> Expanding NATO multiple times.

No matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it escalatory.

Why do you (and other pro Russians) view an alliance that effectively was created to combat Russian aggression view its expansion as aggression against Russia.

I'll quote someone to tell you why.

>>> Of course Russia and Russian presidents hate NATO, it stops them conducting imperialistic wars against the countries that they wish to subjugate.

>>> No one should care what Russia thinks, it's clear not allowing countries like Georgia and Ukraine into NATO just causes Russia to invade them anyway

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36597883

> Oh I dunno, appeal on the United Nations security council (just as they futitely tried to prevent the invasion of Iraq), in public speeches that US media refuses to broadcast (unless they can take a tiny clip out of context).

The UN uploads all of there clips to YouTube yet your claim is unsourced.

> Suppose Russia wanted to do everything you and US propaganda claims to Ukraine (up to and including apparently, genociding all Ukrainians, restoring the Soviet Union or whatever is asserted and critically accepted, just like “weapons of mass destruction” and “they hate us for our freedoms”)

This isn't a claim by me but rather by the Russian TV I'll link the video.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/153130188362898636...

> Then why did they not invade in 2015? Why wait 8 years? The only answer I got here is “well Russians are strange”.

> If we didn’t expand NATO and train Ukrainian paramilitaries to kill Russians

You keep using these words like it's some sort of gotcha.

The Ukrainians are being trained to defend their home from an imperialistic invasion against from a country that talks about how many millions of them they will have to kill to subjugate them.

Talks about how they aren't a real country with a real culture and really just Russian lands that have been unjustly taken from them.

> then the worst that would happen is Ukraine would implement the Minsk II agreements, and its fate would have been even better than Georgia after 2008

Why would Ukraine implement Minks II when Russia violated Minsk I and the Budapest Memorandum?.

Did Russia pinky promise that this one time specifically they will actually follow the treaties they sign?

Or was it another step out of Russias playbook to try and freeze the war in a way that was advantageous to them?.

> Also, if Russia did nothing, rather than arming rebels, they would probably have been far better off.

They did a lot more than arming rebels as Igor Strelkov says.

> At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said.
> According to Strelkov, the assault on the Black Sea town of Mariupol in September, which prompted concerns in Ukraine and the West that Russia has entered the conflict on a large scale, was conducted mostly by the Russian military "vacationers."

> I criticize both Russia and USA both as imperialists. You criticize Russia BUT NOT USA. That’s the difference.

90% of your content is devoted to criticising America and down playing Russias involvement I the war.

Hell you won't even admit the Russian army was involved in Donbas's in 2014, then the person who was the _leader of the breakaway region_ tells you they where.