Having issue finding anything in English stating anything other than the Donbas genocide being a smokescreen to justify Russia’s invasion. For reference, I’m searching using searx which anonymously gathers info. Do you have any links to publications about it with supporting evidence?
These are just pieces. You’re not going to find any western mainstream media outlet disputing the propaganda narrative and putting together a huge dossier of Ukraine’s crimes. We see right now people like the weapon’s inspector who blew the whistle on Bush lying about WMD’s in Iraq being harassed by the FBI just for daring to take Russia’s side, anyone who does so is tarred and feathered as a Russian asset. Look no further than the uniformity in downplaying ‘israeli’ crimes in occupied Palestine, the one-sided narrative that suits those committing genocide that is onmipresent in mainstream western press to see how easily and nakedly this can occur.
Fact is the west decided which side they were on a while ago. Once the war started any room for pointing out the Nazis and the little issues in Ukraine’s WW2 era Nazi collaborator worshiping, Russian hating regime was completely removed, subtle prods from journos for reform with exposes were now tantamount to treason, to siding with Russia and justifying their pretext and thus silenced.
Also forgive me but WHAT THE FUCK IS a smokescreen genocide? Is it or isn’t it? I’m personally not sure it rises quite to genocide but it definitely rose to ethnic and cultural persecution of an extreme level that included actual violence, horrific human rights abuses, deploying absolute depraved monsters to do every manner of sick, vile, criminal human rights abuses imaginable to the Russian identifying people in eastern Ukraine who rejected what looked like to them (and what most of us and many impartial realists maintain was a coup helped by the US) a regime put in place to escalate tensions with Russia for the purpose of 1) hurting Russia and weakening an adversary, 2) pressuring Europe to decouple from cheap Russian gas for US gas, among a litany of other benefits for the US including dangling a threat over them to keep them in line and close behind them under NATO.
The postmortem on all this with all the evidence won’t be written until the war is over with Russia actually victorious. If Russia accepts an negotiated truce many of these facts will remain disputed for decades more with the Russians having extensive evidence, reporting, etc on all this which is rejected by the west as propaganda.
Edit And I should state the oppression of Russians was a piece of it, it gave them a causus belli (why would Ukraine do that? again this is a bad thing, bad nations do this). As was the extensive presence of Nazis and fascists in their government, army, intelligence, etc. The real issue though is NATO bringing in Ukraine and parking nukes that can hit Moscow with 6-10 minutes warning time. That’s not enough time to run in and wake up the president, let him rub sleep from his eyes and press a proverbial button. That’s aggressive. That’s aggression. The US lost it’s mind when the USSR parked nukes in Cuba (nukes that would have taken I believe 20-30 minutes to hit Washington) and by the way those were only placed there in response to the US first placing nukes in Turkey pointing at Russia’s underbelly. Russia is a nation that for centuries has been invaded and attacked through the Ukraine. Now a belligerent wants to place weapons that could decapitate it’s command and control in an instant just for want of one failure in acting a minute too slow and you expect them to be okay with this?
Why does NATO, a cold war alliance need to expand east since Russia is no longer the USSR or communist? It must be because it’s explicitly a tool of US power, because it’s a tool to keep Russia down and out. Russia tried to join NATO in the early 2000s, they made overtures of getting closer to the west but were rebuffed because the US does not want a strong Russia balancing out the power of the US and giving Europe a choice and more power themselves, they want Russia as a threat, Europe kept in line by a threat, etc.
Having issue finding anything in English stating anything other than the Donbas genocide being a smokescreen to justify Russia’s invasion. For reference, I’m searching using searx which anonymously gathers info. Do you have any links to publications about it with supporting evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1GV2TC/
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/359609-the-reality-of-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians
These are just pieces. You’re not going to find any western mainstream media outlet disputing the propaganda narrative and putting together a huge dossier of Ukraine’s crimes. We see right now people like the weapon’s inspector who blew the whistle on Bush lying about WMD’s in Iraq being harassed by the FBI just for daring to take Russia’s side, anyone who does so is tarred and feathered as a Russian asset. Look no further than the uniformity in downplaying ‘israeli’ crimes in occupied Palestine, the one-sided narrative that suits those committing genocide that is onmipresent in mainstream western press to see how easily and nakedly this can occur.
Fact is the west decided which side they were on a while ago. Once the war started any room for pointing out the Nazis and the little issues in Ukraine’s WW2 era Nazi collaborator worshiping, Russian hating regime was completely removed, subtle prods from journos for reform with exposes were now tantamount to treason, to siding with Russia and justifying their pretext and thus silenced.
Also forgive me but WHAT THE FUCK IS a smokescreen genocide? Is it or isn’t it? I’m personally not sure it rises quite to genocide but it definitely rose to ethnic and cultural persecution of an extreme level that included actual violence, horrific human rights abuses, deploying absolute depraved monsters to do every manner of sick, vile, criminal human rights abuses imaginable to the Russian identifying people in eastern Ukraine who rejected what looked like to them (and what most of us and many impartial realists maintain was a coup helped by the US) a regime put in place to escalate tensions with Russia for the purpose of 1) hurting Russia and weakening an adversary, 2) pressuring Europe to decouple from cheap Russian gas for US gas, among a litany of other benefits for the US including dangling a threat over them to keep them in line and close behind them under NATO.
The postmortem on all this with all the evidence won’t be written until the war is over with Russia actually victorious. If Russia accepts an negotiated truce many of these facts will remain disputed for decades more with the Russians having extensive evidence, reporting, etc on all this which is rejected by the west as propaganda.
Edit And I should state the oppression of Russians was a piece of it, it gave them a causus belli (why would Ukraine do that? again this is a bad thing, bad nations do this). As was the extensive presence of Nazis and fascists in their government, army, intelligence, etc. The real issue though is NATO bringing in Ukraine and parking nukes that can hit Moscow with 6-10 minutes warning time. That’s not enough time to run in and wake up the president, let him rub sleep from his eyes and press a proverbial button. That’s aggressive. That’s aggression. The US lost it’s mind when the USSR parked nukes in Cuba (nukes that would have taken I believe 20-30 minutes to hit Washington) and by the way those were only placed there in response to the US first placing nukes in Turkey pointing at Russia’s underbelly. Russia is a nation that for centuries has been invaded and attacked through the Ukraine. Now a belligerent wants to place weapons that could decapitate it’s command and control in an instant just for want of one failure in acting a minute too slow and you expect them to be okay with this?
Why does NATO, a cold war alliance need to expand east since Russia is no longer the USSR or communist? It must be because it’s explicitly a tool of US power, because it’s a tool to keep Russia down and out. Russia tried to join NATO in the early 2000s, they made overtures of getting closer to the west but were rebuffed because the US does not want a strong Russia balancing out the power of the US and giving Europe a choice and more power themselves, they want Russia as a threat, Europe kept in line by a threat, etc.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/2022_Russo-Ukrainian_conflict