ukraine was not unknown. It was known by many leading political analysts and it was definitely known by the US foreign office. However NATO policy was an open door one, which stemmed from an agreement with Russian leader Yeltsin. This agreement confirmed that nuclear weapons owned by NATO would not be deployed east of Berlin, which NATO has more or less full-filled (Discounting Turkey), in return NATO could expand, but under the condition of the security concerns of the region. In addition, Russia will not operate clandestine affairs in NATO states. But I am not going to debate who and how these have been fulfilled, as there has been breaches on both sides ie. Kosovo, Yugoslavia etc.

Why does Putin not want NATO in Ukraine?

Putin sees NATO in Ukraine as a stepping stone to challenge to sovereignty of Russia. Its not necessarily being in NATO which is the problem, but what that entails. Russia views NATO as puppets for US, both political and economic concerns. Economic concerns which could potentially cut off Russian oligarchs interest within Ukraine.

But not only this he sees it as a security concern for his people. If nukes were ever deployed there, the chances of interception is very low, also the chances of saving a nuclear war decreases. Nukes take time to get to their target, during this time its likely the other side fires. While they are still in the air, a phone call can still be made to turn these off, and avert a nuclear war. If a missile was fired from Ukraine, the time to talk things through is greatly diminished. This missile location has been likened to having Russian missiles in Cuba, which the US was willing to risk a World War to avoid. So the Russian question is, why is this any different?

This also includes military and anti-aircraft coverage, having Ukraine NATO could extend their range well into Russian territory. Its also another reason why Crimea is so important to Russia, and they will protect that interest at all costs. Entry to NATO, because NATO refuses to recognize Russian Crimean control, would likely be another huge conflict there, as NATO would work to secure it for what they see is rightfully Ukrainian, even if its against the will of the people who live there. Partly because of its huge resource reserves.

Russia themselves have stated their main concern in Ukraine is its de-militarization. That is, avoiding US interests in Ukraine and the region. If Ukraine was to join NATO, but to agree to not house any foreign bases on their soil as well as nukes, Russia is likely to agree. Actually that is their current position going into negotiations from what I can tell.

If you look at their original proposal, it seems reasonable at least to me. Finland has agreed to a similar proposal, and although they receive threats time to time, there has been no military conflict there since the Soviet Union. This could have been Ukraine, with closer economic ties to the EU but a neutral foreign policy. And experts argue that this was the best of both worlds, would have eased the internal tension within Ukraine and also suited Putin’s demands for security. But it did not happen, mainly because the US refused to give in, in the Ukraine which I will discuss a bit more later on.

This is why my position on this point is neutral.

I do believe a countries right to chose their destiny, and this is the principle arguement from the pro-west side. However, its clear that ..

• The admittance into NATO is likely a permanent arrangement, there are no backsies
• Ukraine is very divided, so some national alignments disenfranchise large swathes of the population against their core beliefs; And you cannot ignore a huge chunk of your population, just to suite your personal foreign policy goals, even if you do have a majority support.
• That foreign involvement on both sides have made it questionable whether or not this is self-determination at all, or rather two powers flexing their influence.

And that is why the only solution there ever was on Ukraine was negotiations, and some sort of military neutrality. Its the only thing the Russians would accept without risking an invasion, and its the only thing the Ukrainian people would accept internally. But the US could not accept a nation without a pro-US regime… and that is the failing of the US, not of Russia.

But Ukraine was not close to joining NATO

This is correct. NATO was likely at least 8 years away from allowing Ukraine in. Since 2019, Ukraine under Zelensky made it extremely clear that they would not negotiate with Putin for some sort of security assurances, as they rigorously pursued and pushed for closer relations with the US. I believe that the support from the US as well as confirmed commitments to drive Ukraine further into pro-US democratic principles disillusioned an inexperienced government into thinking their security was already guaranteed and that no negotiation with Putin over these known security assurances were necessary. This was a mistake.

However I would like to discuss Ukrainian gas briefly, and it is relevant.

Since the Soviet Union, Russia has sent huge amount of gas through Ukraine to the EU, and paid Ukraine a transit fee. Since then Russia has tried to diversify their pipeline, in the attempt to increase supply and avoid this fee. A major part of this diversion was completed in 2021, called the Nord Stream 2.

Since 2012, US has increasingly become interested in Ukrainian gas. In 2019, Trump not only sought closer ties to Ukraine, at one time donating a large sum for ‘a favor’, but also sent a delegation to Naftogaz, Ukraine's biggest gas company. The US senate later found that this delegation of Republicans pressured the company into make huge leadership changes. Actually it came up in Trump’s impeachment.

Since then Republicans have had an obsession with closing down the new Russian pipeline. They have tried to get laws passed for additional sanctions and what not constantly, and find reason to shut it down. When Biden took office, he waived a few of these sanctions which made the Republicans try even harder. Google this if you like, lots of links about it. Towards the end of last year, there was division within the Republican party. Some voiced their concerns that the Republicans were wanting to start a war between Russia and the Ukraine.

So keeping that in mind, I want to talk about last year.

The western media has painted Putin as some sort of unhinged autocrat wanting to take over the world, insane by isolation from COVID.

In September last year Biden and Putin met and renewed their pledges of peace and increasing nuclear controls, of open discussion. Ukraine was discussed. So what changed? Did Putin just flip?

It all has to do with October 2021 and a series of events that happened.

• Zelensky also met with Biden around this time, and Biden gave him support as well as a large donation to their military
• Zelensky, using the new Russian pipeline and its inevitable loss to the Ukrainian economy, attempted to use this as justification to push closer to the EU and NATO. Ukrainian lobby groups were hovering around Washington.
• Putin once again discussed his security concerns with NATO, France and Germany were in support of his measures… US was not and pretty much vetoed the vote to not include Ukraine in NATO expansion plans.
• But the most important is that not long after the meeting, US defense secretary released a statement supporting Ukraine, its independence and its eventual admittance into NATO. This paved the way for them to join NATO as well as probably conflicting with assurances that Putin had received over dialog on the matter

This is when troops started moving to Ukrainian border.

It is my arguement that at this time, there was no intention to invade but to show the US how important this issue was to Putin. The issue of Ukrainian neutrality, and as Mearsheimer said in his video, it was not of strategic importance to the US. Putin occasionally moved large amounts of troops to the border with Ukraine, so it wasn’t really anything unusual. In fact, US news outlets have been fear-mongering potential invasion since 2014, but it never amounted to anything. But this time was different. Republicans leapt on this and tried to goad Russia into a conflict.

The next key date was January 2022.

The Russia NATO council sat down and talked about Ukraine at length. NATO press stated during the council that talks on the matter were proceeding and would continue. Putin was using the correct and proper channels to voice his security concerns.

Meanwhile, the US Republicans drafted a bill to rush through congress which included closing down the Nord Stream 2, but also guaranteeing US military defense if Ukraine was invaded. Its not hard to see that they did this for their own private interests, but it was a win win scenario for them now.

To Putin this would have been a stab in the back. He was using the proper channels to negotiate his concerns, and suddenly was shafted by US domestic politics. If the bill passed, it would allow the US to completely ignore Putin, as Putin could not to a thing with that guarantee without starting a world war. His interest in Crimea would be swallowed, Donbas would not get peace and more importantly his security concerns that he had been talking about for two decades would be ignored completely. It is my arguement that this is when the invasion was given the go-ahead.

The Republicans must have known this was likely to push him over the edge. Its impossible for them to not. And for them it was a win-win as…

If Putin did not invade,

It would close down the Nord Stream 2 project with the bill, strengthening up Republican interest in Naftogaz, Once Ukraine was protected, Crimea could be influenced and probably forced back into Ukraine, which mean access to large gas deposits around the Crimean peninsula which are set to yield huge profits.

If Putin did invade,

They could easily convince Germany to close down the Nord Stream 2 ( One of the first sanctions that happened), the energy concerns would drive up share prices in the US energy sector. The security concerns, would increase defense spending and would increase the revenue and interest of US arms companies. Actually defense contractors and the US energy sector received a significant stock price boost when the invasion was announced. Both of these sectors overwhelmingly donate to and support the Republicans.

In fact apart from China, the Republicans and their interests had the most to gain from this war.

US energy sector political donations, red is Republican

Note: I am not an American and do not take sides in the whole Democrat / Republican debate.

In Summary: The ‘Why now’ of the invasion was an culmination of increasing tension, of US domestic interest in Ukraine and of ignoring the security concerns of a nuclear nation.

Donbas / Nazi’s

This region of ongoing civil war in the Ukraine is between the pro-Russian element and the pro-EU element. When the US 2014 coup happened, the pro-Russian element were reportedly persecuted, beaten and oppressed. Many of the pro-Russian people moved to around Donetsk, to escape this persecution.

In 2014 Russia and Ukraine signed the Minsk agreement with guaranteed the autonomy of these areas. Unfortunately the Ukrainian government did not uphold this and through governmental policy, banned the Russian language from education and governmental jobs, excluding Russian only speakers. This turned a lot of these people into separatists, wanting closer ties with Russia and less ties with Ukraine, as they ignored these national policies of de-Russification in order to protect their heritage and culture.

Of course nothing is one sided. Both sides lay landmines to separate the pro-seperatist area, mines which causes civilian casualties. UNHRC goes in there every so often and pokes around, and points out violations on both sides of the conflict. Most of these violations are relatively minor for a war zone, but they do exist as do civilian injuries and casualties. However even they pointed out that the the majority of artillery originates from the Ukrainian side, by Ukrainian national forces.

There are actual a large amount of documentaries etc on this topic and this conflict. There have been ceasefires occasionally, negotiated by Russia and Ukraine, but often they don't last long. Even the European courts acknowledged that most ceasefires were broken by Ukrainian forces. A french documentary maker went in recently.

This is an area of people which has been calling out for help from Russia for eight years. While Russia was following diplomatic routes, Ukrainian nationalists continued to use artillery cutting off power, water and food to this area. Meanwhile the training of ultra para military groups within the Ukraine continued, and supported by the US.

I don’t want to talk long about Nazi’s in Ukraine, because I think there is enough information out there to confirm them and was widely reported by western media. And all countries have their share of right-wing nutters, but not all of them support or use them within their armed forces like Ukraine does. According to voting poll demographics they make up about 2% of the population which is not huge. If you want to learn more, these answers may be able to provide more information…

Needless to say there is a significant right-wing nationalist military element within the Ukrainian armed forces. US recognized this and in 2015 decided to no longer financially support the Azov battalion ( self subscribed Nazi’s) but the pentagon reversed the decision. In fact if you search how these forces have treated foreigner trying to flee you would come up with hundreds of accounts of being beaten, forced out of bunkers, kicked of transport etc. Here is one answer regarding this but there is plenty more, especially in neutral media such as India. This indicates that racism and nationalistic views are not uncommon but prevalent through all the Ukrainian military. In other words racism appears to be apart of the Ukrainian military culture.

But isn’t Zelensky a Jew?

Yes, but what people often miss is that Fascism and antisemitism are two separate things. In WW2 Germany, the Nazi’s happened to also be anti-Semitics, but this is not necessarily the case in all Nazi organizations, especially in Neo-nazi groups in Eastern Europe.

So we can conclude that US and Ukraine knew about the Nazi and ultra-nationalists in Ukraine, supported, armed and trained them… And then they were sent to the Donbas region. I refer to Janus again who explains it more succinctly..

So the conflict in Donbas was ongoing for sometime and was ramping up late 2021 probably because of Russian troops deployed to the border which sparked intensification on both sides. In February this year Putin recognized their autonomy and entered the areas. He asked for the Ukrainian nationalists to stop shelling the region. I personally believe that he knew they would not and would use that as pretense for war. But either way, they did not and the shelling continued.

Here is a link to an American documentary entry showing the artillery shelling of civilian infrastructure, including a school just days before Putin’s invasions. I recommend this viewing.

It could be said that Ukraine had violated the Minsk agreement by forcing their will on the separatist people, and then instigated the war which begun this year. I personally think there is more involved, and the Russians also had a hand to play in all of this. However regardless of the cause, people in these areas were still being targeted and something had to be done to rectify the situation. It was clear that simple ceasefires negotiated between Ukraine and Russia were not working.

So now that I have explained a few key things that are going inside of Ukraine lets looks at Russian demands which I have copied from another answer of mine..

My arguement, given the information provided above is that these demands are rational and reasonable. He is not forcing a regime change, or after an occupation except in a territory which will never again accept Ukrainian rule. Donbas is a little more complicated. He seeks what was pretty much common sense, protecting Russian people and what he has been asking for, for twenty years.

The War

I want to write a little also on the war after the invasion happened. Please note that I am not a student of war, nor do I know military law, it is not my forte. My research into the area is limited so I will not be delving in depth in this. However I will express some of my personal opinions for what they are worth.

Firstly, As pointed out Ukraine is extremely divided country.

On one side of the conflict you have people like Sushchyk which I have linked below, who lives in Lviv - Western Ukraine. He condemns the war and Putin, and blames the west for not intervening with military force. But at the same time he thanks the west for support.

On the other hand you have a Crimean, Irina who explains their side of the war.

Of course these are just personal opinions, but it does highlight the division from people who consider themselves Ukrainians, as I mentioned initially. And it also does highlight my point that even during the war within Ukraine that the concept of solidarity is a falsehood. It is not one people fighting against an evil oppressor. I don’t think I can put to words how opposite sides of the spectrum these two positions are, and they both oppose each other strongly. As I mentioned, I do not believe that there is a hope of reconciliation.

But it also means that often what we see is not the whole story. But my personal position from within the war is to never use civilians to fight. Especially not children…

Reports on the ground, video footage, photos, press statement made from both Russia and from the Ukraine, even personal accounts have been extremely unreliable. US Today did a piece on this, especially in regard to Ukrainian military releases…

So its unlikely we will know for sure what is happening in the Ukraine, apart from satellite pictures and independent sources like the Red Cross, who have recently been invited in as humanitarian aid. In a report today for example, they found that exit points from the city of Mariupol were mined, which contradicted Ukrainian reports that the Russians were not allowing civilians to leave. Ukraine ratified against the use of landmines in 2005.

So there have been atrocities on both sides no doubt. But until full investigations can be completed by independent / neutral organizations then there really is no actual way of sorting fact from fiction. One thing is for sure, Russia, Ukraine, NATO, EU, US have a vested interest in this war and cannot be considered independent nor objective.

A Brazilian legal expert expresses this much better than I can…

In fact western media has been heavily criticized outside of the west during this conflict, and not-only from pro-Russian media. Middle eastern scholars are pointing to how much this conflict underlines the racial bias within western media, in regard to coverage of other wars in which the US were directly involved.

I saw this bias myself early on in the conflict when I was reading the BBC from the UK and noticed that I knew more about this conflict than any of their so called investigative journalists did. Either they did not know, or they already had a position lined up and were going to spread that narrative, without considering objective reporting. As a state source, I believe it was the latter.

So what about Russian media?

Russian media has spread a lot of lies also about this conflict. To the point where I purposefully will not use Russian media as a source for my discussion. I am also very careful of sourcing accounts which have questionable background, and am aware that accounts and mis-information do exist which push pro-Russian, pro-US and pro-Ukraine ideologies. But you cannot exclude everything from an opposing view point as ‘propaganda’ just because you do not support it, by doing so you are only giving voice to one side of the arguement, and there are always two sides of a debate. This creates arrogance that your position is the only correct one, and an echo chamber effect where no alternative information is able to penetrate a fixed position.

Like the Czech republics proposal to jail people with pro-Russian sentiment for 2 years. I wonder if these people have actually studied this conflict, or are just towing the governmental line.

But my arguement is, even if western media is supposedly fact-checked and watched by mediator regulators, that by cherry-picking information, using negative language, hiring experts which agree with their view, omitting important and key details, not providing the whole picture they are effectively just as bad as the Russian media they condemn.

With the except of a few western media outlets, like Reuters for example, are trying to straddle the line between journalistic integrity and public outcry over their position which would impact their outlet negatively in the future. So in this way my arguement is in this conflict that no outlet which has ties to the EU, US, Russia or backed by corporations funded by these can be trusted to provide non-bias reporting. As you can imagine this limits the sources of objectivity significantly, and decreasing. With the US trying to use its influence over foreign policy even when it comes to positions in the conflict…

And it only makes things worse when countries start shutting down opposing views on media. Media can bridge the gap of understanding opposing views, and by closing those avenues, polarizes the public as they no longer have access to sources which could challenge their conceptions on a issue. The removal of BBC from Russia and the removal of RT from EU was a real shame. Even if these were seen as opposite forms of propaganda, I think that diversified opinion is really important, and going into the future is also key for discussions and peace-talks.

As a side note, I do not support Russian treatment of anti-war demonstrators. I feel it was not in their best interest to make these arrests. If the information that I have provided here about the justifications for the war were somehow able to be expressed freely and directly to the international community, without western political interference and media bias… I believe that people would probably agree that compared to most modern wars, this one was strongly justified and more people would remain neutral. But it is wishful thinking.

I don’t usually get involved in political arguments. But in this case I felt a strong sense of injustice for Russia, for the sanctions opposed on them which will effect their civilians, of some sort of western solidarity on a conflict they know nothing about and felt that it was the responsibility of at least a few to try to educate some who will listen. I hope that by changing public sentiment, even in a small way, we can increase understanding of these causes and work to provide a peaceful solution which works. Not just to point fingers and say ‘bad!’