Not P.....but Seymour Hersh admitting his self-blocked blindness....

[Martin Dietze]

Part 1 of my respose, I name it what Ukraine allegedly is or does.

Here I am referring to your short first paragraph (which actually already contained most of what the long part then was about). Apologies for this all getting overly long. I hope to keep it readable by dividing it.

On 3. Jan 2026, at 07:06, J Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Democratic nations don’t rob their people by the billions, ( read the latest news from Ukraine).
One does not relate to the other. There are many examples of democratic nations with a corruption problem. However in Ukraine the civil society actively opposes it and keeps up the pressure on politics. In the last 25 years a lot has changed already, but there is still quite a bit to do.

Now let’s look at Russia. It is far more corrupt than Ukraine, and there is no change in sight. The civil society is completely silent. Putin has built a power and wealth pyramid since having taken power about 25 years ago. He is by quite some margin the richest man on earth. 


> Democratic leaders don’t cancel elections knowing they are widely  unpopular and hated,
I guess you are referring to Zelenskyi here.

(1) Zelenskyi (and his government) never canceled elections. Because the country is in a state of war, elections are illegal at this time and would require a change to legislation. Not holding elections as long as Russia is waging its war against Ukraine is the only legal option.

(2) Zelenskyi is not widely unpopular and hated. According to the last polls I am aware of (May 2025, https://censor.net/en/news/3552156/level-of-trust-in-zelenskyy-rises-kiis-poll) had the support of 74% of the Ukrainian people. If you have more recent and trustworthy polls at hand showing the opposite, I’d be interested to take a look.

Note that in the history of independent (about 35 years) Ukraine only one president has been reelected. 

In contrast, Putin has been in power for about 25 years now (spending 4 years as prime minister but still pulling the threads), had the constitution changed so that he could stay president for the rest of his life. 


> don’t destroy dissident news outlets or opposing partiesengagement
Ukraine did forbid parties collaborating with the enemy. In this they are in line with other democratic governments in history, like Britain which banned their national Nazi party when at war with Nazi Germany. 
Apart from that in Ukraine there is a lively opposition both in and out of parilament.
The Ukrainian press keeps crtisicising the government.
Limits apply in the usual way for countries in war.

Conversely Russia is not in a state of war (actually calling the war war gets you in jail). There hasn't been any real opposition for many years. Political parties in parliament are hardly more than a facade.


> Decent societies don’t wear nazi symbols and celebrate collaborators with Hitler
Really? Let’s take a look.

Finding this (USA) took me hardly more than 2 minutes: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/red-skull-masks-swastikas-racial-slurs-neo-nazi-group-marches-in-ohio-7040054 or https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/extremism-disinformation/2024/03/26/army-investigating-social-media-post-showing-nazi-symbol 

And of course Russia:
Rusich (they were part of Russia’s invasion force to Eastern Ukraine from 2014 and are still active): https://greydynamics.com/dshrg-rusich-sabotage-assault-reconnaissance-group/ 
Video on Putin’s neo nazi helpers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQc6mJ7u8gQ 
Wagner: https://www.reddit.com/r/IronFrontUSA/comments/1mfc0b1/russian_soldiers_with_neo_nazi_symbols/ 

In Ukraine, far-right parties have not even made it to the parilament for many years (which cannot be said about most Western democracies). And even if Thomas will happily assist us with anecdotal evidence that there are neo nazis in Ukraine (I never doubted this), the existence of such people or groups is nothing extraordinary at all.


>  don’t come to power in a murderous  US sponsored coup,  
You want to learn what a “coup” is. Let's have a definition (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coup-detat):

A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power. Coup d'état is French for “stroke of the state” or “blow to the government."

This alone shows how far-fetched your “coup” related to events in Ukraine is.


> don’t start or make war on their own citizens
Which Ukraine did not do. I know, you’re referring to the eventsin Eastern Ukraine 2014. What actually happend was Russian special forces without national insignia entering the country and staging a “rebellion”. 
Igor Girkin, one of their leaders was very open about this (e.g. Russia’s Igor Strelkov: I Am Responsiblefor War in Eastern Ukraine: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strelkov-i-am-responsible-for-war-in-eastern-ukraine-a41598/pdf). 
Ukrainian authorities did what every normal government would do: try to restore public order. As Russian forces (with some local militia) responded with heavy weapons this turned into a war.

By the way you keep assuming LNR and DNR to represent the people from the donbas. Don’t be so sure. The people there never had the chance to voice their opinions, because Moscow had created environments in which any opposition was life-threatening. 
Even children were tortured and killed simply for displaying Ukrainian symbolism, like then 14 year old Stepan Chubenko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Chubenko 


> or seize churches.
I guess you're referring to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow patriarchate here.
No churches were seized. Many local parishes decided to switch from the Moscow partiarchate to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (under Constantinople) because they did not agree with their church's politics. In other cases, like the lavra monastry in Kyiv, the government terminated leases returning properties to state control. There is nothing unlawful about this. As parish members are concerned, the affiliation to one or another partiarch is simply a political one as there is no theological difference between the various orthodox churches - if you're orthodox then you're orthodox, that's it.

Conversely, actual seizures of churches have been widely reported from the Russian occupied territories since 2014 (e.g. Russia’s Donbas proxy ‘republic’ seizes Ukrainian Orthodox Church for the Moscow Patriarchate: https://lockedfaith.org/en/p/55).


> Honorable nations don’t sign treaties they intend to break.  
I assume you are referring to Minsk I and II here. I have already responded to this earlier: both Minsk agreements were broken immediately after signing by the Russian side: the Donetsk airport after Minsk I and Debaltseve after Minsk II, both involving local militia and regular Russian army units.

Long story short: practically everything you blame on Ukraine actually applies to Russia rather than Ukraine. 


Cheers,

Martin