Comment by mopsi

  > The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly

There was no coup in Ukraine. Coup is commonly defined as an illegal takeover of power by a small group of people. In Ukraine, the national parliament voted to hold early elections and the next president was elected by 18 million voters soon thereafer. This does not fit anny

  > Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).

Can't be true. The Russian military campaign medal "For the Return of Crimea" issued to the participants inscribes the start of the campaign as 20 February 2014. The public tender for manufacturing them was issued 17 December 2013. That was months before the "coup". Photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Medal_Fo...

  > Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people /---/ He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war.

I honestly don't know what "civil war" you are talking about. By the time Zelensky was voted into office in 2019, the fighting in Eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian and Russian forces had virtually ceased and did not restart until the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

  >  All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine.

Sour grapes.

  > As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV.

BBC, NPR and DW are not under the editorial control of their respective governments, as can be witnessed from their coverage, which is often unfavorable, especially NPR of Trump. RT has no such independence. RT's editorial decisions are taken by Alexey Gromov, the first deputy chief of staff of the Putin's administration. Unlike Trump, notice how Putin, Lavrov, et al never complain about the domestic press being unfair, because they are the press. Don't like an article? Pick a phone and the article disappears, sometimes with its author.

  > Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons.

Stalin infamously misjudged Hitler's intentions and dismissed mounting warnings that Germany was preparing to attack the USSR, which caused catastrophic losses when Germany did eventually attack. Entire armies vanished into thin air, millions of soldiers were taken prisoner in a few months. Stalin was paralyzed by disbelief and issued a flood of nonsensical orders that made things only worse. Stalin expected the fruitful cooperation to last at least until Germany had defeated the UK. During their alliance, Russians were providing strategic products like oil in huge quantities to Germany. Cargo trains carrying grain were arriving at border stations even on the morning of the German attack.

  > No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans.

There is literally a counterexample in the neighboring Lithuania. Lithuanian government accepted all demands, and Russian forces did not leave until 1994, causing enourmous amounts of suffering over 50 years of occupation. This happened all across Europe. Most of Central and Eastern Europe was covered by communist dictatorships under Russian control until the USSR collapsed in 1991, and military forces took further few years to remove, last ones left by 1994.

  > And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...

The Helsinki peace process and the agreement reached there has little to do with generic anti-American rhetoric. The Helsinki Final Act is rarely mentioned by talking heads on social media, so I'm not surprised how few people have heard of it, but it is one of the foundational documents in international relations. In 1975, representatives from all European countries (except for Albania and Andorra) - east and west, north and south, and some from the middle too - assembed in Helsinki to agree on how to reduce Cold War tensions in Europe in the name of regional security and cooperation. One of the key adopted principles was that no European country may invade another country by force and declare its territory to be its own. Since 1975, Russia has been the only country to violate this principle by declaring four Ukrainian regions integral parts of the Russian Federation.

It is such a blatant violation of established norms that even some of Russia's closest allies like Belarus have not recognized it.