Excellent work, AC! You’ve corrected many lies with minimum words! Not much for me to add, which is good, as it would have taken me many more words than you!

No, Yuri, Russia under Putin does not have a history of territorial aggression. The aggressor in Georgia was its own US-backed president sending troops into the breakaway region of South Ossetia. Russia merely came to the region’s defence. And likewise, Transnistria is another breakaway region which has voted for independence from Moldova. Russia will come to its defence too if necessary. This is not the act of an aggressor. Russia is not expansionist. It’s merely protecting its own security and that of its Russian-speaking neighbours.

And no, Ukraine was not a member of NATO, but it was being groomed to become one, and still is, as is Georgia and Moldova. And no, NATO doesn’t force states to become members. It courts them. NATO is not a defensive alliance at all. The reason for its very existence is to threaten and contain Russia. NATO will not stop until it has troops and missiles positioned along Russia’s borders. What Western country would put up with that? Why should Russia be expected to live with that level of intimidation?

Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia after the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014 and the new government’s persecution of its Russian speakers. And similarly, the so-called 'interference' in Eastern Ukraine was simply Russia finally being drawn into defending the breakaway Donbas, which since the coup had been heavily attacked by Kiev, devastating the once-prospering region and leaving 14000 dead.

Russia asked several times if it could join NATO. It was soundly rejected even though the idea made perfect sense and would have brought lasting peace to Europe. The US-led West needs an enemy. If it had no enemies there’d be no need for weapons and their trillion dollar defence industries would no longer prop up their economies. The problem the West has now is that its designated enemies, Russia and China, are rapidly moving into positions of strength.

The arguments offered by Bronwen and the Armchair critic are a clear example of pro-Russian propaganda, distorting facts to justify Russia’s aggression. Ukraine’s counteroffensive may not have achieved all its objectives, but it significantly weakened Russian forces, making it far from a failure. Claims about Ukraine violating the Budapest Memorandum are false — Russia broke it by invading Crimea in 2014 and launching a full-scale war in 2022. Ukraine’s alignment with the West is a sovereign decision, not a betrayal of any agreement.

The idea that Ukraine was “killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas” is a Kremlin myth. The war in Donbas began when Russia armed and funded separatists in 2014. Ukraine defended its sovereignty, and many Russian-speaking Ukrainians remain loyal to Kyiv. Similarly, accusations that Ukraine misused the Black Sea grain deal lack evidence—Russia, not Ukraine, violated the agreement, weaponizing food supplies.

Russia’s claim that NATO “marched to its borders” ignores the reality that countries voluntarily sought NATO protection due to Russian aggression. Ukraine was not a NATO member when Russia invaded, proving the war is about Moscow’s imperial ambitions, not defence. Meanwhile, assertions that the West is “exploiting” Ukraine through economic deals overlook the far greater destruction Russia has inflicted—stealing resources, destroying industries, and committing mass war crimes.

The argument that Ukraine should “accept Russian terms” is surrender propaganda. Russian occupation would mean further war crimes, oppression, and the end of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Ukraine fights not because of “Western false promises” but because the alternative is national destruction. The path to peace is not Ukrainian surrender but Russia’s withdrawal, accountability for its crimes, and justice for Ukraine.

'Pro-Russian propaganda'
You and Hillary would've made a fine pair, been there done that.
And since I don't get my info from western mainstream media, but by western independent media, you're barking up the wrong tree.

"Ukraine’s counteroffensive may not have achieved all its objectives, but it significantly weakened Russian forces, making it far from a failure."
- The 2023 counteroffensive was a failure. Ukrainians were going to cut the move down through Tokmak to to cut the 'land bridge' to Crimea, isolate the Russians there by blowing up the Crimean bridge and take back Crimea as well as the ZNPP.
The Kursk offensive planned to take the Kursk NPP and that also failed.
A point to note here is that earlier into the war, when Russia was overstretched in Kharkiv and on the right bank of the Dnieper in Kherson City, they adjusted their battle plan and tactically withdrew.
They retreated if you will and established the Surovikin line, well prepared defensive positions in preparation for Ukraines counteroffensive, those in the know regards the 2023 counteroffensive predicted it's failure before it even started.
In the cases of both of Ukraines counteroffensives above, it was clear within a few days that AFU were not able to make any headway on their objectives, and instead of withdrawing kept trying to reinforce the failure.

As for weakening Russian forces...
Russian army after war may be stronger than it is today – NATO top general
http://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/10/20/7480538/
"General Christopher Cavoli, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, believes that regardless of how the war in Ukraine ends, the Russian army will be stronger than it is now."

RE Budapest Memorandum, I heard Lavrov mention it a few weeks back, I'd have to dig up the video and I just don't have the time.

If you google 'Ukrainian Declaration of Neutrality', you'll find this:
The declaration also proclaimed that the republic has intent to become "a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs," and that it would not accept, nor produce, nor procure nuclear weapons.
Here's a video prior to the Maidan in the Rada:

[Cont.]
Nov 2013 (Pre-Maidan!): Ukraine Deputy has proof of USA staging civil war in Ukraine".
http://youtu.be/y9hOl8TuBUM

Beyond that Russia tried to avoid a war was rebuffed by NATO in December 2021 (Stoltenberg has spoken publicly about it) then it recognised the independence of the LPR and DPR and 'invaded' under the pretext of collective self-defense.

>>Russia’s claim that NATO “marched to its borders” ignores the reality that countries voluntarily sought NATO protection due to Russian aggression.<<

I already told you the West spoke about Ukraine and Georgia's integration into NATO at he 2008 NATO conference in Budapest.
And if you wish to invoke 'reality' then the reality is nuclear superpowers don't want other nuclear superpowers weapons stationed along their borders.

'Nyet means nyet'
http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

"Ukraine was not a NATO member when Russia invaded, proving the war is about Moscow’s imperial ambitions, not defence."
I think you are the one promoting Western-Propaganda there.
Most people don't listen to what Russia says but rely on the lying western media to tell them. Unfortunately for you I'm not one of those people, I know what Rusia has been saying are terms for the end of the conflict. Demilitarisation, Denazification, acceptance of the lost territories including Crimea and a new security architecture.

Diplomacy is now dead, because Ukraine has continued to breach the ceasefire on energy infrastructure. There's no ceasefire coming to bring in foreign troops and to use them as a tripwire for US boots on the ground. Ukraine's plan is fantasy. Russia has stated foreign troops will be considered enemy combatants.

And the West knew what it was doing, it's in their policy documents.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf

I support Russia (against the US) Yuri, but I'm truly sorry about whats happened to your country because you trusted the West.
The best thing you can do is cut your losses and accept Russian terms before you lose even more.

Sorry, Armchair Critic! Your pro-Russian bias is blatant. Calling Ukraine’s counteroffensive a “failure” oversimplifies modern warfare. While Ukraine didn’t cut the land bridge to Crimea, it inflicted severe damage on Russian forces. The goal wasn’t just territorial gains but also attrition—degrading Russian logistics, manpower, and supply lines. Russia suffered immense losses, especially in Zaporizhzhia and Bakhmut. The so-called Surovikin Line wasn’t an impenetrable defense but a desperate attempt to hold ground, and Ukraine breached parts of it despite delayed Western aid. Claiming “everyone knew” Ukraine would fail ignores that military operations evolve dynamically. Meanwhile, Russia’s own human-wave attacks in Avdiivka and Bakhmut prove which side has truly been reinforcing failure.

Your argument on the Budapest Memorandum dodges Russia’s blatant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees—yet Russia violated this in 2014 by annexing Crimea and again in 2022. Bringing up Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of Neutrality is irrelevant; Russia made neutrality impossible through repeated aggression. Ukraine turned to NATO not because of Western manipulation, but because Russia made it clear it would never respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The myth that NATO expansion forced Russia’s hand falls apart under scrutiny. Ukraine wasn’t in NATO when Russia invaded—this war is about imperial ambitions, not defense. If Russia truly feared NATO on its borders, why did it place nuclear weapons in Belarus? If the 2008 NATO summit justified war, why did Russia wait 14 years to act? The reality is simple: when Ukraine moved westward after 2014, Moscow resorted to force.

Your framing of Russia’s invasion as "self-defense" through “denazification” is pure Kremlin propaganda. Russia itself harbors an extreme far-right movement, with groups like Wagner and figures like Igor Girkin shaping its military actions. Ukraine’s resistance proves Russia can’t achieve its maximalist goals. Calling for Ukraine to “cut its losses” is just a call for surrender. The reality is that Ukraine, with Western support, has humiliated what was once considered the world’s second most powerful military—and any future resolution will favor Kyiv, not Moscow.

And as for the Grain deal, it was never implemented properly in the first place, just another one of the Wests sly tactics.

The moment there was an agreement in place, the EU moved to block Russian payments in swift so the agreement was never really implemented and then you spread propaganda saying Russia broke it, when all it even was was a ruse to supply Ukraine more weapons.

"The idea that Ukraine was 'killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas' is a Kremlin myth."
Yes whatever, and the thought that I may have seen plenty of footage and watched first hand interviews from the Donbass may also be a myth in your eyes. I even watched interviews from people present in the Mariupol Drama Theatre who saw Ukrainian troops filling it with explosives to blow up and blame on Russia, Bucha was all lies, the Ukrainian SVU was on 'safari' killing Russian 'sympathizers' and Ukraine has committed heaps of war crimes against civilians in Kursk.
Pretty much spent the last 10+ years killing civilians to be honest.

http://x.com/ivan_8848/status/1892518749959332127
http://x.com/ricwe123/status/1898068016849424470

I just don't have the time to pick apart all the mistruths right now sorry.