Yes. However that tank could also have prevented other families from being killed. These days we are seeing Putin's war on TV, but another war inside Ukraine has been ongoing for 8 years now. We couldn't see it on western media, of course, but families and civilians were also killed by the same army we're now supporting. So I won't celebrate either, because here, there are no good and bad.
Nepizdi. The guerilla war wagered in East Ukraine saw lots of civillian casualties despite best efforts of the Ukrainian military, not because of its involvement. And there would be no civilian casualties if Russia wasn't supporting the separatists and if they weren't constantly pushing misinformation over their borders.
> And there would be no civilian casualties if Russia wasn't supporting the separatists and if they weren't constantly pushing misinformation over their borders
Sure. And there would be no civilian casualties in Ukraine if its government didn't insist in joining NATO and cease to be a neutral country.
This wasn't that great of an issue until the annexation of Crimea. This is a false narrative, please sosi huy. So what if a sovereign neighbor wants to join a defensive alliance? NATO, unlike Russia, hasn't ever attacked its neighboring countries. Countries seek to join NATO to deter Russia from invalidating their sovereignty.
Well, NATO is not just a "defensive" alliance, it's more of another tool used to primarily protect the interests of the US. And of course NATO attacked countries in the past. You remember Yugoslavia, or Bosnia and Herzegovina? They were bombed by NATO just the same way today Ukraine is being attacked by Russia.
NATO were not the instigators there, not by a long shot. It was overreach, sure, but I fail to see the equivelancy. NATO didn't invade any country and didn't seize any territories.
Being a citizen of an eastern european country that joined NATO, I can promise you that my and other countries like mine are free-er to do what they please than they would be if they hadn't joined NATO.
Please, anyone reading the comments of the person above, don't be fooled, this is Russian propaganda, whether the person above is acting in good faith is irrelevant.
> NATO were not the instigators there, not by a long shot. It was overreach, sure, but I fail to see the equivelancy. NATO didn't invade any country and didn't seize any territories.
That's not the point. It was an attack and civilians died. Don't pretend that some civilians deaths are better than others just because we, the good guys from the NATO, were just "saving the world" another time.
Also, we can say Russia is not the instigator here as well, and they are just addressing Ukraine's lack of compliance with the Minks agreements and attacks to the Russian communities in eastern Ukraine.
> Please, anyone reading the comments of the person above, don't be fooled, this is Russian propaganda, whether the person above is acting in good faith is irrelevant.
I know, everything other that the official "free world" statements is propaganda. You may suggest the HN admins to ban my account, just to get a community with more plurality where only the official statements from the western countries are allowed.
You forgot to mention that another war ongoing for 8 years now was also started by Putin.
And when things go to court, like with MH17, all the evidence points that it's russia and its puppets is killing civilian families.
>like with MH17, all the evidence points that it's russia and its puppets is killing civilian families.
Evidence? That sounds like an understatement to me, we have details history of the whole thing including communication with command and photos of the route the BUK took afterward going into Russia. Its beyond shadow of doubt it was russian military that is responsible for MH17
