Did the USA play a significantly negative role in events leading to Ukraine invasion?

That’s a state department rework of Ukraine history. The BBC ( the only news agency your kind will believe ) found evidence here protestors opened fire on the police . Claim is —- Shoot to kill order issued by Yanukovych, please do back this with substantial evidence? The real evidence demonstrates here both sides opened fire and people got killed over it. ( need that video i show you~)

Did Bernie Ahern and diverse politicians not have dodgy deals? Where did all their prosperity come from? None of this corruption stuff would give armed protesters the right to storm Irish buildings of government. Willingly support coups when individuals you support are doing it. Yanukovych found to be corrupt is not a discovery. It happens worldwide find out that many distinguished and well known politicians in the west have offshore accounts and dodgy accounts.

You do make excuses for a Nazi organisation operating inside Ukraine, and again showing your level of integrity about such things is not being consistent. Totally paint over the cracks their philosophy and the state of aims because there engaging in a fight with Russians now.

Forgetting Hitler armies stated aim was not so different kill Russian/ communists. Putin was always going to have a problem with Ukraine white nationalist/ military wing (azov) and others like them camped along the Donbas line.

The Big difference: Azov and other groups like it are actually part of the standing army of Ukraine. With generals, captain , major, soldiers with these racial views making decisions alongside the normal army of Ukraine. They're armed and dangerous white nationalists who hate all non white races. Zelensky needs to be careful here any concessions given to Russia may backfire for him. South Mariupol Azov units are nearly decimated so in a lot of ways Russia getting rid of people who may turn against Zelensky eventually? Azov leadership survival may be a problem?

Failed here show conclusive evidence NAZI are part of the Russian conventional army.

You uploaded a random picture of the supposed leader of Wagner an image only appeared on the internet on March 2022. Why would this picture take so long to appear, if legit? Putin's private army nonsense. Russia has a standing army of near one million. Putin wanted this be over quickly would be. While it hard to get into the mind of Putin level of force directed at Ukraine before the war suggests a full invasion is not on cards. Russia intention not to do a Syria on it, if did, every city in Ukraine would be leveled like Mariupol. Evidence seems to point at Russia actual aim is to wipe out the Ukraine army to level that be forced to negotiate terms. 

Can you show me where Russia did the same to Kyiv?

This thread is about a war between Russia and Ukraine.

You are posting clips of the Iraq war, because you are fixated on blaming the West/US from everything from 9/11 to JFK to hiding UFOs to the Holocaust. This latest war is no different.

If Putin picked up a gun and walked into Red Square and shot a kid directly on camera, I have no doubt you would be immediately "questioning" it, it must be a fake and anyway a Western politician once killed someone and yadda, yadda. It's like dealing with someone in a cult ;)

That kid was probably a secret Nazi. Or was hiding some Ukrainian soldiers. Or the Ukrainians put him in the way of Putin's gun to make it seem like putin is a maniac who waves a loaded gun around.

How many members are there then. Provide your source for these numbers.

Please remember that twitter and your own imagination are not sources.

Also, please remember that you are a holocaust denier and have issues with reality, numbers and sharing beliefs with these neo-nazis you are so worried about.

Why would it make sense to you? You are a very easily lead person who does not understand a lot of topics and who is unable to think critically about the twitter grifters you follow.

Odd isn't it. Putin is on record claiming he could take Ukraine in a "fortnight" yet here he is stuck on the way to Kyiv and actually going backwards in parts the country, losing hundreds of main battle tanks. Losing jets, helicopters, vehicles and equipment at the rate of 3 to 1 to the Ukrainian armed forces.

All part of the plan?

To preempt all the extra creative writing about to happen, here are just a few guesses ;)

1. The Russians lost eye-watering amounts of equipment and vehicles because they threw in their worst units, they wanted to get rid of that equipment. They have much more "advanced weaponry" they haven't used yet. And they weren't expecting to be "stabbed in the back" by Europe with supplying all those weapons to Ukraine's Nazi's.
2. They weren't really interested in the capital city of the country they are invading, that was just to divert attention away from their real goals, which was to take the (checks map to see what they hold) the Southern line and East of the country.
3. They have to siege cities like Kharkiv, Mariupol, Chernihiv because there are Nazi's in the buildings. They have to obliterate civilian infrastructure because Ukrainian Nazi's are using it. They have to hit hospitals, creches, supermarkets, food storage centers because this brigade of Nazi's are absolutely everywhere. They had to bomb the TV towers because, of the, uuuh, because of the Nazi Ukrainian propaganda about the war (which is pretty much the same as the evil Western propaganda)
4. They aren't retreating from villages and towns they held, it's all part of the plan
5. When they wheeled out Yanukovych, it wasn't because they thought they would control the country, it's to show the Ukrainians that at any time, with their "advanced weapons" they could control the country, if Putin wanted and Yanukovych would be in power. If he wanted.

Can make these up all day long. Remember: add a smattering of concessions to make it sound more "plausible".

That's only cause putin was enabling the parts of the far right people like.

It's also funny that he's claiming the goal is still denazification when that was reportedly the first thing the Russians were willing to drop at the talks.

Here's how a conspiracy theorist deals with the above

1. Discredit: NPR is pro-US news, of course that's what they report
2. Rationalise: A lot of dead Ukrainian Nazi's in Mariupol, so pretty successful op by the Russians
3. Attack: The Guardian, really? That Bill Gates funded rag?
4. Whataboutery: The US had no problem levelling Fallujah, so what's all the "outrage" about
5. Make-something-up: Mariupol not much more than a ruin, Russians are mopping up final resistance in the city, was over a long time ago

When you debate with serial cranks and liars on a regular basis, you quickly learn all their BS techniques.

Putin never expressed in any part of his address wanted to take over the whole of Ukraine. This re thoric exclusively western and evidence on the ground shows not enough Russian troops were deployed for ground fighting all the way to take the city of Kyiv. This does not mean military planning cannot change during the course of a war, but the swift taking of Kyiv was not on the cards at all.

Putin must link up all Russian forces coming from every direction to even think about entering a city the size of Kyiv.

Russian battle footage is mostly suppressed by the western media. Also unable to determine how much of Ukraine's military material got destroyed. There are no fair and balanced reports of actual combat on the ground.

Ukraine has not announced a true major blow for Russia yet since the war started. That says Ukraine's counterattacks are not achieving the aims or Russia digging in and just adjusting for the main goal of the control of the Donbass and removing all Ukraine military from there.

Ukraine doesn’t control Mariupol after it lost 98 to 99 percent of it to Russian forces. Like Ukraine sided/ born Mayor said it's in Russian hands, this reality is hard for some to accept on this site of course another victory for Russia ( does not matter about sides you support) battlefield wins will shape the destiny of any peace deal. .

Stubborn resistance agreed is playing a role there but only making the situation worse for trapped civilians, and delaying the evitable. Published the surrender citizens may have a corridor to escape to Europe.

3-1 advantage Russia be crossing the border now in shame, believe this crap., i dont.. I do believe Russia has taken losses and not low but this is expected when facing a tough opposing army. Nato supplying Ukraine with light to heavy arms ( modern anti- tank weapons) effectively increased their combat power. The 3-1 advantage does not make sense Russia has not gone in hard yet to take most of the major cities of Ukraine where the combat operations are ongoing. At that rate Russia would lose 60 to 70 percent of their forces by summer., not believeable,

Indeed but you are on a forum where facts, substantiated evidence and multiple sources mean nothing. For conspiracy theorists, the "Western media" is all lies, unless of course it's something they imagine supports their views

Mariupol still not fallen I see, despite Russia's best attempts to utterly annihilate the city whilst not allowing all the thousands trapped civilians to escape.

OK. That's nice.

Please point to an example of a strike on Ukrainian citizens that was faked or justified.

Because that's not what we are arguing and it's a strawman. I will remind you that this was something you were whinging about a few pages ago.

So again point out an example of a strike on civilians that was faked or justified.

If you ignore this question again I will take this to mean you can't pro ide any examples.

OK. So you believe that the theater was actually faked? Full of Ukrainian troops?

How do you know this?

Please provide the evidence you use to reach your conclusion.

What I think happened is that 300 civilians died. You are clamping on to this silly conspiracy argument that because some media sources use "people" instead of "civilians" that means there must be secret soldiers there and the attack was justified.

This is a silly agrument. And one you most likely won't actually support with evidence. Most likely you saw this term being used once or twice, then assumed that all sources do the same, and never bothered to check or to see if that original source doesn't then also refer to those people as civilians.

Most likely you are stealing that silly argument from some crank on Twitter.

Also if I was feeling lazy and dishonest I could easily turn your previous argument against you. I could say thT your claim is impossible because I don't believe that Ukrainians are capable of something like that.