Why should I provide more sources when you yourself haven’t provided any?

Firstly, if you go back to the beginning of this thread I exactly provide a source that contradicts the original article. So clearly I have provided sources.

Secondly, to paraphrase my mother, "Just because the person you are discussing with is being unproductive, does not mean you have to be". I am trying to understand you, so of course I will try to be productive about it and reach my goal, instead of just being difficult because you are.

You've tried explaining, but without providing any sources at all, except for "look it up yourself".

I'm truly not sure why you think I have memorized some talking points? Is it maybe because I don't want to move on to the next point until after we have properly dealt with the previous one, including e.g. figuring out what sources your claims sre based on (except just "source: The Internet" which is not even acceptible in grade school).

You provide information, but absolutely refuse to tell what source that information is based on.

Could you please provide sn example of where I have moved goal posts?

You are right, it's not your job to educate me. I would, however, hsve thought the purpose of discussing things is to try to convince others you are correct. Generally that is done by e.g. providing facts supported by sources. If all you csn say is "do your own research", then what is the purpose of saying anything at all? If you have no interest in convincing me that I am wrong, why engage at all? I'm genuinly curious. At lest my purpose has been from the start to challenge your viewpoint by trying to understand your arguments by asking clarifying questions, and providing rebuttals bssed on facts (e.g. citing specific articles, referring to specific referendums etc.).

I truly want to understsnd why you think the people of e.g. Donbas would have supported an invssion pre-2014, but when I ask for e.g. what sources you base something on you switch argument.

I believe what facts show me, not what I want.

Yes, you were indeed quite clear. By absolutely refusing to say how elections legitimized the invasion, it is clear elections indeed did not legitimize it. That is why you pivoted to apparently saying that because Ukraine was once part of Russia, the population clearly must want it, even though it was thoroughly rejected already in the 1991 referendum (see how easy it is to mention a specific referenfum).

That in no way answers the question.

You yourself mentioned the elections and thst they legitimize the intervention. I want to know in which way? Is it because the intervention was "requested by an elected government" and thus by definition represents the will of the people, or is it because the result of the election reflects the population's desire for an intervention?

But you mow seem to claim there is some third form how the intervention was legitimized that has nothing at all to do with the elections?

So let's take a step back: is the intervention legitimized by an election, and if so, which one, or is it legitimized by the historical composition of the Soviet Union as you now seem to claim?

Ok, what is the third option then?

Are you saying that any action taken by an elected government, even if it e.g. goes against what was promised during the election, and even if it has only e.g. 51% support, by definition has the support of the entire people?

If you don't mean that, then please tell me which election you think indicated that the people wanted to be invaded? Was it the 2012 parliamentary election? Some other election? What exactly about that election result makes you think the people supported the intervention? Wss it the success of some specific candidates or parties with known agendas? Something else?

If you do mean that a government always by definition can do whatever and still represent the people, does that not mean that Russia can end the war no matter the popular opinion?

It would be good to know which of these two opinions you hold.

It isn't, and I did not say so. But I'll go ahead and use the same logic as you, and conclude that your understanding of the war is not based on any information at all, since you have not mentioned a single source so far.

If we go back to the actual article, and the sources it cites, it looks like the will to fight is still there, so what you say does not appear to be true.

Perhaps you care to provide sources to the contrary?

Similarly, you say Putin can't stop the war, because he is afraid of the Russian people. Is it not also true that stopping the war is incredibly unpopular in the west too? Is Putin as weak as the western leaders? I thought he had massive support from the population and that the people respects his opinion?

I'm struggling with you not being able to provide a date for some election or referendum from before the invasion where the people in any way would have indicated that they wish for an intervention.

As you are unable to do so, I conclude that we agree that the people did indeed not wish to be annexed, so that settles thaz point.

Intetesting how the article still uses the claim from the source, without commenting at all why this particular figure that supports the narrative is correct, but the other, that does not support it, is incorrect? Why link to a source you know can't be trusted? Why not simply use a reliable source instead?