FAUX News is a lie machine, a dumbing-down machine. Watching them will make you stupid. — Olivier5

Before I got made stupid by Fox news, I developed a strategy for dealing with the news. I watch and read them all, CNN, FOX, RT, Sputnik and try to build a picture of what is actually happening. When they all agree on something, it is like a 3D image of the truth.

For example Sputnik:

Is the Russian Military Operation in Quagmire or Going According to Plan? — Sputnik

What is the end effect going to be on the Russian economy of almost all Western companies either pulling out of Russia or refusing to do business in Russia?
As many of our listeners are aware, our sister outlet, RT, was shut down permanently last week. This was largely a result of both domestic and international governmental pressure. RT also shut down in every European Union country, and lost its license in the UK. Here in the US, Congress was looking at ways to cut off Russian news, and was exploring a shutdown of RT and Sputnik. — Sputnik

Not very propaganda like for the man on the street is it? Is this sort of think 'critical of the government?' I would this sort of negative, demoralizing stuff would have got them all in prison not so long ago.

This is what the average Russian person must know: the war goes on, objectives have not been met, heavy sanctions have hit Russia and these things cannot be censored.

Wow. The Economic(s) reasons for war. "A heart-rending but necessary war" sounds as morally empty as it sounds macabre.

I think "Social media companies have removed pro-Russian accounts which they claim are fake" is about the surest ground we have on that particular story.

Thank you for linking the Greenwald article.
— FreeEmotion — Isaac

So it seems we agree. About the Greenwald article, however, I noticed some of the images : Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones and the other guy I don't recognize are pictured in Rolling Stone magazine as "These are the guys covering for Putin...".

I lived in the U.S for several years in the 1980s and one thing that impressed me was the idea that everyone had a right to speak their mind 'free speech', including flag burning, American flag burning , Neo-Nazis parading in the streets and so on. All defensible under 'I may not like your opinion but I will defend your right to express it'

Isn't the Rolling Stone treatment about demonizing people they disagree with instead of debating their opinion? It seems that they are unclear on the concept. To quote Greenwald:

Everyone watching this week-long mauling of dissenters understood the messaging and incentives: either get on board or stay silent lest you be similarly vilified. And that, in turn, meant there were fewer and fewer people willing to publicly question prevailing narratives, which made it in turn far more difficult for anyone else to separate themselves from unified group-think. — Greenwald

At least they are not arresting people, only publishing arresting headlines.

Essentially, as best I can see the narrative in the chatter: — Count Timothy von Icarus

For the record, I do not believe any of that. That is called the fringe isnt' it?

↪FreeEmotion

I agree with ↪Olivier5 here. You do need to track your sources back a little further

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083401220/facebook-uncovers-disinformation-and-hacking-campaigns-targeting-ukraine?t=1646811637713

Unless we're going to start speculating about deep conspiracies, those accounts were fakes and so deserved to be taken down. There's enough real information. We don't need to fake it.

You could, for example, try this, from an award-winning investigative journalist

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/war-propaganda-about-ukraine-becoming?s=r — Isaac

I have viewed the web page in the link:

Facebook, YouTube and Twitter remove disinformation targeting Ukraine

I did not have access to the above write up at the time. The article definitely gives a different view of events than Tucker Carlson does. I have encountered falsity statements from opinion pieces on YouTube before, and have detected them.

Twitter has censored stuff before, so I think its credibility is in question. OK, so Twitter says they removed fake accounts which were spreading lies. Of course it is up to me to believe Twitter or not. In any case Twitter have to make a subjective judgement as to what is acceptable or not, what is true or false. That is understood, but I have that right as well.

It still does raise the question in my mind who is telling the truth. If always trusting Facebook, Twitter and You Tube's account of events is a requirement for discussion, then maybe that needs to be stated.

I do not trust any news site full, comparing them does yield a better view. None of us here believe everything we hear, we all believe different sources, that's the way it is.

Thank you for linking the Greenwald article. It is called jumping on the bandwagon. For political reasons.

How do you continue to fight when you are defeated? Ukraine isn't defeated yet. — Christoffer

Then you will have to define 'defeated'.

You mean FOX news? I provided a link to a show on an American cable news channel, FOX news, and I am sorry if it offended anybody. It is supposed to be very popular in the United States. Let's see if it going to be banned like RT and Sputnik.

For the record:

Fox News controversies have included, among others, practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes,[19][20][21] while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. — Wikipedia, Fox News

Fox News controversies have included, among others, practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes,[19][20][21] while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. — Wikipedia

Tucker Carlson on FOX News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PC7DzTRS7A

Partial Transcript:

18:06
INSTEAD, TWITTER AND FACEBOOK
18:08
PROUDLY CENSOR ANY INFORMATION
18:10
THAT MIGHT "UNDERMINE TRUST IN
18:12
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT."
18:13
REALLY?
18:14
SINCE WHEN ARE REQUIRED TO TRUST
18:17
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OR ANY
18:19
GOVERNMENT?
18:20
DON’T ASK.
18:20
BY THE WAY, OVER THE WEEKEND,
18:21
BECAUSE EVERY THING IN AMERICA
18:24
IS UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS,
18:26
"NEW YORK TIMES" ATTACKED
18:28
VLADIMIR PUTIN FOR CENSORSHIP.
18:29
TRY TO CONTROL WHAT IS PEOPLE
18:33
CAN READ.

Every government will try to protect itself through being selective with the facts, or pushing of certain views. As far as I am concerned the above article is part of the United States propaganda department.

Quote:

These concepts speak to Russia’s strategic formulation that it is in a state of perpetual conflict with its perceived adversaries. — U.S. Department of State

"perceived adversaries"

Doesn't explain the protests. Were they misinformed?

Analysis of what? I asked if you were willing to accept that an authoritarian regime took over your nation and you accepting that without a fight. — Christoffer

I am curious as to how you view the Battle of France.

The sixty remaining French divisions and the two British divisions in France made a determined stand on the Somme and Aisne but were defeated by the German combination of air superiority and armoured mobility. German armies outflanked the intact Maginot Line and pushed deep into France, occupying Paris unopposed on 14 June. After the flight of the French government and the collapse of the French Army, German commanders met with French officials on 18 June to negotiate an end to hostilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France — Wikipedia

It's not about whether they're forced. It's against international law to have combatants who are not clearly uniformed or otherwise identifiable as military targets — Isaac

The law exists for a purpose. When civilians start shooting, all civilians become suspect. In this case their lives become much more dangerous, let's say. It has happened before.

Yep. So many ways this could have been avoided, all the way from Russian appeasement one one side of the spectrum to bulwarking Ukraine on the other. It's hard to see anything other than malfeasance. Even with gross incompetence you'd expect some of their actions to have gone in Ukraine's favour. — Isaac

Yes it is puzzling like an accident waiting to happen and someone waiting for that accident to happen.
I hope it ends soon.

Looking at ways to stop this terrible war. Could it have been prevented?

If Putin is all-powerful, unstoppable, there is no way to stop him. If he is stoppable why not stop him?

Maybe they don't want him stopped?

TIME (The magazine, not TIME itself) put out some helpful suggestions on how to stop the war back in January 2022. If it could have been stopped, why was it not stopped? There has to be an answer.

However, there is a way to stop Putin’s Ukrainian adventure that has nothing to do with military intervention. That is to go after his money. — TIME

As we look at the menu of policy options being discussed by the Biden Administration in response to Putin’s manufactured Ukraine crisis, many are either too indirect or too harsh. Some, such as broad sanctions, would result in a lot of unnecessary hardships for ordinary Russians, who are victimized by Putin as much anyone else. — TIME

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Are these people serious?

We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments … For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation … (Putin Speech Feb. 24 2022).

Thanks for the quote. So Putin actually said it. This is what he thinks, and I agree with him. The rhetoric of NATO countries is not about the common good.

NATO is a defensive alliance, yes sure, the way nuclear weapons are a defensive measure. What strikes me about the NATO agreement is that it renders in effect, Russia's nuclear weapons and all their military might ineffective. If saboteurs render a nations nuclear weapons ineffective, would that not be an act of war? I am asking, but I think it would be pretty serious.

A Russian soldier walks into war zone with a weapon. 12 people come out of their houses and point their weapons at him, threatening to shoot if the soldier fires at any of them. Is this defensive?

She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times!
— Benkei

Always good to know as a parent that you can't have gone too far wrong when they come out with stuff like that. — Isaac

It reminds me of another lyric, and I can't help thinking of the innocent child who becomes a cold hearted imperialist.

Child is born with a heart of gold
The way of the world makes his heart so cold — Earth, Wind and Fire

It's pretty clear what the Russians believed going into Ukraine. It wasn't some neo-nazi groups, there weren't some "small groups of nazis somewhere", it was blatant propaganda of painting the entire nation as a Nazi regime, with the top leaders and Zelinskyy as being Nazis and them conducting genocide on the civilian population. — Christoffer

My point is simply that a population, Russian or otherwise, do not believe their government en masse. This could even be a form of rebellion, or protest. Skepticism is an international thing. However, if sufficient numbers of people believe it, it could make a difference, for example, to get one additional vote. The benefit of the doubt is given and it tips the scales.

Do we understand each other here? I think we do.

I am not too worried about the existence of Neo- Nazis or racists, but the integrity and wisdom of politicians to handle them correctly.

This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal?
— boethius

No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer

Are you saying that reports of Nazification on Ukraine have been greatly exaggerated? I agree with you there. There are some extreme right wing parties in Ukraine, I am sure, but their numbers and influence are not known. Nazi is the wrong word, I guess because it has nothing to do with anti-antisemitism. It may have to do with ethnic cleansing, which seems to be supported by limiting the number of Russian language books one can bring to Ukraine and the fact of a military conflict with the eastern, Russian speaking (correct me if I am wrong) 11% minority.

He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. — ssu

I agree he is not a mad tyrant. His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want.

If I was aware of the consequences of invading Ukraine, then at least he must have the same information and more. Is there any secret negotiation process going on? Like missiles in Turkey during the Cuban crisis.

☐ Prominent Russians join protests against Ukraine war amid 1,800 arrests (Feb 25, 2022)
☐ A few members of the Russian Parliament speak out against the war. (Feb 28, 2022)
☐ Ukraine: Russian opposition to the invasion is giving Putin cause for alarm (Mar 4, 2022)

☐ More than 4,300 people arrested at anti-war protests across Russia (Mar 6, 2022)

Individuals crossed off the list:

☑ Alexander Litvinenko (Nov 23, 2006), and then more testing was implemented at airports
☑ Here’s a list of Putin critics who've ended up dead (Mar 11, 2016)

Some crossed off the list a while back:

☑ Putin pulls plug on last critical TV channel (Jun 23, 2003)
☑ Russia's Last Independent TV Station Broadcasts 'Swan Lake' in Nod to History Before Going Dark (Mar 4, 2022) — jorndoe

Protests are good. That means democracy (or whatever they have over there in Russia) is alive if not unwell. I fully support protests. Anti-war protests, anti "Justified War" protests. I also oppose violence which will again bring up the question of justification. Not sure why people are arrested - does it mean that protests are effective? This is also good. They arrest protesters in the U.S.A. as well, unless of course the protesters pose no threat and are wasting their time. Maybe Putin will stop the war.

Alexander Litvinenko.

Who was he?

Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko[a] (30 August 1962[2] or 4 December 1962[3] – 23 November 2006) was a British-naturalised Russian defector and former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) who specialised in tackling organized crime.

In November 1998, Litvinenko and several other FSB officers publicly accused their superiors of ordering the assassination of the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Litvinenko was arrested the following March on charges of exceeding the authority of his position. He was acquitted in November 1999 but re-arrested before the charges were again dismissed in 2000. He fled with his family to London and was granted asylum in the United Kingdom, where he worked as a journalist, writer and consultant for the British intelligence services. — Wikipedia

So he was a consultant for the British intelligence services. Whom did this episode benefit?
The first act listed was gross insubordination (unless pro-Western actions have a special exclusion) and the second action - switching sides - you tell me what that means in terms of morality.

As for the list

"]The Washington DC medical examiner's office has just confirmed that former Russian press minister Mikhail Lesin died of "blunt force trauma to the head."
Lesin, who founded the English-language television network Russia Today (RT) was found dead in a Washington, DC, hotel room in November 2015. — Business Insider

The Daily Beast reports that before his death, Lesin was considering making a deal with the FBI to protect himself from corruption charges — Wikipedia

.

Making a deal with the FBI indeed. Did that deal go wrong? Who knows?

Former Russian Press Minister and founder of RT. When RT is banned as Russia's propaganda arm, or Putin's propaganda channel, the founder of RT is somehow an enemy of Putin. How did it come about? Did he change sides like Litvinenko? Or was someone upset with RT? I know they are now.

I am not impressed with any arguments justifying murder. Killing people is a crime. That said, giving a list of dead people who were once or forever part of the Russian power apparatus as 'people suspected of' how does the URL put it "list-of-people-putin-is-suspected-of-assassinating-2016-3" smacks of propaganda.

So a list of people shot dead, killed by contract killers, is listed as Putin's work. It really practices the 'innocent until proved guilty' concept. If solving crimes is so easy, for journalists to find the killers of innocent people: politicians, activists, former Russian officials, then maybe they should head the KGB.

Obviously, this is not the case, there must be other suspects. How about over-zealous Putin supporters? How about people in the government who considered them traitors? That has never occurred to these people. Have some imagination.

In my opinion, as an uninformed man on the street, the death of these enemies of Putin causes much more doubt about Putin's character than whatever they would have said and done if they were alive. Which leads me to suspect, since suspicion is free from reason, that these people were matryed to embarrass Putin and attempt to destroy him. Good strategy, except that it is murder.

I am all for propaganda, especially unsophisticated propaganda which reveals which side they are on. I know RT and Sputnik always have a pro-Putin stance, except for those things which can be fact checked. With other news channels, mixing the truth with propaganda makes for muddy waters: there are no two sides to the story because stories are simply swept under the carpet.

The word Justification is used a lot.

Here is the definition:

Definition of justification


1

a: the act or an instance of justifying something : VINDICATION
arguments offered in justification of their choice

b: an acceptable reason for doing something : something that justifies an act or way of behaving
could provide no justification for his decision — Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Are we talking about 1 (a) or (b) ? Acceptable in terms of, for example, the UN Charter?

Bear in mind this is a Mercator projection. — Changeling

Good point.

The use of information in war. Or mis-information. What is the actual size of Russia, Ukraine, China and the United States? This never makes it to any of the news channels and expert heads?

Let's see. Take a moment to confirm these sizes: the Mercator projection served well in brainwashing the public (washing is supposed to make things cleaner by the way):

Ukraine is bigger than what is shown on the standard map of the world (Mercator projection)
USA is more than half the size of Russia
China is one and a half times the size of the USA.

Check for yourself: https://thetruesize.com

News from Sputnik (Official Russian Propaganda Channel )

Sputnik Exclusive: DPR Leader Says Situation in Donbass Comparable to NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia

LIVE UPDATES: Over 163,000 People Evacuated From Areas of Russia's Spec Op in Ukraine

and RT (Official Russian Propaganda Channel)

US drafts plan for government-in-exile, guerrilla war in Ukraine – reports

How is this good news for Russians? They know the 'military operation' is ongoing, know that it has been going on for several days, and of course they now people are getting killed and injured on all sides.

Once you start restricting news, you lose credibility, no matter what country you are in. Maybe not in the West.

I could stop criticizing the Russian Military for a few days, no problem. I don't think I have done it here. The question is why the West has banned Russian channels, is it not prohibiting criticism of the military of the West? Or to be specific, Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson?

Perhaps he will take a more logical approach. He will focus on securing the gas fields in the east and a smaller area around his new "republics," declare victory, and end the war. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this is a real possibility. What surprises me is that the "Putin is mad" camp cannot talk about strategy. If Putin has made a strategic error, and is rational, then we have to talk about strategy. As an aside, if the Russian population supports Putin then it is indeed a Russian military operation.

Maybe form a buffer region to prevent shelling of the east? How did George W. Bush liberate Iraq, and more importantly, liberate the US from the Iraqi threat? By destroying the country. That's is a criminal option, but an option nevertheless.

Nazism may be alive and well, and I do not see anyone talking the effort to criminalize it, UN agreements notwithstanding. There may be wisdom in letting them show identify themselves instead of forcing them underground, I do not know.

Is any political party or stance prohibited by the UN Charter of Human Rights or is it part of this freedom of association thing, just asking. In either case it something that can be used against such groups.

Just found this.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." — George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'
And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." — CNN

A Personal Vendetta?

Some Americans have wondered whether the president's determination to take on Saddam is a personal obsession — one born in the aftermath of the Gulf War his father launched, when Saddam was left in power. — ABC news

There is an insightful article here on why people go to war. I am not agreeing with everything he says, but it does shed some light: is Russia's sacred value a strong and proud Russia, halfway to recovering its former states? Is NATO's sacred symbol the smashing of the Berlin wall? There is something here that borders on the religious. Is Putin trying to seek revenge in some way for the constant verbal attacks on Russia? Is there a revenge factor for the way Russia opposed certain actions in Syria? Did George W. Bush go to war out of a desire to 'get Saddam' after the Iraqi plot to assassinate his father?

“Sacred values are an important component of being a human in a community. Many of the individuals who are leaving the comforts of an American or European life to go and join a group like ISIS are seeking a communal identity that promises purpose and social meaning,” Lopez said. “These are very basic desires that we can understand and that help to explain radicalization.”

The psychological drive for revenge is another example of an ancestral human adaptation with an evolutionary impact, Lopez said. Research in neuroscience shows that the prospect of inflicting retaliatory punishment triggers pleasure centers in the brain.

Indeed, the desire for revenge has led to some of human history’s most infamous wars.

“Hitler’s rise to power is a well-known example of the ability of revenge to compel large-scale violence. And the very foundations of American identity have been shaped by its public reaction to various events, such as the surprise attack on Pearl harbor and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” Lopez said. — WSU political scientist Anthony Lopez

I would certainly agree Trump doesn't care much whether thugs supporting him are neo-Nazi's or just run-of-the-mill republicans, but it's a big stretch to say Trump is therefore a neo-Nazi or then neo-Nazi's had considerable influence in American governance. — boethius

I think this is true. President Trump was a little careless about who supported him, they turned out to be an embarrassment, in the end.

Yes. It's the only way to give Putin what they think he deserves. War against Russia, whether clandestine or overt, appears to be inevitable. — Metaphysician Undercover

War against Ukraine seemed inevitable for a long time, and yet Putin is blamed for that. So if anyone goes to war with Russia Putin is to blame for that also? It is a funny sense of logic that blames a country for going to war with another country, invading it, and then blaming that country when other countries go to war with it, invading it. If that is the argument, might as well state it.

Any country that uses nuclear arms first will lose its place in the world, and be isolated. I will not be dealing in any way with a country that carries out a first strike for any reason, and I have remained neutral so far: that is an indication of how the neutrals or so called Putin supporters will change their minds based on events.

The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? Of course that is not saying that is a reason for invasion, I do not have the intelligence to decide that, but it is a powerful undercurrent that has to be recognized.

The problem that I see, is that these sanctions are going to f### up MANY countries that have nothing to do with the war and are leaving less room for Russia to negotiate without them having to rely on nukes. That’s my worry. — Manuel

Ah yes, modern day war does that, unless you can insulate yourself against that, paper is a good insulator and paper money will do just fine. To them, it will be worth it.

It all reminds me of a short but pithy sentence lyric from the Eagles, in "The Last Resort" : a song that seemed anti-God but is actually anti-man.

“We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds in the name of destiny and in the name of God.” — Eagles

Logical fact is that Russia would be a dominant European player if 1) it wouldn't be hostile to it's neighbors and have imperialist aspirations and 2) had understood that it has to get it's economy competitive and better and that it's best resource is an well educated population. — ssu

Russia would be a dominant player in Europe if Washington thinks it should be a dominant player in Europe. NATO countries also have economic priorities also.

Same response as above..losing a potential trade partner is not a cause for military action (takeover of another country!). Misplaced blame. — schopenhauer1

So what is cause for military action in your book?

Correct. I for one am pretty sure that America and its British Poodle are planning a war against Russia, first by arming Ukraine and neighboring NATO countries and then manufacturing a pretext to intervene. — Apollodorus

At least one person agrees with me. Invasion is an awful thing, I wonder if there Russia is ever invaded whether the outcry will be the same because although they look the same, these civilians will be Russian.

This invasion is different, because with Iraq the world could imagine that it was 'us vs them' i.e. Saddam Hussein, but in this case, it is them invading 'us' , which feels different does it not. The country I am from never invaded anyone in the last 500 years, in fact we were colonized and nearly had an invasion in the 1980s.

That you attack some other country for hypothetical, possible attacks isn't legitimate. And when the neighbor has no intention to attack, no ability to pose a threat to you, then whose cause the war is should be obvious. — ssu

Curious how you view the nuclear first strike strategy. A possible attack, an ability to pose the threat, and intelligence reports that the other country is having an 'intention to attack' of course no one know intentions, just some missiles placed in Cuba pointing at the American heartland.

ran for president with massive media backing, and was elected president .... :grin: — Apollodorus

Was that democracy? I do not have the information to say one way or another. Was it a coup?
Can anyone explain his statements lately, attacking NATO (verbally, of course) for not doing more. Why was he having unrealistic explanations?

And where then do you yourself draw the line where countries "pose a threat" to Russia and are the ones where Russia is justified to use military force — ssu

Any rational being will draw the line when the advantages overweight the disadvantages. If they are wrong, that is, without full knowledge of the past or present, or are sticking to an outdated version of colonialism, then that is being irrational, but as the spokesperson for NATO said, we don't know what is in his head.

Above all, Russia has already demanded NATO forces to withdraw from all Eastern member countries and that the US and Western members cannot hold any exercises in Poland, Romania, the Baltic States etc. That is their demand. So that's were the appeasement policy and "understanding Russia's legitimate security needs" will go in the end.

Perhaps you just should demolish NATO, because Russia feels threatened about it. — ssu

Russia has the right to make any demands they see fit. That's sovereignty. There is a difference between appeasement: NATO -1, Russia +1 and peaceful status quo: NATO 0, Russia 0. This game seems to me at getting NATO + 1 , Russia 0. I have no interest in who wins, except that they do not start wars and put the rest of the world into turmoil.

Do you want a diminished Russia? If then say so. I do not want any country to be diminished.

Or think about it this way: if Russia would promise to withdraw from Ukraine, promise to give back the Donbass and Crimea and stick to the Budapest memorandum and only thing Ukraine had to do is promise that it never, never joins NATO and remains neutral, you think Zelenskyi wouldn't take that offer? I'm sure he would. I think that even NATO would go with that sighing a relief. Do you genuinely think that Putin would give that kind of proposal? Of course not!

To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous. — ssu

Again we are discussing rationality. After fighting for so many years, despite peace agreements, Russia or Putin sees the only way to end the war as invading and controlling Ukraine in some way. If it stops the war in the east, then that is a rational goal. He was fighting a proxy war. Rationality and morality are, on the first analysis, separate.

What is stupid is to go so far and then withdraw from Ukraine, that is not a sensible option, if fact, that would establish the madness of Vladimir Putin for me more than anything else.

Never join NATO? My test is this, any rational person would realize that NATO has no intention of a never joining - that option must be open. If Zelenski promises never to join NATO what is to say that at a later date someone installs a puppet government in Ukraine and gets them to apply for NATO membership then what? Can Zelenski promise that he will never have nuclear weapons? Can he promise for future generations, especially now, the rational thing would be to start a clandestine nuclear program and make sure Russia knows about it. I am sure the NATO would be willing. I believe Zelenskyi is bound to doing the bidding of his NATO masters at the moment, I feel sorry for him.

Assuming I know my own mind, I know that thinking (a) and (b) is not a result of my stupidity and certainly I do not take my facts from Vladimir Putin, but from all other sources to make my own picture of reality. So I have to disagree with the charge of stupidity.

Halting NATO expansion is not limited to Ukraine, however keeping NATO out of Ukraine or keeping Ukraine nuclear free (why is that suddenly a bad thing?) is a stated goal, and this has to do with future threats. Russian and Ukraine have been at war, so it follows that one poses a threat to the other.

Is there anyone out there whom is accepted all round as giving an objective analysis of the situation? Or is there none, in which case it is just us.

First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria. — ssu

Ok, I stand corrected.

Had the Gulf War not happened, it's likely that Saddam Hussein would have obtained a nuclear deterrence (even if the Israelis hit the Osirak reactor earlier). But the Gulf War, the later weapons inspections and Operation Desert Fox destroyed it — ssu

If the Gulf War had not happened]

it is likely the Israelis would have destroyed any chance of that, and also, why has Iran not developed nuclear weapons yet? Israel and the US has found a way to prevent that without going to war, so that is a moot point.

And thus the drumming for war, talks of the "Mushroom Cloud" after 2001 by Bush were propaganda concocted in the White House.[/quote

I will take your word for it, I am not sure of those facts, how much was concocted.
— ssu

Sorry, but I draw the line to justifiable defense to when a country is actually invaded. Not to attacking other countries because of vague hypotheticals. Pre-emption is still an attack, and then the war preparations ought to be evident to have any justifiable credibility (which is usually difficult). What kind of a threat Ukraine posed to the country with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal? Just answer that yourself. — ssu

This is where the fine distinction has to be made on two counts: firstly, I have no access to Russian intelligence. I am of the opinion that Putin has a valid point, if Ukraine joins NATO his hands are tied regarding Crimea. I do not know the extent of the threat. Ukraine poses a threat to Russia in many ways, because its alliance with the West will benefit them to the detriment of Russia. If you do not accept that I can do nothing about it. Ask any military strategist you know, anyone who knows about history what exactly Russia is concerned about.

What kind of threat does any country pose to the country with the second largest or third largest nuclear arsenal? That question does not make sense, you have to accept the corollary that only countries with nuclear weapons can pose a threat to countries with nuclear weapons.

If you accept that Russia has the right to attack Ukraine, then to be logical you should accept that then the US had the right to invade Iraq, because of the "potential", basically hypothetical threat that it posed. But that isn't even the real reason why Putin attacked Ukraine: he wants to control Ukraine and already has taken chunks of it. It's simply classic imperialism. — ssu

I accept that Russia may have had the right to attack Ukraine and US to invade Iraq based on the facts which I will never have access to, I will never have access to CIA or KGB high level information.

So what are these reasons a country invades another?

1. To preserve national security
2. To fulfill imperialist desires of the nation as a whole
3. To fulfill the wishes of its general populace

OR

3a. The wishes of the powerful ruling elites or military industrial complex

4. To fulfill the wishes of the president of that country.

Only (3) is somewhat testable. I remain agnostic in each case, Ukraine and Iraq, about the other factors that led to the invasion. My point is that, anyone in that position of highest authority in each nation will know what the reasons are, even if they do no admit it themselves, and only they can say for sure what is in their minds, in which case we can make judgement.

If we were able to medically examine Putin and find out if he is mad or delusional, that is welcome, however if we find he is not, there is a problem, because it means his acts are rational. Does it mean he is evil? Again, if you admit every imperialist including the British Empire or Alexander the Killer of Men, or Cortez the killer is evil, then I will agree with you. That is classic imperialism. Oh and don't forget American imperialism.

Trading partners Ukraine:

Russia $7.2B 37% 63%

Great visuals. God be with the people of Ukraine and Russia.

Furthermore, Ukraine is rich in natural resources, particularly in mineral deposits. It possesses the world’s largest reserves of commercial-grade iron ore—30 billion tonnes of ore or around one-fifth of the global total. It’s also worth noting that Ukraine ranks second in terms of known natural gas reserves in Europe, which today remain largely untapped. — Visuals

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-explainer-ukraine/

The same thing is happening in Ukraine. "The Russian advance has stalled"; "the Russians will soon control Black Sea ports and shipping"; "Ukrainian regular troops and volunteers are fighting very effectively"; "the Ukrainians are likely to win"; "the Ukrainians are likely to lose"; and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

It shows doesn't it, the sheer desperation and moral bankruptcy of the media enterprise, the shameless one sided approach. It is a good test of mental fortitude to watch all the news channels and see the masks come off one by one.

I only fear the day when occupation is performed behind the scenes, not through wars or fake journalism but in ways we cannot see.

Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue). — boethius

Looks like it.

Putin is against Ukraine joining NATO because he believes that Ukraine might use military forces against Russia to reclaim the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014, or to reclaim parts in eastern Ukraine that are controlled by Russian-backed separatists.

“Imagine that Ukraine becomes a NATO member and launches those military operations.” Should we fight NATO then? Has anyone thought about it?” Putin said during a press conference at the Kremlin with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. — One World News

Russia-Ukraine War: Who Will Get The Benefits From the Ongoing Crisis?
Rohit Upadhyay Rohit Upadhyay February 28, 2022

No, Mr. President, I confess I did not think of that. Looks like NATO and you have the strategy all figured out. And what about the people of Ukraine, pawns on the chessboard of battle? This thing is beginning to look like a proxy war.

Repeated post.