> Just because you don't like a source doesn't mean it's invalid

No source other than the general assembly of the UN can make any binding statement or interpretation about the international law. Period.

And if your guidelight and reference about wars is the Council of Foreign relations or their likes, you should just shut up about any legitimacy on the Internet.

> Ukraine was not systematically hurting or killing its civilians (any accounts suggesting as much were flimsy at best, and outright false at worse)

80% of the world says otherwise. Probably because of things that previous 2 Ukrainian presidents said and what started happening in Donbas since 2014. And the US openly saying that it was going to "make an Afghanistan out of Ukraine for Russia", and it was going to surround and destroy Russia, openly in their foreign policy documents and in the actual statements of the US State Dept. Which sounds utterly crazy to everyone on the planet, by the way, because each of those constitutes a valid casus belli in international law.

So its you the Angloamericans vs the rest 80% of the world who condemned the war just like how the UN condemns every war, but not only bluntly mad statements about how Russia was right in this matter but also refused to cut ties with Russia and chose to strengthen them instead - 80%, which constitutes an overwhelming majority in the UN general assembly, by the way.

> I think you need to take some time and check your bias, because it's obviously clouding your opinions.

I think you need to take some time off from talking like a US State Dept. spokesperson. Or, just stop talking about war, justice and all that.

...

So the point stands: You people have learned nothing from the previous wars. "Russia is an invader" just like how "Saddam was a dictator" and the Vietnamese were commies. Just another war, the same delirious rambling by the Angloamericans on the Internet pushing their current war...