Climate scientists are unequivocal: time is running out to transition away from fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal and instead power our cars, heat our homes and grow our food using renewable energy sources and sustainable farming practices. Most voters agree: two thirds of Americans want the federal government to do more to tackle the climate crisis, according to one recent poll.

Despite this urgency, the climate crisis has not been a campaigning focal point for Democrats or Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections, with inflation, abortion and immigration gaining far more attention from candidates. Worryingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats, who are forecast to lose control of both Houses, 60% of voters know nothing or little about the historical climate bill (the Inflation Reduction Act) passed this summer. And 139 fossil fuel friendly members of the current (117th) Congress still refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change, accounting for more than half of Republicans.

https://apple.news/ArATBcdxqSPehBvMuMbGwGg

“I don’t understand it that well, but they have to intervene and hold new elections,” said Andrea Vaz, 51, a computer-hardware seller holding a sign that said, “Fraud in the voting machines!” at a large protest outside the Brazilian Army’s national headquarters in Brasília. “We saw various videos. People giving out money, buying votes,” she added. “There’s proof.”

Mass delusion at its best.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/world/americas/bolsonaro-election-protests.html

A coup is unlikely. I’m guessing he’ll simply do what Trump did: scream fraud with zero evidence and energize his base, so that perhaps they do the dirty work for him, a la January 6th. — Mikie

So far this hasn’t been the case. He’s been much more subtle about it than Trump. He’s not conceded, but not yelled about fraud (yet). He’s also not told his supporters to stop blocking the streets, of course. Still, not what I was suspecting.

Apparently many of his top officials and allies in the senate have already congratulated Lula— which makes things harder.

Isn’t it something that Brazil is handling things better than the US. January 1st can’t come soon enough.

Then what you said really is laughable.

There weren’t native peoples of Brazil because “Brazil” is a creation of Portugal and the only official language of Brazil is Portuguese. — javi2541997

Are you serious? Is this a serious response or is it supposed to be satirizing modem academic relativism?

They do seem ill-served by their leaders on all sides though. — Baden

Rings a bell in the US.

These elections were not about the right or the left, but about freedom of expression or authoritarianism inspired by Stalinism. — Gus Lamarch

Yes, and Bolsonaro is the most authoritarian leader Brazil has had in decades, looking back fondly as he does of the military dictatorship — not to mention nearly everything he’s done over the last four years.

Anyway — you’re wrong. The most significant factor is the Amazon. The Amazon’s fate affects all of us, all over the world. Electing a climate denier who’s hellbent on destroying it isn’t a smart move, and no amount of “It’s my country, so I know better” posturing can possibly justify it. (A tired, lame argument if I ever heard one, by the way.)

Very glad to see at least half of Brazil agrees and didn’t vote for suicide. Take it up with them.

am not doubt he would be ready Coup d'état. — javi2541997

A coup is unlikely. I’m guessing he’ll simply do what Trump did: scream fraud with zero evidence and energize his base, so that perhaps they do the dirty work for him, a la January 6th.

He already said he's not denying climate change. — Matt E

Climate denial takes many forms.

But who are you and why are you commenting on something written a year ago? Very strange.

No relation to any of his points. A clear sign of plugging your ears and serving only as a mouthpiece for your echo chamber. — Matt E

What a bizarre thing to say.

First, he had no points to respond to besides the following:

Climate change can be good and open up new opportunities.
— Kasperanza

To which YOUR response was:

Okay, this is sort of delusional, lol. Can you find a single fact to back that up? — Matt E

I suppose this wasn’t “plugging your ears”, eh? Calling someone delusional?

Not a great way to begin on this forum.

No— and who knows what Bolsonaro is going to do. He’s yet to concede.

Lula pulls it off. But how pathetic the margin was. Irrationality never disappoints

Excellent article on Republicans and the working class:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/opinion/election-workers-republican-oz-vance.html

but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much. — ChatteringMonkey

Then you’re really not paying attention.

October 30th— tomorrow — will largely determine the fate of life as we know it. Why? Because the Brazilian people vote for a president tomorrow, and the fate of the planet’s lungs — the Amazon — will be decided with it. This isn’t hyperbole.

Fingers crossed that people don’t opt for suicide.

Regarding the antinatalism claims:

If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?

This was yet another antinatalist argument dressed up in different clothes from someone who posts almost nothing except antinatalist arguments. So it was merged with the life sucks thread. It doesn’t mean the argument was that life sucks — that’s simply the name of the thread.

I even extended the courtesy of messaging both of the individuals affected by the merge. The conversation can continue either way. Mostly a housekeeping move. Not a great injustice, fairly straightforward.

Are you really saying that Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic all joined NATO in order to benefit from humanitarian assistance? — Olivier5

No.

Again, for the third time, what kind of statements and actions would demonstrate to you an “imperialistic bent”? — neomac

Whatever it is that’s convinced you of it prior to the NATO summit. I’m not interested in surmise and gut feelings.

But nobody underestimated the “imperialistic bent” of Russia, — neomac

Prior to 2008? Who?

If Russia stays within its borders and recognizes that Austria, Singapore, Japan and Israel all developed huge economies with no resources and in small territories, they, with a vast territory and vast resources, could do enormous things for their people. Then there is no security problem. — neomac

Which they did…

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, ``We should not be shy in saying that NATO expansion will help a democratic Russia and hurt an imperialistic Russia.'' — neomac

That’s nice. That’s not Russia’s attitude.

`Fear of a new wave of Russian imperialism . . . should not be seen as the driving force behind NATO enlargement,'' says Mr. Talbott. — neomac

Right…

It does seem to me that whatever residual imperialistic tendencies, which, indeed, can be a problem, can best be contained by methods other than adding members to NATO. — neomac

Right…

Still not seeing anything that demonstrates imperialist ambitions, beyond speculation about the possibility of it in the 1997, before Putin came to power. The article seems pretty slanted— with no evidence whatsoever given to justify it beyond “it’s happened in the past”.

Regardless, I asked about the threat of imperialism prior to the NATO summit because the claim was that NATO expansion was due to the threat of Putin’s imperialist ambitions. No one was claiming that prior to the summit, as you’ve now demonstrated by failing to produce anything that shows it.

There was no imperialist threat. As Mearsheimer notes — who isn’t an “average dude” but who, unlike you and I, has studied this for decades and is considered a foremost expert on it— this claim is an invention, started especially after 2014. It’s useful as a deflection of what actually transpired. A nice story to tell now— but ultimately untrue.

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

I'm asking you what constitutes evidence for "an imperialist bent on expanding". What would prove that concept? — neomac

If there were both statements and actions that demonstrate it. There were neither before the 2008 summit -- which is why "imperialist ambitions" weren't once mentioned.

That NATO needed to expand to ward off Putin's "imperialist ambitions" is nonsense. It's always been nonsense.

Relatedly, it is important to note that NATO expansion before February 2014 was not aimed at containing Russia. Given the sad state of Russian military power, Moscow was in no position to pursue revanchist policies in eastern Europe. Tellingly, former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes that Putin’s seizure of the Crimea was not planned before the crisis broke out in 2014; it was an impulsive move in response to the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader. In short NATO enlargement was not intended to contain a Russian threat but was instead part of a broader policy to spread the liberal international order into eastern Europe and make the entire continent look like western Europe.

It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective.

That's exactly right.

why was that not stated as a reason for NATO membership in 2008?
— Mikie

NATO (very well aware of Russian elites’ anti-NATO dispositions) never planned to take a confrontational attitude toward Russia. — neomac

Ah, so that's what everyone was secretly thinking, but it was never stated explicitly. And the evidence that would lend them to secretly believe this was what, exactly?

Anyway -- you admit it was never stated as a reason. That's a good start, I suppose. Feel free to cite any sources at or before the 2008 summit that support your other claim.

There is no evidence that the was an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. The answer given is about Crimea as evidence. This has been addressed before as well.
— Mikie

No it doesn't help. What is an "imperialist bent"? What kind of evidence proves an "imperialist bent"? — neomac

What doesn't help?

"imperialist bent" is meaningless. I said "an imperialist bent on expanding...". So do you mean, "What is an imperialist?" I think you know very well what that means.

If Putin was an imperialist, or had imperialist ambitions, as is now claimed -- why was that not stated as a reason for NATO membership in 2008? Where is the evidence of that prior to that summit? Can you cite any source whatsoever -- even a weak one -- where this was being claimed?

Please give ONE. — Olivier5

"The benefits of NATO membership include more than just security benefits and collective defense but also disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and scientific collaboration through the NATO Science for Peace and Security Program."

But we don't have to guess. All we have to do is look at what Ukraine and NATO were saying in 2008. There were all kinds of claims -- about "stability," etc. There was no one claiming Russian imperialism as a reason. Neither the US, nor NATO, nor Ukraine. Putin was invited to the Bucharest summit, in fact -- an odd move for an imperialist threat.

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that.
— Mikie

I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it. Logic, anyone? — Olivier5

Yes, you are claiming that now. Notice the past tense in the statement above. I'm referring to the 2008 summit. Note also that by "no one" I don't mean "no person on planet earth," but none of the relevant players: the US, NATO, and Ukraine. I will also be generous and include any expert on the subject or even credible journalists at that time -- feel free to cite any.

So yes, you've made the claim that Russia was an imperialist threat before 2008. That claim is incorrect.

Funny that no one -- not the US, not NATO, not Ukraine -- was giving that reason at the time. I'm interested in their opinions, not yours. But feel free to supply evidence. You haven't yet. To be fair, I imagine it'll be difficult to -- since there is none.

But if I'm wrong and there is evidence, I have yet to see it -- and you certainly haven't provided it.

Yes, I'm sure the war in Georgia, which occurred in August, was a big reason at the NATO summit.

Oh really? What were the reasons for Ukraine and Georgia and all the others to seek NATO membership, oh wise one?They wanted to visit Brussels? — Olivier5

There are all kinds of reasons for joining NATO. An imperialist threat from Russia was not one of them in 2008. Which is why you cannot provide one reference supporting such a claim.

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that. That claim was made after 2014.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

Which is precisely why Canada has nothing to fear from the US, and is not seeking protection elsewhere.... — Olivier5

Exactly. Likewise for US/NATO-Ukraine/Georgia in 2008. The reasons for membership were not some imperialist threat from Russia. No one made that claim.

If, hypothetically, starting in 2025, China were on the doorstep, supplying weapons, training thousands of troops, and continually pushing for Canadian membership in a "defensive alliance," despite years of US warnings about this being a "red line," and then a reaction occurred in 2031 where the US annexed parts of Canada -- I suppose this would somehow make the claims true today? Of course not.

Likewise, there were no claims of Russian "imperial ambitions" prior to 2014. After that, it of course became the official reason. With no mention of the prior six years' warnings from Russia, which were recognized even within the US — Mikie

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above[/].
— Mikie

That’s why you are blaming also US/NATO for this war, right? — neomac

The US and NATO are primarily responsible for escalating this war, yes. Ultimately the decision was Putin's, and so I blame him for the war. Person A provoking someone doesn't mean person B has no choice but to slap A in the face. Still, we should be honest about the whole story, and not simply make up stories about why person B reacted.

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.
— Mikie

Taking a threat seriously means that one should not ignore the threat — neomac

Excuse me, but you're changing the words. You didn't say "threat," and neither did I. You said "Russian concerns." Your assertion is that "Russian concerns were taken seriously." They were not.

What were the Russian concerns? Again, they were made very clear after 2008. We can go over the long record again if you'd like, but I think it's fairly obvious. It was obvious to US diplomats, CIA directors, and allies that Russia believed Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership into NATO was an existential threat. Ditto weapons and military training, which were later concerns and likewise voiced consistently and strongly -- not just by Putin.

So, again, your claim is baseless. Russian concerns were not taken seriously.

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.
— Mikie

So what? I’m more interested in testing the rationality of our expectations not in what we find desirable or moral. If all you have to offer is a list of scores based on your moral compass or desiderata, you are not intellectually challenging to me. — neomac

What isn't intellectually challenging is playing games like this. You know very well that I didn't say "threats" above -- and neither did you. You also know very well that the above quotation is in response to the following:

If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes. — neomac

[Emphasis mine]

So it's very strange that suddenly you say you're not interested in what we find "desirable or moral." I'm not interested in it either, which was the point. It doesn't matter if we prefer democracy or authoritarianism -- as you stated. What matters are the actions. We should react the same, not according to what we "prefer" (again, your words).

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly? — Mikie

By the end of 2008 Putin was already on the path of centralising power (e.g. by fighting oligarchs since hist first presidency term) while signalling his geopolitical ambitions in his war against Chechnya and Georgia. This was already enough to alarm the West and the ex-soviet union countries (including Ukrainians who have a long history of nationalist tensions with Russia). That’s why NATO enlargement was welcomed by ex-Soviet republics and not the result of military occupation and annexation by NATO, you know. — neomac

Your history is very confused.

That's simply not the case. That wasn't the US's or NATO's position in 2008. I asked what was the Russian threat in 2008 -- because it was in April of 2008 that the Bucharest summit declared that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted to NATO. Claiming the war in Georgia was a threat, and thus a reason for membership of NATO, is anachronistic. The war in Georgia did not break out until August of 2008. So that claim is nonsense.

The actions in Chechnya was the threat? Problems there had been occurring for years, internal to Russia. There was also no mention of that at the 2008 summit. It was not considered a threat, and it was not a reason for NATO admitting Ukraine or Georgia in April of 2008. It's worth remembering that Putin was invited (and attended) that summit. Strange to invite someone who was considered such a threat.

There was no Russian threat in 2008, which is when this all began, in April of that year in Bucharest. You've provided two examples of why. One was never mentioned by NATO -- or anyone else. The other is absurd, having happened after the summit.

So I ask again: What was the Russian threat in 2008 that began all of this?

Additionally your myopic demands for evidence fails to take into account the initial assumption of my geopolitical reasoning: “You candidly admit that Putin’s perception of the threat was honestly felt (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s not justified) , but that’s pointless to the extent that all geopolitical agents (not only Russia) as geopolitical agent reason strategically. And strategic reasoning comprises threat perception, signalling and management , so if one must acknowledge that Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified).”. So US/NATO felt Putin and the rising of Russian revanchism honestly threatening, even if, ex hypothesis, it wasn’t justified. Period. — neomac

Your "reasoning" is, and has now repeatedly been shown to be, very faulty indeed.

It's quite true that if the US/NATO felt that Russian revanchism was threatening, that this should be taken seriously as well -- even if we believe it unjustified. But that was not the case. Neither the US, nor NATO, believed this was true in 2008. That's why it was never stated. It's why Putin was invited to the summit. It's also why you can provide no evidence of it, despite being asked multiple times. So yes, my demands for evidence are quite singular -- because I'm interested in facts, not your rather confused reasoning.

If you have evidence that the US and NATO felt Russia was threatening in April of 2008, when they pushed for Ukrainian and Georgian membership, then provide it.

Or you could actually read the reasons given in the summit. It's online for free. In case you're unwilling to do so, I'll quote a part for you:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

-- From the NATO website.

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces. — Mikie

You are missing the fact that Biden froze the procurement of lethal weapons by the end of 2021 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/appeals-ukraine-biden-admin-holds-back-additional-military-aid-kyiv-di-rcna8421) which were a more serious threat for Putin’s war machine than military training, defensive weapons and NATO promises. — neomac

Sorry, but you simply declaring that one thing is more threatening than another is not interesting. Ask the Russians if they felt it was threatening. It is their opinion that matters, not yours. And they've been quite clear, for over decade.

This distinction between "lethal weapons" and "defensive weapons" is kind of ridiculous. Everything the US has ever done, accordion to them, is "defensive." When we invade Iraq, we're "defending" Iraq. So that's already a sign of repeating propaganda. But think about it for a minute: what do you think "defensive" weapons are? They're all completely non-lethal? So machine guns are for "defense," therefore they can't kill? Are the FGM-148 Javelins simply "defensive"? Because those have been supplied as well. They certainly seem lethal to me. They're called "anti-tank missiles."

Furthermore, "lethal weapons" had already been deployed in Ukraine prior to December. Russia troops had already begun mobilizing at this point as well.

And again: NATO/US military support to Ukraine was meant as a deterrent (however weak) — neomac

Again, more propaganda. Everything that NATO/US does is "defensive" and meant merely as "deterrents." Right. Unfortunately, the Russians see it quite differently. They view anti-tank missiles and military drills with NATO -- including Operation Sea Breeze -- as a threat.

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.
— Mikie

Again you are forgetting the issue of the lethal weapons. Not training, not NATO expansion, not defensive weapons, not the hawkish claims were the serious threat, otherwise Putin would have started his special operation much earlier. The serious military threat was the offensive weapon system provided to the Ukrainians against Putin’s expansionist ambitions. — neomac

See above. This "lethal weapons" and "defensive weapons" distinction is really absurd. It's also not your decision to decide what was and wasn't a "serious military threat." I suppose Sea Breeze wasn't a "serious military threat" to Russia, in your view? Nonsense.

But even if we take your premises seriously, what exactly are you referring to by the "offensive weapon system"? You understand that Russia had mobilized before Biden delayed the $200 million supply, right?

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”
— Mikie

Retreat from what? — neomac

From NATO expansion.

Did Putin have evidence that Ukraine or NATO wanted to invade Russia? Or are we always talking about perceived strategic threats? — neomac

Suddenly evidence is important, and not "myopic"? Interesting.

Putin didn't have evidence, because that's not what Putin was claiming. Putin never claimed NATO wanted to "invade" Russia. Your failure to even minimally understand Russia's position here is telling.

You keep presenting facts according to the Russian perspective but you didn’t explain yet why the West should act according to Putin’s way of framing the issue and related demands (NATO membership, no military training, no weapons for Ukraine) while letting Ukraine fall prey to Russia. How is that right? — neomac

I've not once suggested that we let Ukraine "fall prey to Russia." I support US helping Ukrainians defend their country.

If Russia did something wrong in invading Ukraine according to your moral compass, what do you think it’s sensible to do about it? — neomac

Encourage and facilitate peace negotiations. The most immediate action would be a ceasefire.

So here we stand:
You are blaming also US/NATO for this war in Ukraine
You do not ground your judgement based on geopolitical strategic concerns, only on your cute moral compass (honesty, impartiality, peace&lovefulness) — neomac

Maybe you're just incapable of having a rational discussion. But I'll repeat, yet again:

No, I'm not blaming the US and NATO for the war. The US and NATO were primarily responsible for escalating the war. That's a crucial difference. The blame for invasion is Putin's.

The second accusation is just pure irrationality, given that it was YOU who mentioned "preference," not me. As demonstrated above.

I never once mentioned "honesty, impartiality", or "lovefulness."

I have indeed mentioned peace. For good reason.

That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.
— Mikie

I’m responding only for my arguments. If you want to talk about “imperialism”, you better clarify what you mean by it in a way that is clear what you would take as an evidence for the concept to apply, because otherwise we are just quibbling over a terminological issue. See here: “Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas,[2][3] often through employing hard power (economic and military power), but also soft power (cultural and diplomatic power).” — neomac

It would help if you quoted the entirety of my response:

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

There is no evidence that the was an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. The answer given is about Crimea as evidence. This has been addressed before as well.

I will just quote Mearsheimer, an expert on these matters, who puts it more succinctly than I could:

The Conventional Wisdom

It is widely and firmly believed in the West that Putin is solely responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis and certainly the ongoing war. He is said to have imperial ambitions, which is to say he is bent on conquering Ukraine and other countries as well—all for the purpose of creating a greater Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first target, but not his last. As one scholar put it, he is “acting on a sinister, long-held goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given Putin’s purported goals, it makes perfect sense for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and for the alliance to increase its force levels in eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.

While this narrative is repeated over and over in the mainstream media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

In fact, there is significant evidence that Putin recognized Ukraine as an independent country. In his July 12, 2021, article about Russian-Ukrainian relations, which proponents of the conventional wisdom often point to as evidence of his imperial ambitions, he tells the Ukrainian people, “You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome!” Regarding how Russia should treat Ukraine, he writes, “There is only one answer: with respect.” He concludes that lengthy article with the following words: “And what Ukraine will be—it is up to its citizens to decide.” It is hard to reconcile these statements with the claim that he wants to incorporate Ukraine within a greater Russia.

In that same July 12, 2021, article and again in an important speech he gave on February 21st of this year, Putin emphasized that Russia accepts “the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR.” He reiterated that same point for a third time on February 24th, when he announced that Russia would invade Ukraine. In particular, he declared that “It is not our plan to occupy Ukrainian territory” and made it clear that he respected Ukrainian sovereignty, but only up to a point: “Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.” In essence, Putin was not interested in making Ukraine a part of Russia; he was interested in making sure it did not become a “springboard“ for Western aggression against Russia, a subject I will say more about shortly.

One might argue that Putin was lying about his motives, that he was attempting to disguise his imperial ambitions. As it turns out, I have written a book about lying in international politics—Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics—and it is clear to me that Putin was not lying. For starters, one of my principal findings is that leaders do not lie much to each other; they lie more often to their own publics. Regarding Putin, whatever one thinks of him, he does not have a history of lying to other leaders. Although some assert that he frequently lies and cannot be trusted, there is little evidence of him lying to foreign audiences. Moreover, he has publicly spelled out his thinking about Ukraine on numerous occasions over the past two years and he has consistently emphasized that his principal concern is Ukraine’s relations with the West, especially NATO. He has never once hinted that he wants to make Ukraine part of Russia. If this behavior is all part of a giant deception campaign, it would be without precedent in recorded history.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not bent on conquering and absorbing Ukraine is the military strategy Moscow has employed from the start of the campaign. The Russian military did not attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. That would have required a classic blitzkrieg strategy that aimed at quickly overrunning all of Ukraine with armored forces supported by tactical airpower. That strategy was not feasible, however, because there were only 190,000 soldiers in Russia’s invading army, which is far too small a force to vanquish and occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population over 40 million. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy, which focused on either capturing or threatening Kiev and conquering a large swath of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the capability to subdue all of Ukraine, much less conquer other countries in eastern Europe.

As Ramzy Mardini observed, another telling indicator of Putin’s limited aims is that there is no evidence Russia was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, cultivating pro-Russian leaders in Kyiv, or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country and eventually integrate it into Russia.

To take this argument a step further, Putin and other Russian leaders surely understand from the Cold War that occupying counties in the age of nationalism is invariably a prescription for never-ending trouble. The Soviet experience in Afghanistan is a glaring example of this phenomenon, but more relevant for the issue at hand is Moscow’s relations with its allies in eastern Europe. The Soviet Union maintained a huge military presence in that region and was involved in the politics of almost every country located there. Those allies, however, were a frequent thorn in Moscow’s side. The Soviet Union put down a major insurrection in East Germany in 1953, and then invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to keep them in line. There was serious trouble in Poland in 1956, 1970, and again in 1980-1981. Although Polish authorities dealt with these events, they served as a reminder that intervention might be necessary. Albania, Romania, and Yugoslavia routinely caused Moscow trouble, but Soviet leaders tended to tolerate their misbehavior, because their location made them less important for deterring NATO.

Right. The aid to the Ukrainians makes the providers proxied elements. Though, I don't think the instigator meant to (ultimately) attack them instead (in this war anyway). Or maybe someone disagrees with this? — jorndoe

I really don't know what the second sentence means. Who is the "instigator," and who does "them" refer to?

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.
— Mikie

Note that in this scenario, the US would annex large parts of Canada, just as Putin is doing in Ukraine. Therefore, it would be a land grab, a manifestation of imperialism — Olivier5

And I suppose this reaction to China's involvement -- as inexcusable as it would be -- would somehow prove that the US had "imperial ambitions" there all along, despite there being no evidence of it prior to China's actions? Nonsense.

There's no evidence of US "imperialist ambitions" in Canada today. I don't think that's controversial.

If, hypothetically, starting in 2025, China were on the doorstep, supplying weapons, training thousands of troops, and continually pushing for Canadian membership in a "defensive alliance," despite years of US warnings about this being a "red line," and then a reaction occurred in 2031 where the US annexed parts of Canada -- I suppose this would somehow make the claims true today? Of course not.

Likewise, there were no claims of Russian "imperial ambitions" prior to 2014. After that, it of course became the official reason. With no mention of the prior six years' warnings from Russia, which were recognized even within the US:

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, but was the US ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Bucharest summit, wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that succinctly describes Russian thinking about this matter. In his words: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze…It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

After the 2008 summit, Putin (reportedly enraged) had stated:

“if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.”

So yes, we can engage in revisionism if we'd like, and make up a story about how Putin was planning all along to take over the former territory of the Soviet Union, but almost no one was claiming that prior to 2014, which was as unsurprising an event as the US annexing parts of Canada in the above scenario. The difference: the US wouldn't wait six years to do so.

Your endless NATO caca arguments fail to account for the annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson. This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative... — Olivier5

On the contrary, I've repeatedly addressed them. I've now done so again, above. What you are ignoring/dismissing, conveniently, is what led to the takeover of Crimea. It wasn't imperialist ambitions.

True, we can believe Putin -- out of sheer caprice -- suddenly developed an urge to take Crimea, and make other projections on what the "real motives" were by speculating about the inner workings of his soul; or we can look at the facts: the actions and statements leading up to the event.

Starbucks Showdown in Boston Points to New Phase of Union Campaign

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/24/business/economy/starbucks-union-campaign.html

We better hope they succeed.

I didn’t mean that you were blaming this war only on US/NATO. — neomac

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?
— Mikie

“Taking seriously” implies different things for different geopolitical actors depending on their strategy — neomac

Russian concerns about NATO enlargement have been taken seriously. That was your assertion, as seen above.

Therefore, this statement:

for Russia it meant that the West should provide security assurance and of course “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” are the opposite of security assurance for Putin. — neomac

Is meaningless. Russia was taking Russian concerns seriously, yes — that’s obvious.

For East-European countries (including Ukraine) it meant “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” because they needed security assurance from the US against the Russian revanchist threat! — neomac

So pushing for NATO membership by East European countries is an example of taking Russian concerns about NATO enlargement seriously?

“We take your concerns seriously by doing exactly what you’re concerned about.”

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. You’re meandering into incoherence.

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above.

What I find particularly misleading in your claim is your “acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative” because the understatement is that since allies and some experts were against threatening and provoking Russia by “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” then those moves were illegitimate. But that’s a biased view precisely because one could still claim that other allies, other experts and other pentagon representatives were “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” with the intent not to provoke but to deter Russia! — neomac

What was acknowledged was that Russia considered this a threat. I said nothing about legitimacy — we can argue that. Many of these experts may even argue it themselves — for example, that NATO membership and providing weapons is indeed a threat to Russia, but that it’s worth doing anyway. That does in fact seem to be the case for many officials: "We don't care if you feel threatened, no one tells us what to do or who can join our alliance."

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.

"I take your concerns about poking this bear seriously, but I'm going to continue poking the bear." Is this an argument?

That’s why it’s a hopeless exercise to take any side to admit having been the first one to start the escalation. — neomac

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly?

Attempting to reduce all of this to “both sides have an opinion, so there’s really no way to tell” is a cop-out and is quite convenient, as it relieves you of having to learn about it.

If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes. — neomac

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.

I find the reference to “President’s ‘real’ motive” highly misleading — neomac

So do I. I think to make claims about imperialism as the “real motive” without evidence, instead of looking at actions and statements, is very misleading indeed.

That’s why I keep an eye on what is done, not only on what is said — neomac

Sure — and escalating military training and weapons, turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, and doubling down on official NATO membership speaks volumes.

Therefore no, Biden administration’s real intentions do not necessarily match with their declared intentions. — neomac

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces. Did Operation Sea Breeze not match the declared intentions?

We're all against Putin, but there's no sense in ignoring facts in favor of a contrived, unsupported media narrative.

Given Obama’s soft approach, Trump’s complicity, Biden administration’s hesitation — neomac

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.

So finally the US/NATO king was naked, powerless! — neomac

Except that this is the exact opposite of the truth -- and Russia knew it. NATO's involvement was getting more and more serious, which is why they wrote letters to both NATO and the US demanding "1) Ukraine would not join NATO, 2) no offensive weapons would be stationed near Russia’s borders, and 3) NATO troops and equipment moved into eastern Europe since 1997 would be moved back to western Europe." This was in December of 2021. Blinken's response: "There is no change, there will be no change."

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”

Based on the statements and actions by the US and NATO, it's quite clear they weren't "naked and powerless," nor did Russia see it that way.

So this is another baseless assertion.

When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and moulded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist — surely any serious Marxist — should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

Figured it be refreshing to post something from someone who knows what their talking about.

It was argued earlier in the thread that the US and the UK should stay out of such efforts. (You?) — jorndoe

That was suggested by Olivier, and I stated that it may very well be correct.

Maybe talks could be held under the auspices of the EU? — jorndoe

Whatever works. Negotiations should be supported as strongly as we’re supporting Ukraine with weapons and training.

The last thing I would want is to be taken seriously by people who take seriously a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary?
— ssu

It was legit I think, — Olivier5

:chin:

You are convinced that the issue is whether or not Putin is lying b/c probably your line of reasoning looks something like this: since Putin honestly believed and repeatedly declared that US/NATO expansion was a threat (no matter if it really was) and US/NATO kept provoking Russia, then the US/NATO should be blamed for the beginning of this war. — neomac

No. I never said the US or NATO should be blamed for the war. Putin is to blame for the war. Why? Because it was his decision to invade Ukraine. I think it’s on par with the US invasion of Iraq.

And since the US/NATO is to be blamed for the beginning of the war, then it has to both take the negotiation initiative and make all the necessary concessions to restore Putin’s sense of security. — neomac

No.

I appreciate the attempt to reflect what I’ve said, but you’ve now made it clear you don’t understand my position. That itself is interesting, because I feel I’ve been quite clear. Nevertheless:

* I’m not blaming the US or NATO.
* I’m not saying the US needs to be the one to initiate negotiations and make concessions.
* I’m not making excuses for Russia.

By all means attack what I’m arguing. But make sure it indeed is what I’m arguing.

Now in geopolitics the endgame is neither peace nor war, it’s power — neomac

I never said otherwise.

Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified). — neomac

Of course.

suggesting the idea that US/NATO didn’t take him seriously — neomac

I’m wrong to suggest this because:

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.

If US/NATO were warned for such a long time and Putin felt repeatedly provoked by US/NATO meddling in Ukraine, why did he wait so long to wage war against Ukraine? Or why didn’t he wait longer? — neomac

I wouldn’t have predicted an exact date, of course, but things had escalated in 2021 after Biden took over. The Biden administration made it quite clear what its intentions were. So from the statements by NATO in June of 2021, to the joint statement by the White House on September 1st, to statements made by Blinken in December ‘21 and January ‘22 — yes, there was a shift. It wasn’t out of the blue.

There are many other factors involved in the decision for the exact timing I’m sure.

So don’t waste your time convincing me that I’m a dumb partisan — neomac

I don’t recall doing so.

I understand it’s tiresome if you’ve been through this with several other people on this thread. But if you’re not interested in discussion — again, I repeat: don’t bother with me.

If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them. — Tzeentch

Yes.

excuses — Olivier5

Not excuses.

If someone breaks into your house and destroys all the furniture and shoots anybody who resists, what is the point of wondering if they meant to wreak complete destruction or were only hoping to get a snack? — Paine

Only that it's important to understand why something is happening. I was hoping not to get into history, but it was raised and so I continued with it. Before that we were discussing possible solutions/negotiations. But it's all relevant.

So the political attitude I find more rational is trying to understand better what can be done by the government, and then push for my demands. — neomac

That's my interest as well.

No I don’t claim that Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training. I just claim that if Putin wanted to annex Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine, he would have done this with whatever pretext. — neomac

OK, fine. So you don't believe Putin. Understood. I don't blame anyone for that. I don't blame anyone for not believing American presidents when they say things either. I think we should be very skeptical.

The issue is whether or not it's true, and to weigh alternative explanations against the evidence. I've done so, and I'm of the opinion that Putin wasn't lying about Russia believing NATO involvement in Ukraine was a threat. Please note -- and this is very important -- that this doesn't mean it actually WAS a threat -- simply that he actually believed it. After saying so consistently for 14 years -- reiterated by others in the Russian government, by experts, by foreign leaders (including Angela Merkel), we should at least consider the possibility that he really believed it.

I believe Bin Laden truly believed what he was saying too, for that matter, about the US's support for Israel. Quite apart from (1) whether or not I agree with it, and (2) whether it justifies the actions.

I think this is the major difference between you and I. I see no evidence to support the assertions that Putin is trying to "make Russia great again," as someone had put it before, by conquering Ukraine and thus re-claiming what was lost after 1990. That's not the craziest explanation in the world, but in terms of evidence it's close to being on par with "They attacked us because they hate our freedom," and similar stories which could very well be true until you look at all the facts.

Better to go with Occam's razor here. And frankly, the US has been meddling in world affairs for eons. It should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that it had a hand in this. There's also the strong possibility that our biases blind us. We all see this a lot in politics -- when I criticize Biden, I'm accused of supporting Trump. Or else that I'm giving cover to Trump supporters, etc. That is just as silly as saying I'm giving cover to Putin.

So the implicit win-win bargain for European countries to the US was roughly something like: you give me security and I’ll give you an integrated/peaceful market for your products and technology. — neomac

Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc. Sure. I don't doubt that they had their own reasons for joining. I'm in favor of people of any country making their own choices. But do you see how that's missing the point?

Yet that remains but a fraction of the story, one that also tends to lose sight of the victims on the ground and their assailants, and instead play right into the assailant's game. — jorndoe

This seems to be echoed by others. It's not unreasonable. But I don't see Manuel, or Isaak, or Tzeentch, or anyone else arguing in favor of Putin -- and besides, I think we're quite safe here talking about it. Putin's not listening to me.

Do you think that there was anything that could've been done diplomatically during the immediate moments leading up to the war to prevent it or do you think that Putin had already made up his mind at that point? — Mr Bee

A good question. I don't know, of course. If there were guarantees that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO, that the US (and others) would stop supplying them weapons and training, etc., I don't think there'd be any point whatsoever with invading. But of course that wasn't the situation. The US had made it clear that nothing was going to change regarding its stance on Ukraine. Blinken had said exactly that a few weeks before February 24th.

The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.
— Mikie

It is not just completely wrong, simplistic to the extreme, logically absurd and paranoid — Olivier5

What are you referring to, exactly? Is the 2008 summit "logically absurd"? Did that not happen? Did Blinken not say "nothing would change"? Did NATO not reiterate its 2008 stance in 2021? Did the White House not explicitly double down in its joint statement on September 1st? Had Putin not consistently stated that he viewed NATO expansion in Ukraine -- not to mention weapons and training -- to be a threat to Russia? (For 14 years, in fact.)

None of that is logically absurd, or paranoid, or wrong. It's just the facts. I can go through it again if you'd like.

Your feelings about Putin's "true motives" have been addressed as well. The weakness of evidence and, frankly, paranoia, lies in claims of Putin as imperialist. I've yet been shown evidence of this. I've been given a Time article and some statements made about Ukrainian history by Putin. The rest is completely unsupported speculation, repeated over and over again to the point of "common sense" by the media. But it's extremely weak. I'm open to hearing more, however.

It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective. — Mearsheimer

akin to finding excuses to a criminal while he is still committing his crime. — Olivier5

This is simply your projection. It has nothing to do with me. I have not once excused or defended Putin. I never once excused or defended Bin Laden either, incidentally. What I try to do is understand why these actions are taking place. The hope is that it has some relevance for bringing the conflict to an end, particularly in one's own country -- in my case, the US.

Sometimes the reasons stated by leaders are obvious lies, sometimes they aren't. When they aren't, as in the case with Bin Laden, it still does not justify the actions.

Was China's show of force in Taiwan after Pelosi's visit excusable? I don't think so. But I don't see any reason to make up a story that it somehow wasn't her visit that triggered it simply because it would possibly give the appearance of blaming the United States (god forbid).

A closer metaphor would be: "I robbed the bank because they were considering getting better protection against robbery, so I had to rob it before they could get that in place". — Olivier5

Better protection from what? What was the threat of "robbery" in 2008?

"I poked the bear because the bear is vicious."
"How do you know the bear was vicious?"
"Because it attacked me after I poked it."

So much for "logically absurd."

Can you see now how absurd the NATO caca argument is? Or at least, can you understand that it looks absurd to me, from my perspective? — Olivier5

Yes, it is absurd if we've gotten it into our heads that Putin had (and has) "imperial ambitions." But there's no evidence -- or very flimsy evidence -- to support this. This is the point.