> Ofcourse, those who support the "revolution" obviously don't like when it is labelled a coup
A legislature voting to hold early elections is not a coup by any common definition.
> The medals, the manufactured controversy over the dates are all irrelevant
No, they're not. The official campaign medal says that the invasion of Crimea began on 20 February 2014. The first Russian troop movements (810th marine brigade) were observed on the same date. That's the difficult thing with lying: you have to have a really good memory to cover all the ways that the truth can slip out.
> Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO.
This is another factually incorrect statement. Benett met Putin on 5 March 2022, nine days after the invasion had started, so this claim is anachronistic and could not have happened the way you describe it. All these Russian narratives depend on the listener being lazy and not checking basic facts like the order of events.
> Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians
Ukraine was not "granted" independence by anyone, but USSR's central institutions imploded and Ukrainian SSR's parliament declared Ukrainian SSR independent from the USSR, prepared legislation for handing power over to a new state with new institutions, and held a referendum to gain a mandate for that. Ukrainian SSR did not sign any treaties that placed an obligation of neutrality as a precondition for independence.
> Nearly 2+ decades back, Putin had publicly said that if Ukraine joins NATO, Ukraine would do so without Crimea and the Eastern regions.
He made no such public statement. The statement alone would've been a severe violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
> And ofcourse, this is again something to be seen in isolation, and we should all ignore the development of the cold war, right? Selective picking of a political event without the underlying context is easy to twist to fit some narrative. Post WW2, as Russia supported the independence of western colonies, and communist revolutions everywhere, the western superpowers again turned hostile towards USSR.
There's nothing to twist. The governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania did everything the Russians asked of them, for which Russians thanked them with tremendous suffering over the following 50 years. WWII had not yet ended and the Cold War had not yet begun, when Russians were already carrying out mass deportations of civilians to Siberian labour camps. The first major action was in 1941. The goal was to exterminate the professional class (managers, merchants, politicians, doctors, teachers, etc) who were authority figures in the society and could pose a challenge to the communist dictatorship that Russians had set up.
The Cold War was triggered by the same Russian suppression of independence of other European nations during the final phase of WWII and in its immediate aftermath. After all that, is it really a surprise that the phrase "Russian security concerns" is now met with ridicule? How about restoring British rule over India to satisfy "British security concerns"?
> In other words, Russia as a superpower is not doing anything different to what western superpowers do (or have done).
As I said, this is false. Since the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, Russia is the only country to have invaded another European country by force and declared its territory to be its own.
The Cold War was triggered by the same Russian suppression of independence of other European nations during the final phase of WWII and in its immediate aftermath. After all that, is it really a surprise that the phrase "Russian security concerns" is now met with ridicule? How about restoring British rule over India to satisfy "British security concerns"?
As I said, this is false. Since the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, Russia is the only country to have invaded another European country by force and declared its territory to be its own.