1. Current president is democratically elected and he is the one pushing very hardly to get rid of pro-russian forces from Ukraine and he is the one supporting current parliament – FYI: even when Yatsenyuk tried to dismantle the government few weeks ago – it was rejected by the democratically elected president and he asked them to stay for the stability of a country.
2. Yes, current parliament doesn’t have a full democratic mandate, never the less: majority of the parliament members were elected in general elections.

So: the government in Kiev is NOTHING like pro-russian forces in the eastern Ukraine.

You ask people to look objectively at the situation – yet you don’t do it yourself.

Now go read “50 Shades of Putin”.

… even you would grow some hate towards sickle and star.

And it’s probably a mistake to give any attention to discussions like this, but it can’t be helped, too late for that. As I follow a dispute like this (comments and irl), I think there will be war sometime – even in Europe – , because conflict seems to be a part of human nature, in some it’s bigger (which I hope includes most of the commentators) in others there is still something of it but buried or controlled.

But back to the track: If you accuse someone of being brainwashed, doesn’t this automatically imply that you are confident in YOUR sources of information, to begin with? I trust the printed SPIEGEL a whole lot, that’s for sure. But if you start to doubt the very base of the opposing disputants’ arguments, you should also take into consideration the invalidity of your own sources of information, which makes the whole possibility of brainwashing if not obsolete, then at least less likely. But whom am I kidding? This discussion clearly lacks those basic understanding of controversy.

Furthermore, there is no simple truth in war. If you feel like you could clearly judge the whole situation relating Ukraine and Russia, you are either chief of some service of intelligence or overestimating yourself by far. This doesn’t mean however, that there aren’t some facts that no one can deny, e.g. the right a country has to defend its own territory with appropriate means. The counter argument you get to read is something along the lines “the population wants to have their territory to be independent/ annexed to Russia. Look, we even made a vote” and/or “They gave it, they take it. That’s fine, historical accuracy”.

Apart from me making fun, here we are back again at the topic of trust. It could be “a part x of population y maybe wants to… but they pretended that their vote is legit, so let them have it”. Who would trust that vote? Who could support those invading, armed men? Only the one who has an interest in it. He who thinks, there is the need of a counterpart to the great Yankee, the Gringo. In short: The paranoid ones. Those with what the German call “Blockdenken”. Thinking in black and white when it comes to political conflicts West ./. East. Don’t have Blockdenken.