Putin has directed Russian forces to conduct a special operation in the Donbass region, according to 24 February remarks from the Russian president. Putin declared that he expects consolidated parliamentary support for the operation in the Donbass region.
Putting aside the fact that only Russia has recognized the breakaway regions in the Donbass as sovereign countries, sending troops across the border is by definition an invasion.
For its part, the Associated Press is shamelessly injecting propaganda talking points into its reporting:
Putin justified it all in a televised address, asserting the attack was needed to protect civilians in eastern Ukraine — a false claim the U.S. had predicted he would make as a pretext for an invasion. He accused the U.S. and its allies of ignoring Russia’s demand to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and offer Moscow security guarantees, and credulously claimed that Russia doesn’t intend to occupy Ukraine but will move to “demilitarize” it and bring those who committed crimes to justice.
Whether Putin's assertion that this move is necessary to protect civilians in the Donbass region is false is well outside the realm of objective reporting. As for his statement that he means only to “demilitarize” Ukraine being “credulous”, that is an opinion, and that wording serves to imply that his assertion the NATO countries ignored Russia’s security concerns is untrue.
It is worth noting that former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard tweeted her take on the situation—which is that Putin and Russia’s security concerns are legitimate.
None of which makes any commentary on the validity or invalidity either of Russia’s attack or Putin's claims of justification factual. By definition, such commentary is subjective opinion and not objective fact.
What is objective fact is that Russia is conducting military operations against the whole of Ukraine, as video footage and images of events in and around Kyiv illustrate.
Should Putin's stated reasons for these attacks be believed? Did the US government needlessly escalate the situation and provoke Putin? Those are conclusions everyone should make (or reject) on their own.
It's Not An Invasion, It's A "Special Military Operation"
It's Not An Invasion, It's A "Special Military Operation"
It's Not An Invasion, It's A "Special Military Operation"
Pay close attention to the language being used by the media reporting on Ukraine. Already events are being politicized and propagandists.
As I mentioned earlier, Sputnik News is calling it a “special military operation.
Putting aside the fact that only Russia has recognized the breakaway regions in the Donbass as sovereign countries, sending troops across the border is by definition an invasion.
For its part, the Associated Press is shamelessly injecting propaganda talking points into its reporting:
Whether Putin's assertion that this move is necessary to protect civilians in the Donbass region is false is well outside the realm of objective reporting. As for his statement that he means only to “demilitarize” Ukraine being “credulous”, that is an opinion, and that wording serves to imply that his assertion the NATO countries ignored Russia’s security concerns is untrue.
It is worth noting that former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard tweeted her take on the situation—which is that Putin and Russia’s security concerns are legitimate.
None of which makes any commentary on the validity or invalidity either of Russia’s attack or Putin's claims of justification factual. By definition, such commentary is subjective opinion and not objective fact.
What is objective fact is that Russia is conducting military operations against the whole of Ukraine, as video footage and images of events in and around Kyiv illustrate.
Should Putin's stated reasons for these attacks be believed? Did the US government needlessly escalate the situation and provoke Putin? Those are conclusions everyone should make (or reject) on their own.