I've noticed you didn't include your Substack on your Twitter/X profile. Via this substack I became aware of your book re NGO's ("The Think Tank Racket") and their role in shaping politics, which everyone should read because view are aware. Maybe you should include it on X?
The main problem, as I see it, is that in Norway few alternative views are "allowed" in the public field on ongoing foreign policies - and especially crises. Only much later, when it is too late, is it possible to say that it was, say, a bad idea to bomb Libya. This is of course a completely immature reaction, but typical for a small country depending on alliances with bigger powers. This situation also affects academic freedom since Diesen cannot just be believed in his claim that he is a scholar and thereby has a legal claim for forming his own and independent scholarly view.
Glenn, I bought your latest book - excellent! Frankly, when I first heard Glenn at the start of this war, I was surprised he was 'allowed to speak,' and Glenn was explaining that his university was welcoming different points of view, and I thought - wow, it's not what I saw in the U.S then
I am originally from Ukraine. At the start of this war, my American friends, smart & educated people were all pro-war in Ukraine, even knowing nothing about Ukraine. They viewed me as some 5th column :-)till I told them that if America attacked, I'd be fighting for America, it's my home, but I reserved the right to tell it as it is! My son's Canadian girlfriend was saying "Joe Biden must grow some balls and send the boots on the ground in Ukraine," my boss was buying a "I need ammo, I don't need a ride" t-shirt, my friend, who is professor (medicine), smart & worldly, when I would point, look how many Ukrainians died, would reply, 'but what about the Russians?' I wrote both Senators of my Democrat-run state about prosecution of the Orthodox Church as early as in the Spring 2022, and crickets, no even a pro-forma reply. I lost some Ukrainian friends (in US) to this war, who were aggressively pro-war. My position is that for any war, one votes only with own flesh and blood or shut up. If you're not willing to send your only son to the front, whose sons are you sending? Yep, getting pro-Putin label is common. It's like the people's mind is shutting down, once they put this label on you. I didn't participate in any chat boards before this war, I was completely apolitical, but when the war started, I joined the Epoch Times chat, and you could clearly see that it was densely infiltrated by the bots/psy-ops/Ukrainians who were pushing hard the pro-war agenda. The readers often commented how well educated and factual, the anti-war commentators' posts were, vs. pro-Ukrainian war, which were just emotional.
By now, my friends dropped their illusions about this war and see clearly that Americans are being used/abused and taxed to the eyeballs, deprived of necessities to feed the constant wars. Zelensky is being ridiculed.
Glenn, you have yet to chime in on my other comments. I'm interested in where and how you've been "banned" per your tagline: "Banning dissent with vague labels that make no sense".
When you say "banned", do you mean actually removed or limited in your ability to post your thoughts somewhere? By law or being banned from some platform?
"There is overwhelming evidence that Russia invaded to prevent NATO expansion"
Which time, the first or the second? The first time, I suppose, is arguable. But how is that possibly an excuse for the second time? Ukraine was not anywhere close to joining NATO - they had the same problem they have now, which is that they are in an active territorial conflict with Russia. So if NATO borders are all Russia cares about, how does it make sense for them to go full scale in 2022?
More than that, even Putin doesn't use that reasoning anymore. He was asked about that - twice - in his interview with Tucker Carlson. Tucker seemingly tried to tee up a softball and let Putin explain how the war was NATO's fault. But each time he did, Putin instead answered with a long, convoluted historical explanation of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine. If you think he is lying about his true reasoning in this case, why do you think he does this?
You aren't being "canceled", you're being challenged on your reasoning. Like anyone else, you have to back it up with answers to tough questions. And, if someone who makes assertions can't back up what they say, they aren't taken seriously. That's not cancel culture - that's just academia.
As far as I am concerned, Russia is defending itself against NATO aggression, period. NATO has no business existing after 1991. It is NATO that is trying to conquer more territory, not Russia. Russia is not interested in invading anyone, let alone taking over Europe. Russia is already a big enough country, what does it need from the European lackeys of the United States? Why would Russia want the headaches of failing governments? I am American and I despise NATO. And for good reason. It has lied about its creation after WWII and it lies about its intentions today. It is NOT an organization for peace. On the contrary, it is an organization for imperialist aggression and violence. Smoke that in your pipe.
Thank you for demonstrating an example of a comment that doesn't lead to "cancelation" but instead to simply leading people to not take what you say seriously. I think ending your input with "smoke that in your pipe" is a perfect way to demonstrate the point!
"Smoke that in your pipe" is not a phrase one normally includes in a meaningful discussion. Since OP is an academic, I simply expected more from those participating in his discourse.
"as an Eastern European with both Ukrainian and Russian roots"
I appreciate that you have a unique perspective and am grateful you've shared it with me. If you want to take the time to tell me more about your experience as someone from the area, I welcome it!
But, you're responding to something completely different. Regardless of where you're from, we should all treat each other with respect. I was singling out a comment by another poster (not sure where they are from) as being contrary to that ideal. I don't think who is from what region is really relevant for that discussion. . . Unless, perhaps the phrase means something different in Eastern Europe? But even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that poster is also from Eastern Europe.
"You aren't being "canceled", you're being challenged on your reasoning." - Glenn is not being challenged, he is being branded. I love Tucker Carlson, I subscribe to his private channel and on X, but he came across as very unprepared to the interview with Putin.
In Dec 2021, Putin sent a proposal to the US to ensure security network in EU/Ukraine - totally ignored. Look at Feb 2022 - Kamala was in Europe early February and stated, Ukraine will be in NATO - no retraction, and on 20Feb22, Zelensky publicly announced Ukraine would be getting the nukes - no retraction, and on 24Feb22, Putin went in. Got problem with logical chains? Get some training.
Glenn is one of the best equipped "just academia" I see around. and you still didn't present your own argument.
Branded as "controversial" from what I can tell. Maybe there's a translation error, but I don't see that as at all derogatory? It's just accurate given the current trend of discourse.
I made my argument - I said Putin totally sidestepped the claim that Ukraine might have been because of NATO expansion, twice. Your counter argument is that Carlson wasn't prepared? That doesn't matter, what matters is what Putin said.
The "Ukraine will be a part of NATO" was the same thing they said since 2008-2010 if I recall - Just because people said it doesn't mean that's why Russia did what it did. Look at what the man in charge is actually saying.
There are two arguments here - the actual cause of the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and whether OP is being unfairly "canceled". We can continue both if you'd like, just please be clear which one you are going for with your comments.
There is a trend in the West, especially in the US, to brand people - as "anti-vax," even if they are fully vaccinated but against Covid-19 vaccine, or the "conspiracy theorists" - even if things are real as Hunter Biden's laptop, and "controversial" opinion - as in vs. "the Gospel truth" holders :-) My argument is - no any kind label should be used on people, or any information labeled as "disinformation" "misinformation" or "malformation" - the information should be presented without any tags, being factual not suppositional, definitely not presented as "Ukraine said" and let people to decide for themselves what to believe. We, in the US, have barely escaped the official 'Truth Ministry,' and nobody knows for how long...
I wouldn't be surprised with NATO's secretly sneaking in the nukes to beef up Zelensky's claims on 22Feb22 that he'd get the nukes, and put Russia before the fact. Putin went in to prevent it.
I find it interesting that you argue against the labeling of information, then give some information that isn't linked to any facts or evidence - it's suppositional based on the way you said "I wouldn't be surprised if".
It's almost like you are trying to demonstrate the problem with treating all statements and assertions equally.
I think you'll note that I haven't branded anyone or any statements. I've just been making arguments. And yet, you attached your own label - you said "I am tired of your demagogue" - how is this not applying different labels in the same way?
It looks like you don't know what you are talking about. Are you aware that Ukraine's Declaration of Independence in Aug of 1991 stated, "not participation in any military blocks, striving toward permanent neutrality, and equality of languages?" That was why Russia did NOT dispute the historic Russian territories right then. How the lands are acquired? Through treaties, won at wars - like Russia won Finland from Sweden in 1808, or purchased - like the US did with Alaska and Louisiana. Ukraine didn't exist till 1917 - look at the US Library of Congress maps of Europe before 1917. The US didn't even recognize the USSR till 1933, because of the illegality of the Lenin/Stalin Bolsheviks' coup, usurping the power illegally in 1917, but somehow Lenin/Stalin's illegal decisions of 1918-1920s made to buy the support of Ukrainian Bolsheviks by beefing up "Ukraine" at the expense of strategic and densely populated Russian lands, is now okay to push U.S. into WW3? Give me a break.
It was not a "full-scale" invasion - Russia went with a small force in to reinforce the Minsk agreements (which turned out be fraudulently signed in bad faith by Ukraine, co-signed by France and Germany), and immediately removed the troops from Kyiv, when the negotiations were underway. When Russia would go "full-scale" - you would know the difference.
Remember that there are two arguments here - why Russia invaded Ukraine, and whether OP is being "canceled". Ok, we've decided to focus on the first one it seems. Alright.
In your first paragraph, you are arguing that Ukraine shouldn't be a state, and shouldn't be in NATO. Ok.
"Ukraine shouldn't be a state" - gotcha, that's Putin's argument. Fair enough. I think plenty of states only came into existence in the last century, and I'd hate to try to evaluate them all based on these convoluted historical justifications. Maybe we should just use, you know, what everybody agreed to at the UN? When they all recognized eachother's borders? Or maybe when the U.S., Russia etc. made security guarantees if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons? Why would this even matter if it's not a state?
"Ukraine shouldn't be in NATO". Ok, that's, like, your opinion. The international system is based on nation-states that are sovereign. I think they will enter into any security arrangements they'd like. There's no weird agreement that certain countries get to have buffer states that have to be neutral. Can Ukraine say that Moldova doesn't get to be in NATO? Can Turkiye say that Armenia can't be in CSTO? I mean, of course they *can*, but it doesn't mean those countries have to acquiesce. And it doesn't absolve blame if one Ukraine, Turkiye etc. invade the smaller countries as a result.
"It was not a "full-scale" invasion - Russia went with a small in to reinforce the Minsk agreements"
Ok, this is where it gets funny. You are going to try to argue that a 4-pronged attack driving toward Kyiv is not a "full-scale invasion". You seem to even be avoiding the term "invasion". Can we at least agree on "invasion"? Let's see how we do with that.
"Germany in its operation Barbarossa used over 3.8 million personnel of the Axis powers—the largest invasion force in the history of warfare—invaded the western Soviet Union, along a 2,900-kilometer (1,800 mi) front, with 600,000 motor vehicles and over 600,000 horses for non-combat operations."
Now, did you forget that Ukraine had the largest (debatable vs. Turkey) army in Europe armed to the teeth with NATO weaponry & dug fortifications for 8 years? While Putin went in with hardly with 100- 150K troops.
Did I say that Ukraine shouldn't be a state? Don't put words in my mouth. The original "Ukraine" is Galicia and Western parts near Poland. Odessa is not Ukraine, Nikolaev is not Ukraine, and neither is Kharkiv. Ukraine should not be in NATO, just like Mexico and Canada couldn't join the Warsaw Pact (which was created 6 YEARs after NATO, btw). Why do you think the U.S. is jumping up and down seeing Russian ships in Cuba? What was the root cause of Caribbean crisis in 1960s? US put nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, and in mirror response the USSR put them in Cuba.
Ukraine never owned nuclear weapons - they belonged to the USSR and Russia assumed ALL responsibilities of the USSR, including paying the USSR's DEBTS, I don't recall Ukraine jumping up to "chip in."
Again, you clearly don't understand what a full-invasion vs. limited force is.
Frankly, I am tired of your demagogue, it's not my level of discussion. I base my argument on facts and you base yours on "suppositions" du jour.
"Ukraine should not be in NATO, just like Mexico and Canada couldn't join the Warsaw Pact."
Sure they could. Are you referring to a statement someone made that said they couldn't?
"Why do you think the U.S. is jumping up and down seeing Russian ships in Cuba?"
I think it was more about the nuclear weapons going to Cuba.
"What was the root cause of Caribbean crisis in 1960s?"
Nuclear missiles in Cuba.
"US put nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, and in mirror response the USSR put them in Cuba."
You've got a good point there. That's why behind the scenes they agreed to remove the nukes from Turkey to resolve the crisis. I think we actually agree on what happened.
Ukraine never owned nuclear weapons - they belonged to the USSR and Russia assumed ALL responsibilities of the USSR, including paying the USSR's DEBTS, I don't recall Ukraine jumping up to "chip in."
Ok. . . . So the point you are trying to make is that Ukraine, having possession of these nuclear weapons, didn't "own" them. I'm ok with that. BUT, that doesn't change that security guarantees were made. Are you saying those aren't valid just because they were based on some kind of status of ownership? I feel that all parties probably fully understood who owned the nuclear weapons, de factor and "legally". So, it's kind of irrelevant? Let me know if I'm missing something here.
"Again, you clearly don't understand what a full-invasion vs. limited force is."
I'm going to make a generalization here. Let me know if you can think of an example that doesn't fit. . . if you make an attack where you cross international borders with uniformed forces and try to capture a nation's capital, I call that an invasion. I guess you could argue "full-scale" vs. "full-invasion" (your words) vs. just "invasion". Can we agree on "invasion"?
"when it was always a Washington invasion... and that comes from us, most of the well informed Ukrainian people...not even Russian."
This is an interesting perspective. I'd like to know more. Can you please link me to a Ukrainian publication, newspaper article etc. explaining the "Washington invasion"?
"which has been described so well by ex CIA Agents, from the 1980s onwards. When Washington's CIA Central office drew plans to capture Kiev, ie. Ukraine, in order to attack Russia...or whatever was left over from Soviet power."
Please link to this report or wherever you are drawing this from.
No. I don't want conspiracy theories on social media. I want you to link me to credible reporting, studies etc.
I don't need you to give a lecture. Just link me to whatever is convincing you. It takes less of your time than sending a wall of text. But social media is worthless for credible information - this is universal, not because of any particular "side". Actual primary or academic sources please.
"Afterall, Ukraine IS Russia.. Always was, Always will be. Don't even consider any other outcome."
Wow! Well I think the Ukrainians disagree on that point and they are definitely showing it.
I'm guessing based on your words and your pushback against the term "invaded" that you might be incarcerated if you agree to it. That's ok, I don't want to get you in trouble. If you want to use a different term to avoid that, I'm ok with it.
Sorry, I didn't see this until now. I think you replied to the OP by accident so I'm not sure where you are referring to. But, I will assume the fault is mine for misquoting you and apologize!
I've noticed you didn't include your Substack on your Twitter/X profile. Via this substack I became aware of your book re NGO's ("The Think Tank Racket") and their role in shaping politics, which everyone should read because view are aware. Maybe you should include it on X?
The main problem, as I see it, is that in Norway few alternative views are "allowed" in the public field on ongoing foreign policies - and especially crises. Only much later, when it is too late, is it possible to say that it was, say, a bad idea to bomb Libya. This is of course a completely immature reaction, but typical for a small country depending on alliances with bigger powers. This situation also affects academic freedom since Diesen cannot just be believed in his claim that he is a scholar and thereby has a legal claim for forming his own and independent scholarly view.
You say "allowed" - are some people actually being blocked somehow from giving their opinions? Or are you just saying that they get criticized?
Some very good points. But I’m not sure what you’ve done with that weblink, here it is in the more usual format, https://www.khrono.no/jeg-en-kontroversiell-forsker/881452
Glenn, I bought your latest book - excellent! Frankly, when I first heard Glenn at the start of this war, I was surprised he was 'allowed to speak,' and Glenn was explaining that his university was welcoming different points of view, and I thought - wow, it's not what I saw in the U.S then
I am originally from Ukraine. At the start of this war, my American friends, smart & educated people were all pro-war in Ukraine, even knowing nothing about Ukraine. They viewed me as some 5th column :-)till I told them that if America attacked, I'd be fighting for America, it's my home, but I reserved the right to tell it as it is! My son's Canadian girlfriend was saying "Joe Biden must grow some balls and send the boots on the ground in Ukraine," my boss was buying a "I need ammo, I don't need a ride" t-shirt, my friend, who is professor (medicine), smart & worldly, when I would point, look how many Ukrainians died, would reply, 'but what about the Russians?' I wrote both Senators of my Democrat-run state about prosecution of the Orthodox Church as early as in the Spring 2022, and crickets, no even a pro-forma reply. I lost some Ukrainian friends (in US) to this war, who were aggressively pro-war. My position is that for any war, one votes only with own flesh and blood or shut up. If you're not willing to send your only son to the front, whose sons are you sending? Yep, getting pro-Putin label is common. It's like the people's mind is shutting down, once they put this label on you. I didn't participate in any chat boards before this war, I was completely apolitical, but when the war started, I joined the Epoch Times chat, and you could clearly see that it was densely infiltrated by the bots/psy-ops/Ukrainians who were pushing hard the pro-war agenda. The readers often commented how well educated and factual, the anti-war commentators' posts were, vs. pro-Ukrainian war, which were just emotional.
By now, my friends dropped their illusions about this war and see clearly that Americans are being used/abused and taxed to the eyeballs, deprived of necessities to feed the constant wars. Zelensky is being ridiculed.
Glenn, you have yet to chime in on my other comments. I'm interested in where and how you've been "banned" per your tagline: "Banning dissent with vague labels that make no sense".
When you say "banned", do you mean actually removed or limited in your ability to post your thoughts somewhere? By law or being banned from some platform?
"There is overwhelming evidence that Russia invaded to prevent NATO expansion"
Which time, the first or the second? The first time, I suppose, is arguable. But how is that possibly an excuse for the second time? Ukraine was not anywhere close to joining NATO - they had the same problem they have now, which is that they are in an active territorial conflict with Russia. So if NATO borders are all Russia cares about, how does it make sense for them to go full scale in 2022?
More than that, even Putin doesn't use that reasoning anymore. He was asked about that - twice - in his interview with Tucker Carlson. Tucker seemingly tried to tee up a softball and let Putin explain how the war was NATO's fault. But each time he did, Putin instead answered with a long, convoluted historical explanation of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine. If you think he is lying about his true reasoning in this case, why do you think he does this?
You aren't being "canceled", you're being challenged on your reasoning. Like anyone else, you have to back it up with answers to tough questions. And, if someone who makes assertions can't back up what they say, they aren't taken seriously. That's not cancel culture - that's just academia.
As far as I am concerned, Russia is defending itself against NATO aggression, period. NATO has no business existing after 1991. It is NATO that is trying to conquer more territory, not Russia. Russia is not interested in invading anyone, let alone taking over Europe. Russia is already a big enough country, what does it need from the European lackeys of the United States? Why would Russia want the headaches of failing governments? I am American and I despise NATO. And for good reason. It has lied about its creation after WWII and it lies about its intentions today. It is NOT an organization for peace. On the contrary, it is an organization for imperialist aggression and violence. Smoke that in your pipe.
Thank you for demonstrating an example of a comment that doesn't lead to "cancelation" but instead to simply leading people to not take what you say seriously. I think ending your input with "smoke that in your pipe" is a perfect way to demonstrate the point!
"Smoke that in your pipe" is not a phrase one normally includes in a meaningful discussion. Since OP is an academic, I simply expected more from those participating in his discourse.
"you have an academic model?"
Unsure what you mean.
"as an Eastern European with both Ukrainian and Russian roots"
I appreciate that you have a unique perspective and am grateful you've shared it with me. If you want to take the time to tell me more about your experience as someone from the area, I welcome it!
But, you're responding to something completely different. Regardless of where you're from, we should all treat each other with respect. I was singling out a comment by another poster (not sure where they are from) as being contrary to that ideal. I don't think who is from what region is really relevant for that discussion. . . Unless, perhaps the phrase means something different in Eastern Europe? But even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that poster is also from Eastern Europe.
"You aren't being "canceled", you're being challenged on your reasoning." - Glenn is not being challenged, he is being branded. I love Tucker Carlson, I subscribe to his private channel and on X, but he came across as very unprepared to the interview with Putin.
In Dec 2021, Putin sent a proposal to the US to ensure security network in EU/Ukraine - totally ignored. Look at Feb 2022 - Kamala was in Europe early February and stated, Ukraine will be in NATO - no retraction, and on 20Feb22, Zelensky publicly announced Ukraine would be getting the nukes - no retraction, and on 24Feb22, Putin went in. Got problem with logical chains? Get some training.
Glenn is one of the best equipped "just academia" I see around. and you still didn't present your own argument.
Branded as "controversial" from what I can tell. Maybe there's a translation error, but I don't see that as at all derogatory? It's just accurate given the current trend of discourse.
I made my argument - I said Putin totally sidestepped the claim that Ukraine might have been because of NATO expansion, twice. Your counter argument is that Carlson wasn't prepared? That doesn't matter, what matters is what Putin said.
The "Ukraine will be a part of NATO" was the same thing they said since 2008-2010 if I recall - Just because people said it doesn't mean that's why Russia did what it did. Look at what the man in charge is actually saying.
There are two arguments here - the actual cause of the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and whether OP is being unfairly "canceled". We can continue both if you'd like, just please be clear which one you are going for with your comments.
There is a trend in the West, especially in the US, to brand people - as "anti-vax," even if they are fully vaccinated but against Covid-19 vaccine, or the "conspiracy theorists" - even if things are real as Hunter Biden's laptop, and "controversial" opinion - as in vs. "the Gospel truth" holders :-) My argument is - no any kind label should be used on people, or any information labeled as "disinformation" "misinformation" or "malformation" - the information should be presented without any tags, being factual not suppositional, definitely not presented as "Ukraine said" and let people to decide for themselves what to believe. We, in the US, have barely escaped the official 'Truth Ministry,' and nobody knows for how long...
I wouldn't be surprised with NATO's secretly sneaking in the nukes to beef up Zelensky's claims on 22Feb22 that he'd get the nukes, and put Russia before the fact. Putin went in to prevent it.
I find it interesting that you argue against the labeling of information, then give some information that isn't linked to any facts or evidence - it's suppositional based on the way you said "I wouldn't be surprised if".
It's almost like you are trying to demonstrate the problem with treating all statements and assertions equally.
I think you'll note that I haven't branded anyone or any statements. I've just been making arguments. And yet, you attached your own label - you said "I am tired of your demagogue" - how is this not applying different labels in the same way?
You didn't make an argument here. Just ad hominem attacks.
It looks like you don't know what you are talking about. Are you aware that Ukraine's Declaration of Independence in Aug of 1991 stated, "not participation in any military blocks, striving toward permanent neutrality, and equality of languages?" That was why Russia did NOT dispute the historic Russian territories right then. How the lands are acquired? Through treaties, won at wars - like Russia won Finland from Sweden in 1808, or purchased - like the US did with Alaska and Louisiana. Ukraine didn't exist till 1917 - look at the US Library of Congress maps of Europe before 1917. The US didn't even recognize the USSR till 1933, because of the illegality of the Lenin/Stalin Bolsheviks' coup, usurping the power illegally in 1917, but somehow Lenin/Stalin's illegal decisions of 1918-1920s made to buy the support of Ukrainian Bolsheviks by beefing up "Ukraine" at the expense of strategic and densely populated Russian lands, is now okay to push U.S. into WW3? Give me a break.
It was not a "full-scale" invasion - Russia went with a small force in to reinforce the Minsk agreements (which turned out be fraudulently signed in bad faith by Ukraine, co-signed by France and Germany), and immediately removed the troops from Kyiv, when the negotiations were underway. When Russia would go "full-scale" - you would know the difference.
Remember that there are two arguments here - why Russia invaded Ukraine, and whether OP is being "canceled". Ok, we've decided to focus on the first one it seems. Alright.
In your first paragraph, you are arguing that Ukraine shouldn't be a state, and shouldn't be in NATO. Ok.
"Ukraine shouldn't be a state" - gotcha, that's Putin's argument. Fair enough. I think plenty of states only came into existence in the last century, and I'd hate to try to evaluate them all based on these convoluted historical justifications. Maybe we should just use, you know, what everybody agreed to at the UN? When they all recognized eachother's borders? Or maybe when the U.S., Russia etc. made security guarantees if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons? Why would this even matter if it's not a state?
"Ukraine shouldn't be in NATO". Ok, that's, like, your opinion. The international system is based on nation-states that are sovereign. I think they will enter into any security arrangements they'd like. There's no weird agreement that certain countries get to have buffer states that have to be neutral. Can Ukraine say that Moldova doesn't get to be in NATO? Can Turkiye say that Armenia can't be in CSTO? I mean, of course they *can*, but it doesn't mean those countries have to acquiesce. And it doesn't absolve blame if one Ukraine, Turkiye etc. invade the smaller countries as a result.
"It was not a "full-scale" invasion - Russia went with a small in to reinforce the Minsk agreements"
Ok, this is where it gets funny. You are going to try to argue that a 4-pronged attack driving toward Kyiv is not a "full-scale invasion". You seem to even be avoiding the term "invasion". Can we at least agree on "invasion"? Let's see how we do with that.
That's what the full invasion looks like:
"Germany in its operation Barbarossa used over 3.8 million personnel of the Axis powers—the largest invasion force in the history of warfare—invaded the western Soviet Union, along a 2,900-kilometer (1,800 mi) front, with 600,000 motor vehicles and over 600,000 horses for non-combat operations."
Now, did you forget that Ukraine had the largest (debatable vs. Turkey) army in Europe armed to the teeth with NATO weaponry & dug fortifications for 8 years? While Putin went in with hardly with 100- 150K troops.
Do you feel the difference in intent?
Did I say that Ukraine shouldn't be a state? Don't put words in my mouth. The original "Ukraine" is Galicia and Western parts near Poland. Odessa is not Ukraine, Nikolaev is not Ukraine, and neither is Kharkiv. Ukraine should not be in NATO, just like Mexico and Canada couldn't join the Warsaw Pact (which was created 6 YEARs after NATO, btw). Why do you think the U.S. is jumping up and down seeing Russian ships in Cuba? What was the root cause of Caribbean crisis in 1960s? US put nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, and in mirror response the USSR put them in Cuba.
Ukraine never owned nuclear weapons - they belonged to the USSR and Russia assumed ALL responsibilities of the USSR, including paying the USSR's DEBTS, I don't recall Ukraine jumping up to "chip in."
Again, you clearly don't understand what a full-invasion vs. limited force is.
Frankly, I am tired of your demagogue, it's not my level of discussion. I base my argument on facts and you base yours on "suppositions" du jour.
"Did I say that Ukraine shouldn't be a state? Don't put words in my mouth."
Ok, I apologize. Was trying to summarize. What was your point then?
"Odessa is not Ukraine, Nikolaev is not Ukraine, and neither is Kharkiv."
https://www.un.org/geospatial/content/ukraine-0
The world disagrees.
"Ukraine should not be in NATO, just like Mexico and Canada couldn't join the Warsaw Pact."
Sure they could. Are you referring to a statement someone made that said they couldn't?
"Why do you think the U.S. is jumping up and down seeing Russian ships in Cuba?"
I think it was more about the nuclear weapons going to Cuba.
"What was the root cause of Caribbean crisis in 1960s?"
Nuclear missiles in Cuba.
"US put nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, and in mirror response the USSR put them in Cuba."
You've got a good point there. That's why behind the scenes they agreed to remove the nukes from Turkey to resolve the crisis. I think we actually agree on what happened.
Ukraine never owned nuclear weapons - they belonged to the USSR and Russia assumed ALL responsibilities of the USSR, including paying the USSR's DEBTS, I don't recall Ukraine jumping up to "chip in."
Ok. . . . So the point you are trying to make is that Ukraine, having possession of these nuclear weapons, didn't "own" them. I'm ok with that. BUT, that doesn't change that security guarantees were made. Are you saying those aren't valid just because they were based on some kind of status of ownership? I feel that all parties probably fully understood who owned the nuclear weapons, de factor and "legally". So, it's kind of irrelevant? Let me know if I'm missing something here.
"Again, you clearly don't understand what a full-invasion vs. limited force is."
I'm going to make a generalization here. Let me know if you can think of an example that doesn't fit. . . if you make an attack where you cross international borders with uniformed forces and try to capture a nation's capital, I call that an invasion. I guess you could argue "full-scale" vs. "full-invasion" (your words) vs. just "invasion". Can we agree on "invasion"?
"I am tired of your demagogue"
Ad hominem! Let's stay away from those please.
"when it was always a Washington invasion... and that comes from us, most of the well informed Ukrainian people...not even Russian."
This is an interesting perspective. I'd like to know more. Can you please link me to a Ukrainian publication, newspaper article etc. explaining the "Washington invasion"?
"which has been described so well by ex CIA Agents, from the 1980s onwards. When Washington's CIA Central office drew plans to capture Kiev, ie. Ukraine, in order to attack Russia...or whatever was left over from Soviet power."
Please link to this report or wherever you are drawing this from.
"Utube"
No. I don't want conspiracy theories on social media. I want you to link me to credible reporting, studies etc.
I don't need you to give a lecture. Just link me to whatever is convincing you. It takes less of your time than sending a wall of text. But social media is worthless for credible information - this is universal, not because of any particular "side". Actual primary or academic sources please.
Russian language is no problem.
"Afterall, Ukraine IS Russia.. Always was, Always will be. Don't even consider any other outcome."
Wow! Well I think the Ukrainians disagree on that point and they are definitely showing it.
I'm guessing based on your words and your pushback against the term "invaded" that you might be incarcerated if you agree to it. That's ok, I don't want to get you in trouble. If you want to use a different term to avoid that, I'm ok with it.
Sorry, I didn't see this until now. I think you replied to the OP by accident so I'm not sure where you are referring to. But, I will assume the fault is mine for misquoting you and apologize!
Care to link me to some of your works?