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.

You tell me. I'll quote you again:

Donbas has had election long before it INVITED Russia to intervene on its behalf.

So when was the election you had in mind that legitimizes the request for intervention.

Ok, when were those elections held. It is a simple question you refuse to answer. Can you provide a date?

I quote yourself:

Donbas has had election long before it INVITED Russia to intervene on its behalf.

So again, when was this election held? It's a simple question. I'm not sure why you are avoiding answering it, and instead providing sources about an election held in 2022.

To avoid the death of millions of Russians and Ukrainians. I've answered multiple times.

So, now we agree that Russia could end the war immediately, regardless of what the west does, but chooses not to, leading to the death of millions of Russians and Ukrainians.

You are avoiding my question. Can Russia end the war immediately, or do they need permission from the west? Yes or no. If you do not answer, I will just assume thst you agree with me that Russia can end the war unilaterally, and Putin chooses not to (because he chooses not to, as "winning" is more important thsn millions of lives).