Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "How Does Russia Justify Aggression?" video.

Ah, the Nuremberg trials. Where confessions were extracted through torture, and only the losing side got prosecuted for war crimes, whereas not a single person among the winners, who were objectively guilty of them recieved so much as a slap on the wrist. A really fine kangaroo court.
6
Utilizing principles of strategic empathy here, it stands to reason that Russia doesn't "need" to exert total control over Ukraine. All they need is for Ukraine to not be run by a government that actively hates Russia and wish to ally itself with western powers in order to sabotage Russias security concerns. So what does the U.S "need" out of Ukraine? What justification does the U.S have for meddling in Ukraines elections? I'm hard pressed to figure out any reason that wouldn't be nefarious. Ukraine doesn't sit at the U.S border. Ukraine neither has the desire or the means to threaten american sovreignty in any military sense. Therefore, the only logical conclusion that I can find of why the U.S would feel the "need" to meddle in Ukraine and appoint it's own puppet government, is to be able to increase Nato's ability to strike at Russia at a short notice if Nato would want to.
5
@umiluv That's true. And I'd also argue that if one really supported the principles of democracy, one shouldn't run around and meddle with other countries elections, just because one outcome might be more "favorable" for your own country than the other outcome. The whole idea about "delivering democracy" to foreign countries is not only oxymoronic, but also end up showing off the true colours of a supposed "democracy" doing it. You can't "give" democracy to others. They have to decide for themselves if they want democracy or not, and fight for it in unison. Our role as democratic nations is not to "liberate" other countries. Our role should be running our own democracies in a manner that convince other people to want the same thing where they live. Lead by example rather than leading by force, basically.
4
@enki6676 Then again, Russia has been at Europes borders ever since Russia developed nukes in the first place. So Europe has been right next to this nuclear power for decades. So far, none have been launched in either direction. As for "Russian Expansionism", since the 90's Russia has been very restrained in this regard. The only times it has expanded with military means is whenever a neighbour at the border is starting to have talks about joining Nato. So it really seems to me that if you don't want Russia to interfere, it's probably best to not start entertaining the idea of becoming a Nato member.
3
No, of course we were not introduced to what actually happened in the Euromaidan and what caused it. Because our western mainstream media busied itself with painting and pushing a narrative that the protests were only about "freedom loving Ukrainians, overthrowing it's pro-russian dictator and their desire to become one with the west". Cabling out news stories about russian speakers being burned alive in Odessa by the "freedom lovers" would kind of throw a spanner in the works of the overall narrative.
2
@enki6676 Nato formented the separatism first by funding and backing the Euromaidan
2