Yes, it means that I’m aware of your demand and that I choose not to comply because you haven’t provided enough justifications. On the other hand I’m de-escalating the situation by showing how the flaws in your reasoning.

In that case all should be good considering the US and NATO did respond, NATO also publicly if I may add.

They try to re-establish some kind of acceptance that Russia has the right to control what neighbours do, or not do. And that's the kind of world we don't want to return to, where big powers had a say, or a kind of right, to put limitations of what sovereign, independent nations can do.

That applies to both Ukraine joining NATO and previous post-soviet countries joining NATO.

NATO could’ve done the same thing, but instead they chose to pretend the coup was a revolution, and all is right in the world.

Unless you want to provide with a clear source where NATO calls it a revolution I'm going to claim they didn't, because I couldn't find where they said that.

And you are now choosing to not read all the information which I provided, then throwing your arms to the sky and proclaiming that “there’s no such information.”

I guess then it should be extremely easy to point where NATO calls it a revolution.

So is ours. Welcome to the internet where bourgeois newspapers do their darnedest to control the narratives. However you don’t need to “fully reject” the outlets much as I haven’t “fully rejected” mnsbc or other USA news there, just read them critically.

I think you're seriously underestimating how strong Russian propaganda machine is. I'm sure you're seen Russia claim that the west betrayed them with the NATO advancement. It's something that maybe you've seen some poor quality western sources also claim, just one example to show that this claim has also spread to the west. That is not true at all. In fact it's deliberate Russian propaganda

Russia's approach to NATO expansion in the first half of 1997 was characterized, on the one hand, by increasing government-sponsored rhetoric in the mass media about possible responses by Moscow to such a step. On the other hand, Yeltsin (who completely controlled all issues concerning Russia's links with NATO) and Primakov understood clearly that Russia

...

When he understood that NATO would expand with or without an agreement with Russia, he agreed to sign the basic agreement, thus demonstrating his continued sense of reality. As soon as Russia stated its readiness to sign the agreement with NATO, several Russian authors who are often used to express the views of the Russian Foreign Ministry, proclaimed that Russia had extracted enormous concessions: There would be no second round of enlargement; NATO would review its strategic concept and would be transformed into an organization more political than military. It was especially stressed that Russia would reject the basic agreement if the issue of admitting the Baltic states into the alliance were ever to be raised.^7^ There was no doubt that in comments about the NATO agreement, representatives of the Russian government, as well as people in the mass media, sought to portray the agreement as a win for Russia and to ascribe to NATO promises which the alliance had never made (this was especially true of a remark by Yeltsin press secretary Sergei Yastrzhembsky that Russia had made certain that new NATO members would be second-rate participants in the alliance).^8^

Anyway

They still have the internet and a lot of them speak English, so if they want they can check multiple sources, which is how you actually develop critical views, not by just discarding the ones you don’t trust 100% percent.

Considering the rest of this statement hinges on their ability to speak English my question is, source on a lot of them speaking English?

You might want to elaborate on that. Since I’m not the President of Russia, I think you should go with the Putin ones of blocking Ukraine from NATO, ending the Donbass war and removing the Nazis from government. It’s all in the speech, if you read it.

Well you're the one going around "guarantees this" and "guarantees that" but at no point do you explicitly state what you mean by guarantees. You listed a few but those were presented more like your personal opinion on what they might be, rather than what you claim they are. But I guess you're referring to the speech so I guess that at least gives some clearer context on what you meant.

Read the sources, you’ll see that the Maidan coup was backed by NATO,

I did, this is false. Your sources stated that the US was backing the coup, not NATO.

There are leaked calls in which US diplomats basically choose who should become prime minister, the previous spitballing of nukes and now even the destruction of Nordstream and the providing of cluster munitions.

Source on the spitballing?

Not really, Ukraine is not in NATO so they could stop all of those things there. In fact it’s possible they stop doing it in a while after this failed counter-offensive of their own volition.

The fuck does this even mean? Ukraine is not in the NATO so NATO shouldn't allow Ukraine in at all and also move all of its forces out of the Baltic states and Poland? Or did you mean only the last part of those unreasonable claims, that NATO countries shouldn't support Ukraine? The latter NATO literally cannot fulfill because that is a decision of individual countries.

It is at least less unrealistic than the Ukrainian government demand that the Russian forces need to pack it up and go home, abandoning all of their costly victories in the war, in order for there to be any peace talks.

How is that unrealistic? It's unrealistic to expect that your borders be respected before there can be peace talks? Especially if the entire war is either at a stalemate or slightly in your favor? I'd understand if there's a relatively clear prediction that Ukraine will lose, but that's currently not the case.

Always remember that this support started with the Donbass war which has killed thousands and displaced millions

You mean with the Russian backed coup in Donetsk and Luhansk? Russia obviously denies that but both region are russian-backed. That war is just as much on Russia as it is on Ukraine. A

and even Zelenskyy himself has said it was a huge mistake.

Funny.

Apparently the support public opinion on Putin is up since the beginning of the war, but I don’t really like statista as a source and search engines are flooded with “Americans think Russia bad” NYT articles so I’m not bothering with that. Feel free to find better sources that give more foundation to your experience, but the proxy speculation I was using for the support is that the Russian military has spent the past 18 months at war while their country receives an absurd amount of sanctions. This is hard to maintain without public support, but I could be wrong.

I actually don't have an issue with that, I was just pointing out how there are Russians who would be happy to claim opposite. I'm aware that Russians support the war and in my opinion their refusal to oppose the war makes them also responsible for this war. This isn't a case where they can say it's their government and they couldn't do anything, they don't want to do anything about it either.