Do Western politicians and Western media tell truth about the Ukrainian crisis?

​

In this article, I would like to consider the question - How do Western politicians and Western media inform their citizens about the Ukrainian crisis?

The examples given in this material below will have the following structure:
A numbered statement of Western politicians and/or Western media;
My assessment of this statement;
Analysis of this statement.

Spoiler

1. The protests, which began in Ukraine in the autumn of 2013, the so-called Euromaidan, were allegedly a pro-democracy movement.
It's a lie.
Viktor Yanukovych, who led Ukraine at that time, was a legally elected President; the legitimacy of his election was recognized by the United Nations, by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, by the European Union, etc.
At that time, opposition parties and opposition media freely operated in Ukraine.

2. The protests, which began in 2013, were allegedly caused by Yanukovych's postponement of signing the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement in November 2013.
It's a lie.
The Article 106, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that it is the President of Ukraine “who directs the foreign policy activities of the Ukraine”; see the official website of the President of Ukraine.
The postponement of the signing of the above-mentioned Agreement was a completely legal action of Ukrainian President, which he performed within the framework of his powers. If citizens were not satisfied with such actions of Yanukovych, they could legally elect another President in 15 months - in March 2015 - at the next presidential election.

And it is completely unclear why the postponement of signing this Agreement could have any significance. Georgia and Moldova, which signed a similar Agreement in 2013, so far, that is, in 2024, have not become members of the EU.

3. Ukrainian protests of that time were allegedly peaceful.
It's a lie.
From a certain point, protesters began to burn and kill; see the thread “Was there a threat for ethnic Russians in February 2014 in Ukraine (Crimean question)?"

4. At the end of 2013, Ukrainians were allegedly outraged after police had brutally beaten students protesting in the central square of Kiev.
It's a lie.
The police, which strictly abode by law, asked the protesters to quit the central square of Kyiv because they were preventing the installation of a Christmas tree there. After that the police forced out the people who had not fulfilled the above-mendioned demand.
No media ever showed any footage of the brutally beaten students. The investigation, which the former oppositionists, who had come to power, began in February 2014, did not result in any conviction of those responsible for the “brutal beating”, because no brutal beating had taken place at all.

However, nobody in Ukraine was outraged by this fact; for example, in 2017 Ukrainians were outraged by a cruel treatment of a horse which drove a tourists’ carriage in Odessa; see here.

5. Before the Euromaidan there was allegedly a corrupt government in Ukraine.
It's a lie.
Although even Barack Obama personally called Viktor Yanukovych a “corrupt ruler,” during 10 years after February 2014 the Ukrainian authorities failed to prove that Yanukovych had stolen even a cent. For this reason, information about Yanukovych was removed from the Interpol data base and you can see it yourself on the official website of Interpol.

6. President Yanukovych was allegedly constitutionally removed from power in February 2014.
It's a lie.
The Article 111 of the Constitution of Ukraine states, that decision to remove the President of Ukraine from office by impeachment must be made by no less than three-quarters - at least 338 deputies - of all mebmers of the Ukrainian Parliament after respective decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine; see the official website of the President of Ukraine. However, only 328 deputies voted for the removal of Yanukovych from office - see the BBC website - and there were no decisions of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

7. After Euromaidan, Ukraine allegedly has become a more democratic country than it had been under Yanukovych.
It's a lie.
In two spheres at least - in the sphere of ethnic minorities rights and in the sphere of freedom of speech - the situation in Ukraine has become worse than it was under Yanukovych; see the thread “What kind of a country is modern Ukraine?"

8. Before the start of the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine was allegedly a peaceful state.
It's a lie.
Since 2021 Ukrainian authorities were preparing military measures for “reintegration” of the Crimea - see the official website of the President of Ukraine - although Russia considers the Crimea as a part of its sovereign territory.

9. Russian authorities allegedly give "children from Ukraine Russian passports in an attempt to take away a part of their identity"; see the official website of the US State Department.
It's a lie.
The above-mentioned State Department statement was published on May 24, 2023, however a month later the UN Secretary-General said that

see the official website of the UN.


Therefore, we can conclude that Western politicians and Western media often lie about significant aspects of the Ukrainian crisis.

Source

 

Most of that is really stuff that doesn't matter or are secondary details that don't determine the bottom line. Bottom line is Russia has worked to take over Ukraine. At first, by trying to sow divisions within Ukraine and get pro-Russian politicians into power. When that proved limited, they invaded. No amount of propaganda can cover that Russia is the bad guy here.

 

Pls read the item 8 in the first post of this thread.

 

lol no, Russia's subversion and indirect hostilities started long before that. Russia took Crimea from Ukraine, but certainly did try to make it look legit.

 

I'm more likely to believe western news media that eastern news media which is ran by dictator governments. And I don't even trust western media.

 

Pls read the item 3 in the first post of this thread.

 

Poor, poor Russia. They were just so threatened ya know?

If every country could justifiably break international law based on perceived threat…why, then the OP would be a very happy man, apparently.

 

There are 9 examples of Western lies about the Ukrainian crisis in the first post of this thread.
Which of these examples do you consider as “stuff that doesn't matter" or as "secondary details”?

 

I repeat my question (see below).

 

All except #8. None of those details would make the Russian invasion of Ukraine okay, even if you were correct about all of them (not saying you are). As for #8, it omits the fact that taking over Crimea was itself a hostile act by Russia on a neutral neighbor. Russia started it all. At first it was just a struggle for more influence before taking Crimea, but with Crimea it heated up, and more recently it became a conventional war.

 

no