How many Ukrainians have to be massacred?

[Thomas Eckhardt]

Being "not impressed" is different from stating, by proxy, that my post
was "whataboutism" and amounted to a justification of Russia's war of
aggression, n'est-ce pas?

Also, the document I quoted referred to the civil war in the Donbas, not
to Crimea. There was no civil war in Crimea.

As you seem to be unfamiliar with the most basic facts about the
conflict that you have such a strong opinion on:

There was no "violent invasion and occupation" of Crimea unless you are
considering the threat of violence itself violence - which is perfectly
fine with me but not what you meant, as you go on to speak about
"casualties".

The Russians suffered no casualties (well, one, to be precise), and
neither did Ukraine (well, one, to be precise - both persons were shot
by a sniper from Western Ukraine who probably wanted to repeat the
strategy of tension that had proven so successful on Maidan). There were
no massacres in Crimea.

There was one in Odessa, however, a few weeks later. Although the pogrom
has been documented on video, nobody has ever been brought to trial for
the atrocity. The West showed not much interest in the matter. The crime
of the people burned alive, strangled, clubbed to death by hooligans and
neo-Nazis was that they were Federalists, probably mostly ethnic Russians.

Am 03.06.2022 um 13:51 schrieb Mark Thibodeau:

> Your "reply" was basically that Zelensky is about as "corrupt" as the
> average American small business man, and that the "massacres" carried
> out by Ukraine against Russians were, for the most part, casualties
> suffered by the Russians during their violent invasion and occupation of
> Crimea... sovereign  Ukrainian territory that Russia had pledged to
> leave alone just a few years previous, in exchange for the Ukraine
> turning over its nukes (which it did, in good faith).
>
> Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
>
> J.