I don't disagree with any of this. I also didn't think you were defending Putin. I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't follow logically because Putin himself has such ties. If you had written "it does seem to me that it could be mistakenly perceived to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable", I wouldn't have made this point.

I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't follow logically because Putin himself has such ties. — hairy belly

It doesn't make the argument in itself unsound, would just make Putin a hypocrite.

Also, all these arguments I've presented are "for the sake of argument", presenting the counter-arguments to the Western media (at least in the first week of the war, almost declaring "victory" ... seems starting to balancing out now somewhat).

This is definitely a risky move by the Kremlin, so could indeed fail; but with at least some strategic gains in Ukraine (that Russia has already solidified) I wouldn't say there's actual chance now for military failure (Kremlin can stop anytime and just consolidate the land grabs they've made so far, say "enough war" we have achieved our security objectives and to demonstrate our "peaceful intentions" are ending the war here, and declare victory).

The large size of Ukraine makes total occupation difficult / impossible, but, the large size of Ukraine makes a lot of land grabbing easy. For the same reason Russia can't easily occupy all of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot easily defend all of Ukraine.

Definitely full scale rebellion in Russia would be a failure or then failing to re-orient their economy towards China integration. I'm definitely not saying these aren't risky things, just presenting the arguments and, indeed, potential facts in which success is possible.

In particular, the Western media is basically just in a circle of saying Putin is failing because the Western media doesn't like Putin like "a lot" now ... but that was already the case from Putin's perspective.

Putin's not some youtube influencer living in fear of being cancelled by Western media corporations.

However, it's not clear to me Putin has neo-Nazi far right ties. There are lot's of flavors of authoritarianism (which Putin definitely has lot's of ties) but neo-Nazi are definitely fringe on the world stage as a whole; indeed, seems to me Ukraine has the biggest such movement (precisely due to conflict with Russia, the old Nazi propaganda and "opposition to communism" can find sympathetic ears as well as "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tolerance from others).

I haven't been following this thread, but I read something I thought people might be interested in. It's an article by Andrew Bacevich, one of my favorite writers - a strongly antiwar conservative who says harsh things about America's foreign policy under all the recent presidents. He writes well and reasons well.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/ukraine-invasion-nothing-compared-iraq-afghanistan/

I had not planned to participate any further in this, but I read something fairly horrifying to which I feel compelled to respond.

Btw as I said to Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. — ssu

I think that this would be a gross mistake in the current climate, and highly irresponsible. Of course, it is the right of sovereign countries to take whatever action are viewed as being beneficial to their populations. At the same time, a wise nation, like a wise man, knows when it is best to assert its rights, and when it is best not to. Perhaps with the types of technical power and weaponry, and the proliferation of those, at mankind's disposal, military treaty organizations and military solutions to political problems are no longer advisable?

Though I can understand what I view as the Russian perspective which led to this invasion, I also recognize that the situation has become so hormonally and emotionally charged that Putin and other Russian leaders have probably entered into a state of irrationality or partial irrationality, as do all men when adrenaline mixed with testosterone takes over. remember that it seems that Russia feels like it is becoming surrounded by a hostile NATO. If Finland or Sweden were to apply for NATO membership at this moment in time, it might provoke an irrational Russia to attack with immediacy. Then, what are the U.S. and other NATO powers to do regarding the Nation with which it has a memorandum of understanding? If Russia is attacked by the U.S., France, or any other Western power, then there is no winning for mankind. The current situation is highly charged, and like a live high-power line, might easily spin out of control. The fact is that an inflamed Russia cannot be defeated in war because of the types and amounts of weapons at its disposal; such a war can but end in the most horrendous of ways, with universal defeat, and you know what I mean. I don't think that anybody wants to see their children and loved ones, along with many others around the world, dying of radiation sickness as a result of an irradiated atmosphere, do we? I certainly don't. As far as we know, this world and its various species of organic life represent the light of the universe, and I personally don't want to see it diminished.

Russia is going to take Ukraine, hopefully without outside interference. This will be the best result at this point, and an eventuality if we are lucky. If we are even luckier, there will be a quick Ukrainian surrender. The best course for everybody at present is to wait until the situation calms down following the capitulation of Ukraine, and then try to open diplomatic relations or dialogue with a becalmed Russia. Then, maybe we can all (an I mean all of us humans in the world) come to some type of agreement upon a way forward in this world which does not include the near extinction of our, and many other, species.

That's all that I have to say, so I don't expect I will be logging on to the site again.

Thank you for considering my thoughts.

It doesn't make the argument in itself unsound, would just make Putin a hypocrite. — boethius

The only reason it appears sound is because there is a hidden premise: "If Putin himself has no ties to such groups".

However, it's not clear to me Putin has neo-Nazi far right ties. — boethius

Here is the leader of the most successful contemporary neo-Nazi party entering the Russian embassy in Athens


Golden Dawn was also propagating openly in favour of Putin, it was close with Dugin and there is at least some evidence that they were funded by Russian capitalists close to Putin. Putin's relations with the European far-right are well-known. It's not even slightly controversial. It's his fundamental strategy in order to push his agenda both in the European parliament and in European societies at large. After all, don't forget that Putin himself is part of the European far right.

I have half agreed with Bacevich on many issues over the years but will gladly help him kick Friedman's kneecaps this time around. Condemnation of the invasion does not require ignoring:

"This intellectual framing according to which events occurring in proximity to the Rhine and the Danube possess greater inherent importance than events near the Tigris or the Nile dates from the age of Western imperialism. — Bacevich

The only reason it appears sound is because there is a hidden premise: "If Putin himself has no ties to such groups". — hairy belly

I say say assuming the premises are true it's a sound argument, I then go into some discussion about the premises.

It's entirely possible the argument is sound; but, my point is more of perception of it's soundness in Russia.

However, you're counter criticism was that, even assuming the premises are true, that the argument doesn't hold because Putin has himself ties to neo-Nazi's.

Your argument assumed the premise, and I was nearly pointing out it's therefore a sound argument (you weren't, in that rebuttal, arguing against the premises or the logic just making a parallel argument)--so, argument is sound in itself according to your own rebuttal, but only hypocritical of Putin to use if he has neo-Nazi ties according to your argument.

Now, whether there's some "absolute neo-Nazi value" we can determine as well as some "neo-Nazi threshold that justifies invasion" would be one political and moral argument to have.

However, what I'm focusing on is more Russia's argument (this is literally the argument Putin uses, "de-nazification" he calls it) as well as, I think pretty clear, the West didn't do anything about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine nor chastise Ukraine in anyway for carrying out language suppression campaigns of the Russian language.

The war consolidates Putin's power, is amazing for China, and achieves US objectives of preventing a real "World Leader" competitor, which both China and Russia could never be, but Europe would have already displaced US as a global leader with A. peace with Russia and the enormous benefits of it's mineral riches and B. some fucking balls in positions of influence rather than "leaders" that both make sure they appear, as well as seem to feel in their heart of hears, that they must be USA bitches.

This Ukraine war is a disaster for Europe, easily prevented, and a few speeches doesn't rectify anything. Washington, Moscow and Beijing are all getting what they want. Indeed, China and USA far more than Russia, but at least Russia's getting something.

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).

When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me.

And the "appeasement" argument doesn't work as there's already NATO ... which, ok, sure let Ukraine in by surprise over a weekend ... and see how that goes, but if, by your own admission, no one's letting Ukraine into NATO, why a pointless war of words and sanctions that simply push Russia towards China rather than stick to the European policy of economic ties with democracies a good way to spread to democracies. There was zero logic nor even any understanding of the political situation with Europe's largest neighbor ... supplying 40% of it's natural gas.

As far as I could tell, Brussels bureaucrats just like sucking American dick. Offensive, maybe, but I find pointless bloodshed and cities leveled to the ground more offensive ... don't like that ... well either do diplomacy or go send troops there to defend against said shelling you say you don't like. Honestly, arguing with a mix-tape of stupid would have been a more interesting conversation.

Argument has basically been: if we appease Russia by doing diplomacy in some credible way, they may invade Ukraine ... but stop there because everyone else is in Nato. However, if we don't appease Russia they will for sure probably invade Ukraine as we're for sure as hell not letting Ukraine in our little Nato club, as that would be provoking Russia too much. Therefore, we are fucking morons.

Credible diplomacy not only may have worked, but also increases the costs significantly for Russia if there were credible offers turned down, credible denunciation of neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, EU stopping Ukraine's language suppression programs etc. common sense things, all increase the likelihood of peace directly but also decrease the cost-benefit of war as it's a harder sell to your own population.

Instead, USA is basically "Hey, Germany, go make sure neo-Nazi's are seen to be of credible importance in Ukraine with the implicit backing of the EU, and also make sure they can do whatever language and cultural suppression of Russian speakers there that said neo-Nazi's dream of: make sure Russia sees you do it Germany, I'm counting on you."

Condemnation of the invasion does not require ignoring:

"This intellectual framing according to which events occurring in proximity to the Rhine and the Danube possess greater inherent importance than events near the Tigris or the Nile dates from the age of Western imperialism.
— Bacevich — Paine

I find Bacevich's contention that the Ukraine invasion is much less damaging and disruptive than the US's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan convincing.

I think it is too soon to tell.
Russia in Grozny and Syria has shown what they are capable of.

As I say, the argument entirely depends on how much credibility you lend these neo-Nazi's. — boethius

To talk about drug addict neo-nazi's ruling Ukraine is utter nonsense and just Stalinist propaganda rhetoric. It's the level Putin has fallen to.

It's for the ignorant clueless babushka in Russia who believes what is said in the State run television. It's the mantra that the officials use to show their dedication and trustworthiness to the regime. They don't believe really it, but that's not the point. It's a show of strength, you show where you stand, the official line! Russian discourse is rapidly collapsing to the Soviet era, to mantra's that don't mean anything, to lithurgy that you praise to show you are in favor of the rulers.

The dehumanization of the enemy is important. Especially when people have earlier felt that Ukrainians are their brothers. Just like Estonians are to us. So there has to be that evil, that they are "liberating" the Ukrainians from.

The style actually is closer than you think: it's the well-educated, professional Republican politician who then goes with the most outrageous Q-Anon conspiracy.

Russia in Grozny and Syria has shown what they are capable of. — Paine

Indeed. If this thing goes nuclear, Russia will be to blame.

To talk about drug addict neo-nazi's ruling Ukraine is utter nonsense and just Stalinist propaganda rhetoric. It's the level Putin has fallen to. — ssu

Drug addicts? Ruling Ukraine? I don't say these things.

And, if I was just hearing about this now, I'd be very skeptical and presume it is just fabricated propaganda. However, I've been hearing and reading about it since 2014. Also, the Russian language and suppression policies I also read about before (from non-Russian sources), doesn't seem invented now for the purposes of propaganda.

Now, obviously it's also propaganda. It's just way easier to make propaganda based on real elements that support a valid argument.

Now, whatever the "true" level of neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, there's obviously the perception of it as a relevant factor; for instance, explaining the lack of full scale rebellion, perhaps even majority support, in Russia.

And, since, whatever the reality, this perception of there being a credible neo-Nazi force in Ukraine since 2014 should, if we're doing credible diplomacy, be met with the credible response from the West and the EU of such neo-Nazi's. Obviously, just because the West ignores it doesn't mean Russia media ignores it, and, without a response to the perception (which could be proving there are only 10 of these neo-Nazi's doing drugs in an alleyway) it is again an excellent fuel for propaganda to point out the West has no response, tolerates them (which, Germany being the largest EU nation, isn't a good look), are hypocrites etc.

I do negotiation for a living. To run even a small corporation requires negotiating with people I disagree with, people I don't like, people wanting from me what I don't think is fair but they have the leverage to get it.

It's really difficult for me to imagine that the entire EU really couldn't have prevented this war with credible negotiation.

What, specifically, is Russia afraid of wrt neo-nazi's?

Dude, to whom are you replying?

↪boethius What, specifically, is Russia afraid of wrt to neo-nazi's? — RogueAI

Mostly we've been talking in the context of Putin's stated justification for the war; Putin literally calls it a "de-nazification" operation.

I certainly agree with @ssu that it's "mostly" propaganda; and, propaganda can be true; just because someone has a bias and purpose for spreading information, doesn't mean it's not true.

The best propaganda is usually based on true elements that form the basis of valid arguments and, with time, impossible to say really.

Unlike, for example, Iraq having WMD's which was proven to be false; obviously, that propaganda would have worked a lot better if they even found some WMD's, people would be pointing to a single vial of something with zero real strategic relevance to do this day ... if they had found it. And, for example, the deaths of the fire bombing of Dresden were certainly exaggerated by Goebbels, but the fire bombing did happen.

So, for the current propaganda game, it is pretty important for most wars for the enemy to be an ideological enemy. The US has no problems slaughtering Arabs in the middle East because they are ideological enemies. Without understanding the neo-Nazi justification, the war in Ukraine seems incomprehensible because, otherwise, Ukrainian's are not ideological enemies of Russia, they are fellow white people (hence the horror in Western media and "serious response" from Western nations and institutions; obviously if Russia went and slaughtered Muslims, even white Muslims, there wouldn't be "sanctions" about that).

However, there is also a longer strategic view. There is certainly a neo-Nazi movement in Ukraine which is certainly growing. How big it is now and how big it would grow to if left unchecked by both the EU and Russia is difficult to say.

However, it clearly represents a real risk. Russia certainly doesn't want a neo-Nazi state on it's doorstep for the indefinite future, could cause all sorts of problems. The time to invade was more-or-less becoming "now or never" with the modernization of Ukraine's military, so, to mitigate the risk of a neo-Nazi state in Ukraine (and, the current President being Jewish doesn't somehow mean every future administration will have a Jewish leader; things change), invading now may seem not only a good option due to the real perceived threat of neo-Nazi's festering on the board but also that it's an easy sell to the population by simply amplifying what's there already.

People should also keep in mind that the Kremlin is a pretty old institutions, and old institutions tend to have long memories and long foresight.

The geo-political framework is undergoing rapid change, who knows what the future holds, but what is clear is that, even at relatively high cost, Russia can take large parts of Ukraine now that are of long term strategic benefit: connecting Crimea and pushing the border right to the Dnieper river (or at least close enough that there's no room to make defensive infrastructure on the near side), the West insists on providing zero value to Russia (just grandstanding and sanctions and no meaningful collaboration), therefore, taking the East of Ukraine has only long term strategic benefits and no long term strategic costs (if the EU has given up on any meaningful collaboration, which it clearly has).

Thanks for the response.

Dude, to whom are you replying? — hairy belly

I literally quote the people I'm replying to.

However, as mentioned, I'm presenting the opposing view to that of the Western media. If Russia is exaggerating the neo-Nazi threat in Ukraine (which I would definitely agree, whatever the threat is, Russia is exaggerating it) the Western media has been doing their own exaggerations: military failure (not credible to say when strategic goals are already achieved), Russian opposition to the war (certainly some but there's no reports of large scale revolution at the moment), and Russian economy will free fall into some sort of failed state (... yes ... but only before, and not after, transferring all Western IP to China and South-East-Asia more generally; economic sanctions do not matter if you can just get vital equipment elsewhere easily ... which you obviously can from China ... that's what the West does too; the real economic value the West provides at this point is basically brands, but nobody stops doing business simply because they need to switch brands).

Oh, and the most ludicrous, that "declaring" renewables are now a priority is sticking it to the Russians somehow. "In 50 to 100 years will be independent on Russian natural resources. Haha! take that Russia!". I work in the renewable energy sector ... and this idea is so insanely idiotic, it severely discredits every politician that repeats it.

Definitely we should have started to transition to renewable 50 years ago, not only stop subsidizing but forcing the internalization of true costs of fossil, and, so, be largely independent of Russian fossil fuels by now. I could go on how hypocritical it is too: saving the planet means absolutely nothing in making renewable a real priority ... but "Putin bad, boohoohoo" and suddenly everyone's on the renewable bandwagon ... which, again, is just empty talk, policies will barely change once the blood we see today just dilutes into the 24hr news cycle of the usual carnage.

Lies, misperception, hearsay, rumors, misinformation, unrecognized fact, wishful thinking, etc. are all part of 'the fog of war'. — Bitter Crank

Sure. But I think the issue is a bit more complex than that.

Aside from the revealing fact that NATO and, in particular, Ukrainian propaganda isn’t any more truthful than the Russian one, what is really scary is that a growing number of Westerners seem to be thinking that the truth or falsehood of these stories doesn’t matter!

When fact-checking website Snopes published an article debunking the video [of the mythical Ukrainian jet pilot allegedly shooting down Russian planes], some social media users pushed back.
“Why can’t we just let people believe some things?” one Twitter user replied. “If the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope.”

Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times

So, what we are witnessing is a rapidly diminishing interest in actual facts, even independently of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. More specifically, what seems to be happening is that people hold preconceived ideas about issues of this type, which ideas are formed by the mass media in the first place, and which they seek to reinforce and disseminate by means of the same media and despite knowing that what they are disseminating is nothing but fake news.

In other words, the “info war” is a smokescreen for something much bigger and more dangerous, and my guess is that the real winner isn’t going to be Ukraine or Russia (regardless of who wins in military terms) but the international media and tech giants that get to decide what “news” the world is allowed to access, what to believe, and what action to take.

Yes, wars are won on the ground but the action on the ground is motivated and justified by the propaganda or myth. And the myth in this case starts with Europe’s false belief that NATO is not an instrument of US self-interest or imperialism. Interestingly, Americans, at least the better-informed ones, tend to be more honest about it than Europeans who clearly allow themselves to be hoodwinked by their ruling elites.

Incidentally, I've always been amazed at the number of people in developing countries who studied in Kiev and Moscow. — Olivier5

Yes, apparently, the Soviet education system used to be pretty good and the current system isn’t too bad either. Obviously, there would be differences from region to region, but that goes for other countries as well.

According to Britain’s National Literacy Trust, 16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having “very poor literacy skills” or as being “functionally illiterate”.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency in the West, especially the US and UK, to look down on others and dismiss them as second or third-rate people. The truth of the matter is that Germany, for example, used to be a world leader in science, technology, literature, and music, and German used to be the main language of science until it was replaced with English following the world wars. Nowadays even Ukrainians speak English!

This exemplifies how the “Anglo-Saxon” (or Anglo-American) world systematically suppresses other cultures and is rooted in British imperialism - which explains why the world is currently going to the dogs as European culture, once the basis of Western civilization, is being replaced with the anticulture of America’s slums.

In short, America controls the World Bank, NATO, the global media …. But some still want us to believe that Russia is “taking over the world”.

But this independence starts in one's mind. Meaning, cease giving so much of one's precious time to foreign sources for mental engagement. Such as, if you're not American, stop watching US films, US sitcoms, US reality shows etc. And if one watches the US programmes because those in one's native language aren't interesting enough, then it would be prudent to stop watching tv for the purpose of entertainment altogether.

(US films, sitcoms, reality shows, and other tv programmes are de facto examples of US imperialism: they are watched all over the world.)

Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences. — baker

Correct. And the lesson to draw from it is that if one wants to make a difference, a pro-US philosophy forum may not be the ideal place to start …. :smile:

According to Britain’s National Literacy Trust, 16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having “very poor literacy skills” or as being “functionally illiterate”. — Apollodorus

As usual, the United States is worse:



The state where I live, Minnesota, has a high rate of literacy, but even so, about 10% of adults are functionally illiterate. Illiteracy is certainly a handicap in several ways, not least in its effects on cognition. One's ability to access printed information is obviously limited. On the other hand, research doesn't show that individuals get a significant boost in quality of life by learning how to read.

The prospects of someone unable to read are not going to be vastly different once they learn how to read at an 8th grade level. With good material, a low ratio of teachers or tutors to students, and a reasonable amount of motivation, an illiterate person can acquire fairly good reading skills in less than a year.

The major benefit of reading is getting information, and it will take them many years to catch up on all the information that passed them by -- which is one reason learning to read doesn't make an immediate difference.

Besides the illiterate, there are many adults who don't read much even though they can read, and they often find it difficult to read and sort through complicated information--like an article on who is telling the truth, who is lying, who is faking it, and who is confused about what is going on in Ukraine.

Why don't the Ukrainians flee to Russia?.

For Zelensky to demand a no-fly zone isn't fruitful. It really won't happen and everybody ought to know it. — ssu

I am not sure it is without fruits. Everybody knows it won't happen because of the whole WW3 thing.

On the other hand, In addition to pressing for as much assistance as possible short of that, it is saying the ground forces are toast without Russia air support. In that respect, the impending decision to bombard cities into submission is an admission that the mission, as purported, is a failure

“Why can’t we just let people believe some things?” one Twitter user replied. “If the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope.”

You know already it because you posted this quote, but false fear and false hope do not make things better. Truth matters, even if it is an early casualty in warfare.

I'm not a 'news junkie' but I do try to stay well informed on what is going on. One can get reliable, stable information about Covid-19, for example, but one can just as easily hear wildly conflicting information which can't be easily harmonized. Dr. X says masks reduce transmission, Dr. Y says we can stop using masks now; Dr. Z there will be new and possibly dangerous variants in a couple of months. Dr. A says the Pfizer vaccine works on young children; Dr. B says everyone should get a booster; Dr. C. says the vaccine is uniformly ineffective.

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.

Conflicting views can be heard from one news agency, let alone ten news agencies.

When there is too much conflicting information, I tend to stop listening--not because I don't care, but because it's too difficult to parse out the facts. What really happened 3 days ago may be cleared up tomorrow. What happened 10 minutes ago will need time to clarify.

Battlefield managers can not wait several days to get clarity, of course. But we who are far distant from the battleground should not take every report we hear as settled truth.

Why don't the Ukrainians flee to Russia?. — EugeneW

A small percentage are fleeing to Russia, mostly from the Donbas region immediately adjacent to Russia. Those living in Kviv or Lviv, for example, A) don't want to go to Russia and B) would have to travel eastward toward and through a battle zone. Travel westward toward Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, or Moldova makes more sense at this point.

:up: Sad but true.

Drug addicts? Ruling Ukraine? I don't say these things. — boethius

Putin says these things. Those are the reasons given to this war. That is the Stalinist narrative. What do you think the de-nazification of Ukraine is about?

The main point is that this is a ridiculous war. It genuinely doesn't have credible argumentation. The Putin that annexed Crimea was totally different: thought about actual Russians and Russian speaking minorities, gained total strategic surprise and used well all his information warfare abilities. This is the propaganda of Stalin.

Why would we discuss neo-nazis otherwise? As the accusation that Ukraine is doing 'genocide' is so ludicrous even Russian don't try to give lies about, seems that to be "critical" about the West, then the narrative "Ukraine is filled with neo-nazis" is the only issue that sticks. Because in 2014 extreme right did play a part and people were confused about that.

It's really difficult for me to imagine that the entire EU really couldn't have prevented this war with credible negotiation. — boethius

Look, he already annexed Crimea and used proxies to gain more territory. Only Ukrainian resistance and him not using forces as now prevented a land bridge to be gained too between Crimea and Russia in 2014-2015. The annexations tell extremely clear what his intensions and objectives have been. If we assume that what politicians write and say doesn't matter.

What is so difficult to understand, when you look at what Putin has said and done, for whom the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that happened last Century?

No EU "credible negotiation" would have done anything. If one thinks so, one is just fooling oneself and basically going and trusting a liar, who said that Russia wouldn't attack. I guess this and the idea that "all this wouldn't have happened if no NATO enlargement" are just those arguments for those who only see to criticize the West as something valid (as they don't care so much about Putin or Russia).

It's like the argument that WW2 would have been avoided, if only Germany would have been given the right to annex the parts of Poland that it wanted. Yeah sure, a guy that write "Mein Kampf" and gives all those speeches and built that shining war machine would have then been totally satisfied and peaceful for rest of his life.

Unlike, for example, Iraq having WMD's which was proven to be false; obviously, that propaganda would have worked a lot better if they even found some WMD's — boethius

Actually, let's not forget that Saddam DID have a WMD's and a nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. In fact, what then later was found out that Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox" had destroyed the last remnants of Saddams WMD's. So it was false, but not totally made up. Yet it has been multiple times from various separate people shown how Cheney pushed for war and took the WMD issue without base as a reason for war. One of the few things that happened during the Trump era was that the lie "The President just got bad intel" was buried. He didn't, they simply tried to get any reason to start the war.

Just like Putin with his neo-nazi and genocide talk.

And the Ukrainian neo-nazi argument is something similar. Ludicrous. It would be as to depict neo-nazis having great power in the US run by the Biden administration, because of Trump's attitudes towards them when the Charlottesville attack happened. And if neo-nazis support Trump and Republican support Trump, then each and every Republican is a neo-nazis, right?

We know there were no WMD in Iraq because the US government told us. They could easily have lied if they felt like it.

On the other hand, In addition to pressing for as much assistance as possible short of that, it is saying the ground forces are toast without Russia air support. In that respect, the impending decision to bombard cities into submission is an admission that the mission, as purported, is a failure — Paine

Or at least, it hasn't been a spectacular achievement like the annexation of Crimea. Naturally the reporting is biased for the Ukrainians (and why wouldn't it be), but the Russians have made advances in the south. We have to remember that Ukraine is a huge country and it's only been little over a week.

The truth is that Ukrainians themselves have to fight the Russians to the negotiating table, perhaps managed by China. What they need are huge amounts of anti-tank and surface to air missiles. And then for peace, accept to lose territory. Or then face a genocidal war of losing civilians and soldiers during the Afghan-Soviet war.

Actually, let's not forget that Saddam DID have a WMD's and a nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. In fact, what then later was found out that Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox" had destroyed the last remnants of Saddams WMD's. So it was false, but not totally made up. — ssu

If WMD's existed, and also don't forget the ability to 'hit London in 45 minutes' was a reality, I would have given the benefit of the doubt to NATO and the powers that invaded Iraq. I simply cannot second guess the world's intelligence bureaus.

In the same way, if Russia has the knowledge that the military arrangements being carried out in Ukraine posed a threat to its security, then I am not going to say that invasion was the wrong thing to do. From all the media and rhetoric that has spilled out, it appears that the NATO wants to diminish Russia if not destroy it, or reduce its international influence to that or Romania or Botswana (just two countries that come to mind)

Lindsey Graham stunned netizens and caused US officials to scramble on Thursday as he suggested to Fox News and social media that the “Russian people” must “fix” the situation in Ukraine by assassinating their president. — Sputnik