To be clear. You are claiming, that the defending party and those who support them are war supporters.
This is logically wrong, since a defender has was never asked, if they want to start or continue a war. They only have the option to defend or surrender to the conditions set by the ofender.
Why would someone think, that Ukraine wants peace by the conditions of the attacker?
Is this something people just assume or are there ukrainian sources supporting this claim?
I haven't claimed that. Tulsi Gabbard claimed that.
I am claiming that her department might have created some political theater, to give the Russians an opportunity to say that they're not the naughty ones. You know, playing good-cop/bad-cop in front of the social media audience.
Ok. I misread in the heat of the conversation. Thanks for clarifying. So would you also support the reality, that Russia is attacking Ukraine illegitimately and that it is best for the free world, when Ukraine can restore the Donbass, Luhansk and the Krimea in order to let everyone know that starting an offensive war only leads to loosing influence, loosing opportunities, without wining anything at all. Even when a country has a big nuclear arsenal.
I think the Russian aggression is not justified (adequately) by any previous Ukrainian aggression. In fact, my cynical, jaded, pet theory is that Putin just did all of this because his popularity ratings in Russia were very low. Reminds me of George Bush Jr. immediately launching the war in Iraq, after the whole hanging-chad fiasco.
But eastern Ukraine is a goner. I think most Ukrainians would also admit that.
