Good job a serious debating platform such as this wouldn't house such kindergarten-level analysis... — Isaac

I agree. This particular debating platform seems ill-suited for some fact-based, objective analysis ....

Let's analyze the name of your country to decide whether or not we can invade it and subjugate you — Baden

The issue was whether in historical terms "Ukraine" is (a) a separate state or (b) part of Russia. The evidence seems to be in favor of (b).

The question of "invasion" is a separate one.

Moreover, if we insist on Ukraine's right to independence from Russia, on what logical basis can we object to parts of Ukraine becoming independent from Ukraine?

Finally, my question was addressed to a Slavic person so we can have a broader range of views, not just Anglo-American ones. Or are they to be excluded from the discussion?

If you affirm (1) then why all the effort to argue influence? If you affirm (2) then why the smokescreen of (1)? — Fooloso4

You are obviously confused, if not worse. I never affirmed absolutely nothing. It was YOU who affirmed (1):

So Jesus was NOT influenced by Hellenistic thought, the Son of God don't need no human influence! — Fooloso4

I was arguing (2) i.e., influence, solely on Crossan & Mack's hypothesis to the effect that Jesus was "a Jewish sage" as stated in the OP:

Several biblical scholars, my two favorite being John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack, suggest that Jesus was influenced by Hellenistic thought. They specifically argue that he was a Jewish sage — Dermot Griffin

So ... is it advanced alzheimer's or are you just being controversial for the sake of it? :smile:

One of the implied motivations for creating the European Union was precisely this insight: relatively small countries with limited natural resources cannot make it on their own to live a first-world lifestyle. — baker

Unfortunately, that was only one of the motivations and not even the decisive one. The main motivation was the drive for hegemony that America imposed on Europe through a carrot-and-stick policy that combined the "Russian (read "communist") threat" with US "largesse" in the form of financial and technical assistance.

Like I'm automatically a second-class person because I'm from a Slavic nation. — baker

Not "second-class person", more like "sub-human species". In Britain, for example, there is widespread hatred of Germans and Russians who are constantly ridiculed and demonized in the media. "Don't be so Russian" is a standard expression referring to Russian people's alleged inferior ranking on the scale of civilization and evolution. Nazism and racism are alive and well.

Tom Tugendhat and the worrying rise of Russophobia - Spectator

Public life in Britain has taken a dark turn over the past 48 hours. Russia’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine has caused some people to lose their minds. War hysteria is everywhere. Jingoism is surging. Russophobia itself threatens to take hold in polite society. I can’t be the only person who feels deeply uncomfortable with the stifling, conformist and accusatory atmosphere that has descended on these isles in such swift order.

Truth is the first casualty of war, they say. In fact it’s more often freedom and reason. Especially freedom of conscience: the freedom to think differently to those banging the drums of war, or, in this case, those calling for a huge Western showdown with Russia. In recent years, the start of every war in which Britain has some role or some interest has been accompanied by a clampdown on free discussion, by the demonisation of those who dare to deviate, however slightly, from the mainstream narrative. And so it has been following Putin’s shock-and-awe in Ukraine.

Those of us who implacably oppose Russia’s invasion but who also believe that Nato played a key role in stoking the Ukraine crisis are being mauled as ‘Putin apologists’. ‘You love Putin’ is the infantile cry of laptop bombardiers who cannot believe that some of us have refused to join in their brave social-media campaign for 20-year-old working-class men to be packed off to Ukraine to fight the Russians.

Obviously, a lot of people are frustrated and angered because of the pandemic situation and all the inconveniences and problems it has caused and are looking for easy targets to take it out on. But it is the whole culture, encouraged by the US-dominated mass-media, that fans the flame of racial hatred for political ends.

Some British members of parliament are calling for war on Russia and the anti-Russian propaganda is escalating from day to day. IMO all the signs are pointing to Britain intending to engineer some "incident" in Eastern Europe or the Baltic as a pretext for war on Russia.

BTW, as a Slavic speaker, how would you interpret the word "Ukraine"? To me, it sounds very much like this was not the name of a people but of a geographical area, inhabited by a plurality of nationalities and controlled by various countries at different points in history. If so, Putin may have a point regarding the legitimacy of the "Ukrainian" state.

Crimea, in any case, has never been "Ukrainian". It was "given" to Ukraine by Soviet leader Khrushchev in 1954, but that was a matter of administration only, as Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and no one at the time expected it to become not only a separate country, but actually hostile to Russia.

If you believe in it, I suppose. — Olivier5

That was precisely what I was referring to and I’m glad you are beginning, however belatedly, to grasp the basic elements of the NT narrative and of Christology in general. As they say, it's never too late. :smile:

To my knowledge, most scholars who have studied the subject matter agree that there are three basic theoretical possibilities:

(1). Jesus was the Son of God, i.e., divine, in which case he was omniscient and needed no influence from anyone.
(2). Jesus was a human being, in which case he may have been influenced by Hellenistic Judaism and Platonism.
(3). Jesus never existed, in which case the question of his connection with Platonism does not arise, and all discussion of the subject is rendered superfluous.

Another, more distant possibility, would be that Ehrman was there and therefore he knows better than the rest of us. But I think we can safely discount this - for the time being.

In any case, it’s good to see that Foolo has opted for possibility (1) and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate him for his choice. I’m almost certain he would make a good Christian if he tried to, perhaps even better than Paine who seems less certain about his beliefs.

Yeah, right. Maybe you should read my comments first as I responded to that a long time ago! :grin:

I think it ought to be obvious that there is a difference between (1) “empire” in the sense of historical "Russian Empire" which was basically Czarist Russia, and (2) “empire” in the sense of expansionist system aiming to acquire territories beyond the original entity, e.g., the British Empire that kept expanding forever beyond the British Isles.

In other words, Russian Empire in sense (1) refers to an established, internationally recognized geographical area, whereas "Russian Empire" in sense (2) is an imaginary construct created by Western propaganda.

I think restoring some of the Russian Empire in sense (1) is legitimate. (Also, note that I said “some”.).

Creating an empire in sense (2) is (a) not legitimate and (b) unsupported by the evidence.

Hence my objection to the use of the phrase "Russian Empire" in sense (2).

Pretty clear and simple IMO .... — Apollodorus

If you still don't understand, do let me know and I'll explain it to you in greater detail .... :wink:

As self-evident as the fact that Jesus the man was of his time and place, an individual not a universal. — Olivier5

I see. Now I understand where your confusion comes from! :grin:

You haven't read the actual NT text, presumably due to spending too much time posting questionable and misinformed hypotheses on forums. If you had intimated this to me earlier I would have explained it to you and saved you a lot of wasted time.

However, the text is very clear and states the facts in unambiguous terms:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth … Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever ..." (John 1:1,14; Hebrews 13:8).
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God (Luke1:35).
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
“Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God” (John 1:49).

The Christian Creed itself states:

I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

There is an extensive literature on this, much of it written by the world's most eminent scholars, not fake or second-rate ones like Ehrman.

In any case, it is clear from the NT text that, in Christianity, Jesus had the external appearance of a human, but in reality he was the Son of God manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, I'm afraid you guys got it all wrong. You really need to urgently revise your understanding of the topic in order to avoid future confusion - and unnecessary waste of time .... :wink:

Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, said Britain will “work all day” to try to get the SWIFT international payment system “turned off for Russia”.
“Unfortunately the Swift system is not in our control - it’s not a unilateral decision,” he told BBC Radio 4.
Setting out how SWIFT is used “to move money around”, Mr Wallace said: “When you pay Russia for its gas, it probably goes through the Swift system, for example.
“It is based in Belgium. It has a number of partners that control it, or nation states. We want it switched off. Other countries do not. We only have so many options.”

Ukraine: Germany and Italy have ‘disgraced themselves’ over Russia sanctions, Donald Tusk says – The Independent

So maybe America’s Euro-Atlantic Empire is beginning to crumble, after all. But it’s interesting to see how America and Britain are trying to control the world’s finances ….

It's not clear what will happen yet. — Manuel

I agree. It isn't impossible that the West will eventually declare war on Russia as it did with Germany in the other two world wars.

Some UK politicians are already calling for war on Russia and Boris Johnson himself has been implying that military action will be taken eventually:

The UK and our allies will respond decisively. Our mission is clear. Diplomatically, politically, economically, and eventually, militarily, this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.

Key points from Boris Johnson announcement as PM threatens Putin with military action

But until we've seen how the situation develops on the ground, it's all just speculation and, frankly, a waste of time as there is nothing we can do about it.

Meantime, there are wars in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, and other places, but no one cares because they are of no interest to America .... :smile:

Things don't become facts by virtue of being in All Caps. They become facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence ruling out all contrary theories. Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Yeah, his "evidence" is the irrelevant pics he keeps posting and the pro-NATO propaganda he keeps parroting.

The reality is he's got anti-Russian issues that, by his own admission, he developed in his teens:

Even as a young teen I found it whimsical and totally attached from reality. Soviet propaganda, that is ….

Putin's Breakthrough in Political Ideology: the new Komintern

This explains the total lack of objectivity and the counterfactual narrative. I mean, even if someone hates Russia (or Putin), which I'm sure some do, they should still try to maintain a degree of impartiality, not lash out indiscriminately like some political extremist on steroids ....

Here is an interesting article on China's view of Ukraine:

China on Thursday morning denied Russia invaded Ukraine as it urged restraint from all sides.
Beijing refused to characterise Russia’s actions as an ‘invasion’ when prompted by foreign journalists but stopped short of publicly taking a side.
The comments are likely to fuel fears that China's growing links with Russia could help cement a new bipolar world order.

China denies Russia has invaded Ukraine amid fears of a tipping point to new world order – The Telegraph

Why would anyone “fear a bipolar world order” unless they wanted America to be the sole power?

Wouldn't a multipolar world order be more equitable and democratic than a unipolar one? Or is American World Government NATO's real agenda?

Plato would still be Plato. — Olivier5

I think that would be self-evident.

In the past (like... 40 years ago) people often used 'the' when referencing--'the Ukraine'. — Bitter Crank

Obviously, the definite article “the” does not exist in Ukrainian or Russian. My guess is that English “the Ukraine” comes from German “die Ukraine” or French “la Ukraine”.

But the word does seem to be derived from “land” or “borderland”:

1651 Ukrain, 1671 Ukraine, 1688 Ucrania, Ukrania, 1762 Ocraine. Adaptation of Polish Ukraina, Russian Украи́на (Ukraína), or Ukrainian Украї́на (Ukrajína), from the specific use, originally meaning “borderland”, “marches” or “insideland”. From Old East Slavic украина (ukraina), from у (u, “at”) + краи (krai, “edge”), or край (kraj, “land”).

Ukraine - Wiktionary

It follows that “Ukraine” is not derived from the name of an ethnic group. In contrast, “Russia”, for example, comes from an actual people, the “Rus” who were a Slavic or Nordic group.

From the late 9th to the mid-13th century, the Rus formed “Rus-land” a.k.a. Kievan Rus that comprised various ethnic groups. This “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), subsequently split into Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

So, Putin isn’t quite as unreasonable as it may seem to non-Russians, when he refuses to accept the legitimacy of states literally created by the Bolsheviks, and even then more theoretically than practically.

Obviously, all these issues that arose from post-Soviet Ukrainian independence, should have been sorted there and then, in 1991. A country can become independent in certain circumstances, but it should not do so without regard to its neighbors.

The problem of the Black Sea and the Soviet Naval Force is highly important to both Ukraine and Russia, and should perhaps have been resolved through some kind of international arbitration.

In any case, NATO already has Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania occupying the Black Sea coast. Adding Ukraine to it, especially Crimea, would turn the Black Sea into a virtual NATO lake and potentially block Russian access to the Mediterranean. Surely, this can’t be right or fair on Russia?

P.S. Note how NATO and its propaganda operatives are trying to sweep the Black Sea issue under the carpet .... :smile:

I heard Putin say that it was the Bolsheviks who granted 'independence' to provinces of the old tsarist empire. My impression is that the Soviet Republics weren't all that independent of centralized control. — Bitter Crank

What Putin was trying to say is that territories like Ukraine had been part of Russia under the czars and only became "countries", i.e., Soviet Republics under the Bolsheviks.

After the February Revolution in 1917 the People's Republic of Ukraine was proclaimed as part of the Russian Republic.

In 1918 the Bolsheviks who were still consolidating their power, recognized Ukraine as "independent" but the territory was divided between Russia, Poland, and Romania.

After a civil war, the Soviet part of Ukraine, which was the bulk of "Ukrainian" territory, was renamed Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, a.k.a. Soviet Ukraine, and became part of the USSR in 1922 which it remained until 1991.

The "independence", of course, was more administrative than political, and after the Bolsheviks had consolidated their power, especially under Stalin, it was largely theoretical.

So, from a historical Russian perspective, and especially in the eyes of the older Russian generations like Putin, the idea of Ukraine as a separate country sounds a bit odd. Even the name "Ukraine" itself is derived from the Slavic name for "country" or "borderland" and is not the name of an ethnic group:

Name of Ukraine - Wikipedia

Well, I disagree. And if you have such unshakable belief in "scholarship", then you don't need to discuss it here. You can email your favorite scholars direct and discuss it with them. It would save you a lot of time that you could spend reading the Bible instead .... :wink:

It seems entirely plausible that Moldova and the pacific coastal regions of Russia might not have much in common, similarly, Kazakhs and Baltic cultures are pretty dissimilar. — Bitter Crank

Correct. But then America has people of European, Native American, African, Latin American descent, etc., each group with their own culture.

As for Russia, the very fact that all those different ethnic groups have been able to largely preserve their own culture, religion, and language down the centuries, shows that Russia isn't quite as repressive as sometimes assumed in the West. Even under "dictatorial" leaders like Putin, as long as you don't engage in any subversive activities against the state, you can get on with your life as in any Western country.

You seem to want to make a claim upon what is Christian or not but cannot say what it is for yourself. — Paine

You're kidding, right?

It was others that inserted bits of comments from other discussions for their own agendas and started calling me names for no reason. Of course I can say what a Christian is for myself. But it's got nothing to do with the OP here, and I've got other things to do ....

:up: That's one way of looking at it. Unfortunately, Russia has too many enemies to afford to lose any more territory or influence. It doesn't make sense for the largest country in the world to be subordinated to Europe or America.

So, for my part, I think Russia, Europe, and America should be separate and independent powers without any of them interfering in the others' business ....

Yeah, and you sound like someone who's got nothing to do. Anyway, have a nice day!

Those are examples of testimony, when people don't surrender their convictions in the face of terrible consequences. — Paine

You've really lost me now. What has that got to do with Hellenistic influence on Jesus?

So, how much difference would it make (outside of local boundary disputes) whether the soviet empire or the tsarist empire were reconstructed? — Bitter Crank

As I've said before Putin doesn't want to restore the Soviet Union. He's said that himself many times:

People often quote his statement “the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. But it bears pointing out that he enlarged on it later, saying: “Anyone who doesn’t regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.”

Understanding Putin’s narrative about Ukraine is the master key to this crisis - The Guardian

Had he wanted to "reconstruct the USSR", he would have done so long ago. The fact is Russia has always had a strong government. As the largest country in the world, Russia obviously needs some form of central authority.

Plus, how would Biden react if Texas decided to become independent and join Mexico or Spain?

From my point of view, saying what something is against, is a testimony. You wear the garment too lightly. — Paine

Well, that's your point of view. And why are you speaking in parables? What do you mean by "testimony"???

P.S. As you can see, Foolo is implying that the God of the Bible is not good (or not God). What do you say to that as a Christian?

If the good is god then this god is not the god of the Hebrew Bible. — Fooloso4

That's supposed to be MY fault???

I didn't write the Hebrew Bible, did I???

Plus, you mean the God of the Hebrew Bible is "not good" or "not God"??? :lol:

So, you treat the matter as something that is common knowledge while unable to give your own testimony. In my congregation, we refer to that as cowardice. — Paine

What "testimony"??? And how is it my "cowardice" if you are too lazy to look it up???!!!

Are you guys related by any chance?

Actually, it is your questionable and overly simplistic interpretation of Plato — Fooloso4

That's the standard interpretation in Platonism. There is nothing I can do about it. And neither can you .... :grin:

What is a Christian? — Paine

Google it and find out if you don't know.

What he leaves out here is what he says elsewhere, that the Good is God. — Fooloso4

The "Good is God" according to Plato, NOT according to me! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

They are doing a good job of fooling me. — Paine

Good of you to admit it! :smile:

As to the rest, I've already explained that many times over.

Ehrman doesn't believe in the Christian God and he has made it his mission to argue that Christian texts, including the Gospels, were composed by writers using false names in order to “influence” or “shape” Christianity.

Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels

To me, this sounds more like an anti-Christian than pro-Christian position. Of course, it is entirely possible that he is pro-Christian or even a Christian pretending to be anti-Christian in order to cause controversy and encourage debate.

However, if Christian texts were composed for the purpose of deceiving the public, then they cannot be used as reliable testimony and it is a waste of time to discuss them. This is why I prefer scholars like Scott Greaves who seem to make more sense and whose arguments are more consistent with traditional views and with the historical and archaeological evidence.

Comrade Putin wishes to reconstruct the Soviet Union — Bitter Crank

That's what Biden says, but Biden doesn't have a clue. He just repeats what he's being told by his advisers.

Putin wants to rebuild Russia as a great power, NOT the Soviet Union. Ukraine was already part of Russia long before the Soviets came on the scene.

I think there are limits to analyzing all wars in terms of profits alone. — Manuel

Correct. However, it remains a fact that huge profits were made in the two world wars. Britain declared war on Germany in both wars, but the real profits were made by America. And in both cases America's decision to intervene was made on the basis of cost-and-profit calculations.

And we mustn't forget that America and Britain would control Russia's resources if Russia lost the war. In other words, it is clear that they would have most to gain.

Also, note that America and Britain, the world's foremost financial powers, are leading the anti-Russian campaign ....

Personally, I have no particular interest in demonstrating Greek influence on Jesus beyond language, as I believe that different cultures have sufficient elements in common as to not necessitate external influence in all cases.

For example, the concept of “righteousness” was fundamental to Eastern Mediterranean cultures, including Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and Israel. IMO if we start from basic cultural and religious elements, we begin to see more similarities than differences.

This is why I was arguing against the idea that there was no possibility of influence or similarity of concepts and beliefs. Having said that, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Any particular reasons that make Russia's justification greater than Iraq?

It's a mess. — Manuel

Of course it's a mess. And we need to ask ourselves who is profiting from it.

According to the FT, oil prices are now above $100 a barrel, and gold and other precious metals have gone up as well, so someone is profiting from this. US energy and defense corporations, in particular, are going to make a huge fortune.

The United States is the world's largest producer of natural gas and last year for the first time it became the No. 1 exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), surpassing Australia and Qatar.

'We are a gas superpower.' Ex-Trump regulator says US natural gas can help Europe - CNN

At the end of the day, wars cost not only lives but also money. America wouldn't be investing in this unless it knew that it is going to make trillions of dollars like it did in the other world wars. We mustn't forget that this is how America became a superpower and that international organizations like NATO were created for the express purpose of defending US hegemony across the globe and especially in the Euro-Atlantic sphere.

You insult my intelligence by quoting me stuff I already know and then latching into stuff you want to argue about. — schopenhauer1

What I am arguing is, indeed, well-known. Unfortunately, you chose to deny it:

If you want to look at Hellenistic-influenced Judaism, you should look no further than Philo of Alexandria who married the Torah with Platonic thought, and ideas of the "logos". — schopenhauer1

The truth of the matter, of course, is that Hellenistic influence went far beyond Alexandria and as shown by Scott Greaves and others, it had deeply penetrated Roman Palestine to the extent that Jesus and his disciples must have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic.

I do realize that Ehrman and his followers will never acknowledge the weakness and vacuity of their arguments, but the rest of us can and do see them for what they are.

If I were you, I would feel more insulted by Ehrman's preposterous theories, in fact, much more so. So, perhaps you should try changing your intelligence. Or your hat .... :wink:

The key to understanding Russia's problem is the Black Sea, as admitted even by Ukrainians:

The Black Sea is Russia’s entrance to the world – including the Mediterranean and Atlantic spheres of influence,” Rustem Umerov, a Ukrainian member of parliament from Crimea, told The Independent in a phone interview. “That’s why [Putin] is focused on the Black Sea.”

In Ukraine invasion, Russia targets control of the Black Sea - The Independent

The importance of the Black Sea to Russia is also demonstrated by the fact that Ukraine has asked Turkey to close the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits to the Black Sea:

Erdogan 'saddened' by Russian invasion, Ukraine urges Turkey to shut straits – Reuters

But the NATO propaganda machine keeps shtum about the Black Sea to prevent America's plans from being exposed.

Unfortunately, Americans have zero knowledge of European geography and history, so they are incapable of understanding even the most basic factors in this conflict. All they are worried about is how much oil and gas they can sell to Europe if they keep Russia out .... :smile:

To think that people are suggesting the best way to remove the dictator is to create an even greater sense of being crushed under the boot of Western imperialism. — Isaac

I think the main problem is that there are large numbers of people all over Europe who are sufficiently brainwashed and zombified to not realize that they live under the boot of American imperialism.

Britain's Turkish leader Boris Johnson is already preparing the Brits for war on Russia - as ordered by America:

The UK and our allies will respond decisively. Our mission is clear. Diplomatically, politically, economically, and eventually, militarily, this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.

Key points from Boris Johnson announcement as PM threatens Putin with military action

So, it's beginning to look like Britain is deploying the same old tricks as in WW1 when it declared war on Germany for allegedly violating Belgian "neutrality" ....

Yeah you aren't paying attention to what I wrote earlier about similar matters, so not going to speak much on this. I am familiar on Boyarin's ideas on this. There is also the idea of the shekinah, etc. etc. One can try to connect it, and this is very much up for debate. — schopenhauer1

Yeah and you aren't paying attention to I'm saying, are you? What I'm saying is that to get to the truth we need to eliminate the untruth in the form of false assumptions and erroneous beliefs.

So, I'm not talking about you personally, I'm referring to beliefs that are commonly held, like that the Jews of Roman Palestine spoke no Greek, had no dealings with the Greeks, were never influenced by Greek culture and thought, that they passed most of their time trying to hate Greeks as much as they possibly could, and that kind of stuff. And this includes the issue of "Greek-style" reclining at (communal) meals.

Yes, Boyarin and others are making some reasonable points, which is precisely why we need to listen to a broader range of scholarly opinion.

Anyway, what is "traditional Judaism"? Judaism in the time of Jesus was relatively new. As shown by Silverman and Finkelstein (The Bible Unearthed), Jews had been polytheistic for most of their history. There probably had been monolatrous and even monotheistic tendencies for some time - as among the Greeks and others - but monotheism proper was relatively recent and only imposed itself after the construction of the Second Temple - which, if we think about it, is pretty late when compared with the supposition that Jews were monotheistic in the 2nd millennium BC or earlier.

In addition, Jews were surrounded by polytheistic populations and, as is well-known, neighboring cultures naturally influence each other.

In any case, it is only when we get rid of preconceived ideas, that we begin to get a clearer picture and we are in a position to see if and how we can connect cultural elements that may otherwise seem totally disparate and unconnected.

It is hard to tell what exactly is going on on the ground unless you are there. But both sides have been firing at each other for eight years, and in any armed conflict there would be actions taking place that the other side can label "violation of international war", "atrocity", etc.

IMO, "genocide" or not, Russia does actually see itself threatened by NATO. For example, as I said before, if Ukraine were to join NATO, this would be a direct threat to Russia's naval force in the Black Sea and would block its access to the Mediterranean Sea, etc.

Well, he doesn't need to actually believe it. Russia needs a motive for its actions, like everyone else. It's kind of standard practice. Remember NATO's "genocide" in Kosovo, America's "Iraqi WMD's" , etc., etc.

But why then all the American anti-Russian propaganda?
Sheer contempt, to boost the American ego? — baker

1. Financial profit, forcing Europe to buy American oil and gas instead of Russian.

2. America sees Europe as its backyard.

3. America and its British Poodle (i.e., Wall Street and the City of London), are aiming to expand their Euro-Atlantic Empire, which is why they have created instruments of Atlantic imperialism like NATO (North-Atlantic Treaty Organization), World Bank, IMF, EU, OECD, etc., etc. Russia stands in the way, so it needs to be eliminated.

I wouldn't be surprised if Britain arranged a nice civil war in Ukraine in order to drag Russia into a world war like it did in WW1.

The British media are already preparing the public for the possibility:

UK must be ready for war with Russia - The Guardian

The outgoing head of the UK’s armed forces has said the military will have to be ready for war with Russia after recent tensions in eastern Europe. Gen Sir Nick Carter said Russia was now a greater threat in eastern Europe than it was when he started in the role eight years ago.
He said he “distinctly hoped” there would not be a war with Russia and he did not believe the country wanted a physical war, but Nato would have to be ready.

And British intelligence (MI6) has long said that Russia is an "acute threat" to Britain, and continues to do so:

Putin threat: UK on red alert for 'attack' from Russia as security measures beefed-up - Daily Express

Statements of this kind can be explained only if (a) Britain regards Eastern Europe as its territory and (b) if it plans some kind of action (including military) against Russia.

(1) First, the media prepares the public psychologically through propaganda, (2) this is followed up by political announcements, and (3) action is taken on the ground.

(1). We have seen the media propaganda.

(2). Now we are seeing the political pronouncements:

Senior Tory MP calls on UK to take military action against Russia in Ukraine

(3). The next step will be military action.

Boris Johnson himself has already announced military action against Russia:

President Putin has chosen a path of bloodshed and destruction by launching this unprovoked attack on Ukraine. The UK and our allies will respond decisively. Our mission is clear. Diplomatically, politically, economically, and eventually, militarily, this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.

Key points from Boris Johnson announcement as PM threatens Putin with military

Obviously, in a British-Russian conflict America will intervene on Britain's side, so this is a calculated move by Britain. And, as I said before, if Russia loses, British and American corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources, exactly as they did, or tried to do, in the 1990's after the collapse of the USSR.