Reply to your post is inline, below: QUOTE="Master Pu, post: 5573463, member: 525310"]Ukraine together with NATO provoked Putin and now you are crying about the consequences? Please help refresh our memories of who ordered the use of a nerve agent and radiological poison against Great Britain residents, causing contamination, and putting British citizens at risk? Which world leader expanded their military influence into Syria, has successfully influenced elections in Africa, directly or indirectly used military power to take over or influence sovereign lands of Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, North Caucasus, Ukraine-Crimea, Syria, Central African Republic, and Current action in Ukraine? Russia is known for extensive hacking attacks as well as various forms of financial fraud within NATO countries. Putin’s Russia long had a bad reputation before their newest war involving Ukraine. Questioning Putin’s true intentions is fair game. NATO kept expanding toward Russia's borders (fact) and by doing so, broke the promises that were issued back in the 1990s (fact). Putin kept warning NATO against expansion plans (fact), NATO ignored Russia's demands that were based on reassurances that were previously given (fact). Yes, there is no denying NATO has been expanding their political and economic influence within former Soviet territories. The difference between NATO and Russia efforts at gaining influence is the majority of people welcome the economic opportunities the West provides over restrictions that are often feared with Russia. Besides, shouldn’t the majority of people be allowed to choose who represents them? A coup was an illegitimate overthrow of the government and if you say it was a people's revolution, then you have to consider that around 25,000 took part in the violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government, yet the population of Ukraine is 44,000,000 (1/1760). Illegal seizure of power from a government? Western, or at least US political philosophy say the people are the sovereign who determine the course of the country through the election of representatives. Certain regimes believe the government bestows certain rights on individuals and these rights are optional according to whether a citizen deserves them or not. Ultimately, stability in leadership can only be obtained when the government acts in the best interests of its citizens. A fundamental human motivator is “I want my children to be able to live a better live than I did”. As further evidence which Governmental system is preferred, ask In which direction is the flow of most people? East or West? You had a bunch of Trump supporters storm into the Capitol and where are they now? The “Storm” into the US Capitol involved citizens who were almost completely unarmed and disbanded after a couple of hours after one protester was fatally shot. Terms such as “Insurrection” are used for political theater, but otherwise are not descriptive of actual events. You are going to tell us how this is relevant to our NATO/Ukraine/Russia discussion, right? If they did start some shit back then, would this have been classed as the people's revolution? Doubt it. You would probably have said Putin started it, well, the US had a lot to do with Euromaidan (another fact). So how many millions of people do not recognise Zelensky's government? I would have thought a few million Ukrainians don't. So there you have it. Sure, Ukraine has a minority, apparently a small percentage of people, who would rather be under Russian rule. Surely you are not suggesting that any country that has citizens seeking Russian rule should be taken over by Russia, right? Go and ask Ukrainians what they think awaits them if Zelensky had his way, they already believe that Ukraine has been sold off to mostly American corporations, that their freedom is nothing more than a fart in a wind, here now, gone seconds later. While there certainly have been issues involving US and European corporations, it seems most people prefer the economic opportunities and the better standard of living offered to their children, including a more reliable recognition of human rights by Western Democracies. Care to talk about Putin’s multi billions or the billionaire Russian oligarchs whose system does not offer the same opportunities to their citizens as does the West? And so that you don't post your drivel again about how I love seeing innocent children and women be "slaughtered" by the Russians (the Ukrainian military don't slaughter anyone of course...ya Ok), I don't. I am for peace always. As you should be able to see from posts by others here, Unverified claims of either side are discounted, although some unverified claims may be “Piggied backed on” to further related or unrelated political views. Again, Putin’s poor reputation does him no favors in the war of propaganda for favorable public opinion. The problem is that you fuckers in the West have kept provoking Russia and now you are bitching about how crazy Putin is. The wise people in the West have already recognised this error of judgement and attribute the invasion as a direct fault of NATO's expansion policies. And now, you are trying to strangle the Russian people with your sanctions, what do you expect may happen? It is a clear error in thinking if either side thinks they are not responsible in some way for the disaster that is now known as Ukraine. Russia was suffered damage to its military prestige and has an weakened economic outlook. Interesting to see you indicate concern over sanctions. You are undermining Russian propagandists! The West, including its multinational corporations have suffered immediate harm, some of which will not fully manifest itself for a year or so. As such, just as we can believe Putin is serious about Ukraine, so we can believe about the West. Further, there is risk that a third party or an unsanctioned action by the combatants will result in escalatory sabotage, effectively denying either side having a say in the ultimate outcome of this conflict. I would be very nervous if I were you, you behave as if we don't live in the era of nuclear weapons, well, if worst comes to worst, Russia won't even need to send any nuclear rockets toward your countries, they could just detonate all their nuclear reserves without them taking off and that will be game over for all of us. But hey, ignorance is bliss. Well, a lose-lose could be considered a tie, I suppose. Including the ultimate lose-lose, known as global nuclear war. So assuming a win-win is what is truly desired by the parties, what would it look like? Western corporations want growth to their bottom lines, Putin seemingly wants security, prestige, and to restore the lands under the Soviet Union back into Russia. Russia’s system is structurally deficient, adversely affecting her stability and long term sound policy. While there are specific ideas that may provide an equitable solution for both sides, some may be happy to see Russia (and Ukraine by extension) for that matter, to suffer long term damage by attrition. Perhaps some positive words by Putin will help ameliorate his reputation and efforts for a fair solution will be accelerated for the benefit of all. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...on-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm P.S. Note that URLs of the linked websites are genuine sources of information.[/QUOTE
Thank you for a post which offers insight and is respectful, even though we agree to disagree and it's Ok.
I was hoping you were going to expand on something positive Putin said last week. Putin apparently stated that he had no issue with Ukraine joining the EU. Zelensky said something positive in regards to the contested areas. Sounded like peace overtures to me, but the Biden Administration came in with escalatory rhetoric, possibly based upon a meeting that preceded the apparent overtures, and Russia went back into full swing pounding Ukraine. There is a solution to mitigate negative US influence in the peace process if necessary, in my opinion. However, before we go there, it seems best that Putin and Zelensky start engaging in peace talks earnestly, positively influencing world opinion, and possibly putting pressure on the US to reciprocate. The Biden Administration is not evil. Just a bit slow at times. Sustained peace talks between Russia and Ukraine will likely bring the US into the fold, increasing potential for a durable, satisfying solution for all parties. If for some reason the Biden Administration chooses a hard line, then it might be appropriate to discuss plan B.
Putin didn't. There were rumors that some Russian official said it. That means nothing. And nothing Putin says can ever be trusted. After the massacres of Bucha and Mariupol, if Zelensky agrees on ANY concessions, he will be swept out of power in the next 10 minutes. You underestimate the incandescent hatred Putin has awakened in the citizens of Ukraine. Both ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians.
Yup the areas hit the hardest are in the east and southeast - home of much of the ethnic Russians he was, in his small crazed mind, liberating.
Blah blah blah This is like a copy pasta from the Chinese foreign ministry - blaming everyone else except Putin. Maybe you completely missed Putin's speech, his justification for the invasion was that Ukraine is not really a country and has always been part of Russia, he wants the old USSR back - NATO didn't cause him to dream that, that was always his agenda being an ex-USSR man.
People who calls others brainwashed or wanting others to 'wake up' are the ones repeating state funded propaganda - your talking points are no different than anyone fed on state media would blather.
You can always spot someone pretending to be something else .... an American through and through. And a clueless one left coast one at that.