> Keep in mind, the 3000 dead you claim are, best as we can tell, fabricated by Putin.

It's impossible to have a rational conversation about this topic when data about civilian casualties provided by the UN[1] is framed as fabricated by Putin without providing even the smallest piece of evidence.

Also, the second article you linked to is arguing about the semantics of the word "genocide". If you want we can argue semantics, but even that seems quite difficult when since 2014 the neo-Nazi Azov battalion has been officially integrated into the Ukranian army. Of course, the article conveniently skips mentioning both the word "Azov" and "nazi".

[1] https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Conflict-...

The document you linked proves my point. Included in the number of civilian casualties are those killed by Russia shooting down a civilian airliner. Putin's fabricated claim is that Ukraine is responsible for these deaths - when in fact, he is, since he started the fighting - not Ukraine. Your earlier comment was "I guess the 3000 dead civilians just bombed themselves" which implied Ukraine killed them.

It isn't semantics to suggest terms should be used correctly. People dying because Putin's ruthless ambition is not the same as genocide. Attempting to eradicate a people is. That is not something Ukraine was doing in Donbas - they were protecting their own territory, and yes civilians die in combat. Again I point out, combat started by Russia.

Bringing this back to the earlier topic, this is different from Kosovo because Russia (Putin) are the ones causing the conflict and getting people killed. There was no ethnic cleansing that Putin stopped with his invasions into Ukraine.

There have been massive pro-Russia protests in the eastern part of Ukraine after the 2014 Maidan revolution, which often have been brutally suppressed by Ukrainian authorities. It's a fact that most people in that area feels closer to Russia than Europe. You are disregarding their right to self determination just because they are favorable and, of course, backed militarily and financially, by Russian.

Seeing as the US has funded opposition movements for years, sent military aid and trained neo-Nazi militias which took on a promiment role during the Maidan revolution, I don't see how it can be a problem that Russia interevenes to support ethnic-Russians in the region. This kind of double standard is mind boggling.

> You are disregarding their right to self determination just because they are favorable and

No, in those regions the will to stay Ukraine outnumbers the will to become a Russian vassal or part of Russia: https://www.iri.org/resources/ukraine-poll-majority-want-don...

Keep in mind, the only reason there are large Russian populations there are due to the USSR killing ethnic Ukrainians purposefully and sending Russians there to take their homes. Read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Beyond that, even if you take Putin's propaganda that eastern Ukraine wants to be part of Russia you must reconcile his statement that Lenin made a mistake allowing Ukraine to exist and the fact that he has invaded all of Ukraine and is trying to decapitate the government. He even has kill lists of Ukrainians to exterminate: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082096026/russia-kill-list-u...

> No, in those regions the will to stay Ukraine outnumbers the will to become a Russian vassal or part of Russia:

From the IRI report:

> The sample consisted of 2,400 permanent residents of Ukraine aged 18 and older and eligible to vote, and is representative of the general population by gender, age, region and size of settlement. An additional 1,378 respondents were also surveyed in the Ukrainian-controlled territories of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.

So basically they only surveyed people from Ukraininan controlled areas and the result is they want to stay with Ukraine, what a surprise.

I understand the argument about the Holodomor, but the fact is that at the moment the majority of the population in those area are pro-Russian. If you look at history then, Crimea was historically Russian and only given to Ukraine in 1954 as part of a deal. According to your reasoning you must've been favorable to its annexation then, otherwise this is another example of applying double standards only when convenient.