Good that I'm not arguing that. I'm just sating that Putin is not in any significant way different from the 'neonazis' he brandishes as an excuse for his mass murders. — Olivier5

It's certainly a relevant point to debate; in particular, if Putin actually wanted this schism with the West to create a new cold war, then that is certainly pretty bad.

However, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, such as Russia only starting sanction-proofing programs after, and not before, sanctions were started, and only taking Crimea after, and not before, there was a legitimate threat to Russia's security.

And, in terms of the legitimate security threat Ukraine poses; it's argued that Russia has Nuclear weapons but Ukraine doesn't.

However, Ukraine has many nuclear reactors that can be used to source plutonium to make nuclear weapons. If you listen to Ukrainian neo-Nazi talks and interviews, they certainly seem the people that would try to make and to use nuclear weapons and truly want more chaos and destruction.

Once you have commercial nuclear reactors it is not all that hard to make nuclear weapons, especially with advances in computer simulation and CNC machining, 3D printing etc. North Korea did it, from a far worse starting point.

If things were reversed, and the West was dealing with a belligerent country with plenty Nuclear reactors, the invasion would be a foregone conclusion. For this very reason, the invasion of Iran has been constantly talked about. The big difference is that Iran doesn't have already plenty Nuclear reactors that makes sourcing plutonium far easier and would need the launch capabilities to reach the US ... hence, why Israel is far more concerned, but, also, Iran isn't Islamic State with an ideology that may actually want to use nuclear weapons against Israel regardless of the consequences.

(Ukraine being close enough to easily hit Moscow with a cheap ballistic missile once you had a Nuclear warhead)

Now, how influential these neo-Nazi's are is one question, but what's not really questionable is the EU did basically nothing about them since 2014, and, as an EU citizen, that's the aspect of policy I can rightly criticize of the governance structures I live in.

Of course, if they are only a fringe group (such as, in the US, such a concern would be pretty outlandish), doesn't matter, but the problem with neo-Nazi's in Ukraine is they really do seem more than fringe.

Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's would not make a sound argument about justification of fighting neo-Nazi's unsound, it would just make Putin a hypocrite. — boethius

Or a justification to remove Putin or invade Russia?

One overall point, is that, in general, the West seems to simply ignore the element of Nuclear weapons if it suits them for Putin-bashing.

Obviously, that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons in the context of the already existing de facto war with Russia in East Ukraine, would and is simply ignored (I'm not sure if Russia makes this point at all, but it's I think worth pointing out).

Likewise, the potential consequences of actively trying to destabilize the economy and society of a large Nuclear power is simply ignored.

If the Russian state did simply fall apart, as seems to be the implicit goal of Western sanctions (whether realistic or not, talking heads in the media would be ecstatic of "victory"), the consequences of both nuclear escalation as well as losing nuclear weapons to the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state is a dangerous game to play.

I, personally, wouldn't play it and would try to deescalate the situation.

Accept that if the West didn't go defend Ukraine with troops before the war, it's a bit of a cry baby game to try to make up for it with sending weapons and volunteers after the war has started.

If people really cared so much about Ukraine, they would have been there already, not only after it's a big virtue-signal on social media.

Of course, if they are only a fringe group — boethius

They are not a fringe group in the Moscow, though.

They are not a fringe group in the Moscow, though. — Olivier5

Neo-nazi's in Moscow?

Yes. Putin.

Or a justification to remove Putin or invade Russia? — jorndoe

There's a difference between moral justification and justification as such.

It would indeed be morally justified to press a button that transforms Russia instantly into a thriving and prosperous Nordic style democracy and make Putin a bar tender somewhere on a beach in Jamaica.

If we talk of moral justification we're basically talking what situation would be good if we could wish it into existence.

However, justification as such (real decisions in the real world) are not wishes but have all sorts of consequences that need to be taken into account.

The West imposing Nordic style thriving democracy on Russia and forcing Putin into bar tending in Jamaica, through force would have all sorts of disastrous consequences for the world.

There is no realistic pathway to achieve the goal through force. The goal maybe justified, that does not justify reckless actions that makes the situation worse.

Just as, maybe it is justified to invade Ukraine and mitigate their neo-Nazi problem, but there was not actually a practical way to do it without making the situation worse for Russia.

The West certainly believes it's mass-media hating Putin even more than before is some sort of miscalculation, but my original post was basically questioning that basic premise. Likewise the sanctions. Russia has done a lot of work sanction proofing themselves, but to what extent it has been enough is certainly up for debate.

The war is early days, so it's difficult to tell if there's some purely material and strategic objectives Russia is able to achieve at greater benefit than cost in the long term.

I honestly don't find it credible to say Putin is a neo-Nazi or helping the neo-Nazi cause.

You are free to expound on it though.

There's a difference between moral justification and justification as such. — boethius

I thought it was Putin's justification to invade Ukraine?

I thought it was Putin's justification to invade Ukraine? — jorndoe

Yes, that's his stated justification. So, it's obviously relevant to discuss in terms of it being the stated justification for the war, in particular in terms of perception in Russia (to what extent a majority of Russian's agree or not and therefore put up with the hardships of war).

Whether it's true or not is a second issue.

What's clear is that it's not an argument invented a couple of weeks ago; there's been plenty of press about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine since 2014 as well as their own speeches and interviews.

And, to be clear, the leftist smearing of Trump with neo-Nazi association I felt irresponsible and a boy who cried wolf dynamic, likewise the idea Trump was somehow a Putin agent or any close collaboration (though, certainly mutual sympathy as ideological authoritarians).

For example, it was rumored that Trump had Mein Kampf (at least I hear this rumour) ... but is it even possible to confirm? And, as a student of history, I could easily have this book in my library (though, difficult to argue the same for Trump, but still, the motivation is still not clear from simply having the book).

And indeed, it maybe precisely due to this leftist smearing that then neo-Nazi's in Ukraine was dismissed as a concern, under the assumption it must be a fringe group (which is certainly the automatic assumption in the Western press if the issue is even recognized).

Had the left not smeared Trump with neo-Nazi association, their appearance in greater and more organized numbers in Ukraine may have been taken more credibly and at least something done about it (maybe the war still happens, but I'd rather be able to say the EU is not de facto neo-Nazi supporters, and there some strong evidence to point to about the EU actually opposing neo-Nazi in Ukraine in some meaningful sense).

Propaganda is not simply a right wing thing, and liberal and left wing propaganda is equally dangerous and counter productive to our own cause (there are of course people on the left who pointed that out throughout "Russia gate" and neo-Nazi smearing; and, what's crazier, is there's plenty of totally credible things to criticize Trump for--the idea more must be invented is honestly bizarre, and, the only rational reason you need more is if you want to deflect from the fact the Democratic party has the same kind of corruption ... just "less so", and "can't we have a bit of the corruption" isn't so great an argument).

I honestly don't find it credible to say Putin is in any significant manner different from a neo-Nazi, or helping defeat the neo-Nazi 'cause' (your wording).

Had the left not smeared Trump with neo-Nazi association — boethius

Trump praised neonazi groups and vice versa, for heavens sake. Your priorities are screwed. The preoccupying modern fascist leaders are Putin, Trump and co. They are the fascists who matter right now.

Trump praised neonazi groups for heavens sake. Your priorities are screwed. The preoccupying modern fascist leaders are Putin, Trump and co. They are the fascists who matter right now. — Olivier5

We can get into it if you want, but the idea neo-Nazi power in the US is comparable to neo-Nazi's in Ukraine I don't think is in anyway credible.

Trump is incoherent, he says a lot things. In saying "there's good people" I would imagine he thought was some banal "good people in every country" kind of statement.

What I think is certainly true is that Trump liked and likes thugs spilling blood in the streets for Trump, and certainly would have liked to see some sort of brown shirt uprising that would keep him in power.

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.

As I mentioned, we can certainly criticize Trump for not distancing and opposing neo-Nazi's enough, just as I'm criticizing the EU for the same: doesn't make Trump administration nor the EU neo-Nazi's themselves.

There's some neo-Nazi's, sure, and there's an association; but one must demonstrate this is more than a fringe movement and the association closer than just that, but there's real collaboration and integration. Of which, literally making neo-Nazi battalion groups and literal brown shirt gangs that can patrol cities, as has happened in Ukraine, is more than fringe and more than association.

not credible — boethius

You use this word a lot to brush aside arguments but are you aware of your own lack of credibility, not to mention your apparent lack of logic and coherence? How can you say "the left tared Trump with neonazi links" when those links where an objective, documented fact? Since when are we confusing facts and propaganda?

You have a big log in your own eye but fortunately, it doesn't prevent you from seeing the speck in an Ukrainian's.

A MAGA-capped intellectual whining about neonazis in Ukraine. Now that's rich!

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.

You use this word a lot to brush aside arguments but are you aware of your own lack of credibility, not to mention your apparent lack of logic and coherence? — Olivier5

I'm saying I don't find it a credible premise (that the Trump administration and USA government as a whole was / is has more than fringe neo-Nazi elements). You are then free to argue it is credible. But if you're not motivated to, then that's the end of the argument on that point: I don't find Trump a credible neo-Nazi and you do.

However, in terms of coherence (more suitable topic for a philosophy forum than journalistic questions plenty of journalists have investigated) you are basically arguing that Trump is definitely a neo-Nazi (and so justified in invading? I guess) and also Ukraine more so and so more so justified in invading to deal with, but, only because you also claim Putin is likewise a neo-Nazi (or neo-Nazi like) then he personally is not justified in invading other literal neo-Nazi's even if the cause, as such against Trump and the Ukrainian neo-Nazi's such as Azov brigade, is justified in itself.

Or then explain how Trump's neo-Nazi connection is in anyway relevant to the topic at hand. I'll take more interest in it then, but if it's not really relevant (just suppressive whataboutism fire) then you're free to make another thread on Trump being a neo-Nazi (or supporter, or defender, or whatever connection you want to argue).

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

Putin is a Stalinist not a Nazi. They are different but still forms of fascism.

Nazi is more or less distinguished by the idea of a superior race.

The term ‘Neo Nazi’ is often used are a pejorative term to smear fervent patriots and more right leaning policies.

As for Trump … he is out of the picture for now. Sadly those in opposition to Trump were more than a little too liberal in how they decided to label hi as a Nazi. Such labelling has reached out into the public sphere as well for the general populace and it has done little more than dilute the horror of what happened with Hitler.

Putin clearly favours the opposite extreme rather than holding a far right nazi view. It is no secret that the Russian’s HATE Nazis due to the conflict in WW2 with Germany. He is a Stalinist 1 million billion steps before he is a Nazi. The reason he is Ukrainian government is being duped by neo nazis is because most Russian people have just as much a pronounced dislike for nazism as any other country in WW2 (is not more so due to the heavy price they paid in blood).

It is a bit like calling radical Islamic fundamentalists Nazis … no. They want Jews dead and gone but that alone doesn’t qualify the, as Nazis because the reasoning behind that view is based on religion.

I would very much like to see someone demonstrate the neo-Nazi's of Ukraine are as fringe as they are in the US (where, as I mention, I do not think Republican's generally speaking were and are "tainted" by fringe neo-Nazi's supporting Trump and that leftist propaganda was irresponsible; of course, doesn't mean there's not a lot of racism in the Republican base and neo-Nazi's are not also racists, nor plenty totally legitimate reasons to be against Trump and republicans). — boethius

One issue is clear: the Western media is and would be very alarmist about the extreme-right having large influence in any European country. Just to give an example, our Russia troll Apollodorus, refers to 2014 BBC articles and so on. For example VICE NEWS had a lot of covering about this and for example interviewed the Azov battalion fighters. (Then the young news channel did great reporting of the conflict in a long series called Russian Roulette, which can be found in YouTube)

Why did the extreme-right got traction in Ukraine prior to 2014? The best explanation I found was this, which I posted 6 days ago. But because as this thread goes on with a rapid pace, I'll repost it here:

The Svoboda-party had enjoyed the largest support during the Yanukovich era prior to 2014:

As part of the wave of protests against Yanukovych government, the ultra right-wing party, “Svoboda,” won the parliamentary elections in 2012 with 10.5% support. This is tantamount to a “landslide” result, considering the results of the parliamentary elections in 2006 and 2007, of which they won a modest 0.36% and 0.76% of the votes, respectively.

And why is this? Yuriyv Shveda writes the following:

"Svoboda” became the first radical nationalist party to enter the Ukrainian Parliament. However, the success of Svoboda does not signify popular support for the radical Ukrainian nationalist ideology. The support for Svoboda was because of tactical reasons rather than ideological. First, as a protest against the anti-Ukrainian policy of Yanukovych, the voters had chosen the most defiant nationalist party in Ukraine. Second, in essence, Svoboda supporters ensured the fiercest opposition against the government. This was necessary as the national-democratic forces had discredited themselves – many of the deputies after the victory of Yanukovych in the 2010 presidential election turned traitor and joined the government coalition. Given the situation, Svoboda, with a clear position and rigid discipline, would keep its deputies in the opposition coalition, thereby firmly and vigorously opposing the government.

So the discredition of the "normal" right posed people to vote for neo-nazis. But after the Maidan revolution they had enough of them. The Svoboda-party made a huge election loss in 2014 and now is a tiny minority in the Ukrainian Parliament.

But just like the US, where you can make a documentary of a militia, but portraying the country to be run by militias isn't an accurate picture. The vast majority of Americans don't believe in their ideologies. And of course the events now happening in Ukraine, how active people are against the Putin's invasion and dare even to demonstrate against the occupier in Kherson and are actively taking part in the defense of their country tells something far different.

Religion and Nationalist views share many commonalities. Neither countries nor religions exist, yet countries are more bound to the profane world than religions whilst both share many sacred elements.

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

Putin is a Stalinist not a Nazi. They are different but still forms of fascism.

Nazi is more or less distinguished by the idea of a superior race.

The term ‘Neo Nazi’ is often used are a pejorative term to smear fervent patriots and more right leaning policies. — I like sushi

Putin clearly favours the opposite extreme rather than holding a far right nazi view. It is no secret that the Russian’s HATE Nazis due to the conflict in WW2 with Germany. — I like sushi

This is true, as far as it goes. Soviet victory in The Great Patriotic War (WWII) was of great importance to Soviet ideology, and in Putin's Russia it has been amplified into a veritable cult. So of course, anything "Nazi" is taboo in Russia. This is why Russian propaganda loves to smear their opponents as Nazis. And this is why they came up with this ridiculous lie that Ukraine is being run by Neo-Nazis.

However, don't confuse an attitude towards words and symbols with a genuine, deep-seated ideological stance. (Russians also HATE war... so the government forbids calling the war in Ukraine a "war," and instead refers to it as a "special operation." Problem solved!) As @ssu has pointed out, Putin's government and pro-Kremlin elites have enjoyed a very warm relationship with European far right. As long as they don't literally call themselves "Nazis" and don't wear swastikas on their sleeves, they are kosher, as it were. As you acknowledge, under their uniforms, Stalinists and Neo-Nazis aren't that different.

The exceptions to this ideological camaraderie are Ukrainian and Polish far right. Not because they explicitly associate themselves with Nazism or employ Nazi symbols, but for historical reasons.

I'm saying I don't find it a credible premise (that the Trump administration and USA government as a whole was / is has more than fringe neo-Nazi elements). You are then free to argue it is credible. But if you're not motivated to, then that's the end of the argument on that point: I don't find Trump a credible neo-Nazi and you do. — boethius

But I did argue that there were obvious links between Trump and actual neonazis. Remember Jan 6? Now you are just stonewalling, not addressing the point made.

Define 'credible'.

Or then explain how Trump's neo-Nazi connection is in anyway relevant to the topic at hand. — boethius

Because by your own logic, Europe should have done something against Trump -- since you expect us to "do something" about neonazi fringe elements in the Ukraine...

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.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. A third-generation human rights instrument, the Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races.[6] The Convention also requires its parties to criminalize hate speech and criminalize membership in racist organizations.[7] (wiki)

Likewise, as I say, it's not clear to me what exhaustive criticism of authoritarianism and totalitarianism accomplishes. Criticizing people who are subject to press and democratic scrutiny (what we in the West can learn and do better) seems to me more constructive. — boethius

If you criticize on side and when the other sides does it, you stay silent or just see "no reason" to mention it, many would interpret that as having a bias. I think one should judge sides with equal standards. Unfortunately many people have this urge to "defend" one side. I remember on the old site when in 2003 the US invaded Iraq. Many came here to defend the action and balk at us who were critical about the whole WMD-argument for the invasion. Later came those who defended Bush that he "had only gotten bad intel". And now we got Apollodorus.

When one basically reurgitates the lines of an authoritarian regime that has now made it a law that saying anything wrong about the army or the "special military operation" will get you at most 15 years imprisonment, is a bit hypocrite.

Would you get in your country a 15 year prison term if you say something against your country's handling of a crisis? Russians didn't either before this week.

I think it is notable that Russia has (finally) descended into a Stalinist narrative, because it does have major implications here.

It maybe true. My argument on this point is not what's true and false, who broke what first etc. — boethius

Thanks for the "maybe".

But anyway, let's look at where NATO and the US did mess things up:

First about this promise of NATO never moving eastward. First to notice, this wasn't a written agreement. It wasn't done are said by NATO. It was said only by the US secretary of state in 1990 when talking about the unification of Germany. Note the year, as the timeline is important here.

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

Do notice to whom is this promise made: to Gorbachev, to the Soviet Union.

Hence you have an American politician, who basically cannot speak for all of NATO, saying something to a leader of a country that collapsed and isn't anymore. And then afterwards former parts of that now non-existent country, after become independent sovereign states, want to join NATO. Just how much things change there? You have totally different actors now.

But for Putin, head of Russia, a sovereign state that didn't exist then, but has somehow taken to represent ALL of Soviet Union, accuses of NATO breaking agreements. Well, why don't Vladimir have sellers remorse and claim that the Alaska deal the Russian Empire made with the US was wrong and now if you just give him Alaska back and he'll give you back the money, thank you! It would be similar.

And what some participants utterly fail to mention is the way HOW NATO enlarged to the east. The applicants didn't trust at all that Russia would not behave as it now has behaved (hence they were totally correct about it) and wanted article 5. guarantees. Their motivations were consistent and their fears have been showed to be true. The US and the West had different ideas.

And now we come to the real errors that the West made: The US thought that Russia was past, wouldn't be a problem, wouldn't bounce back up. Wouldn't have those territorial aspirations that it has now had and is having. And looking at the void the Soviet Union had left, their focus was more on NATO Article 1. That by integration to the Western defense system these countries wouldn't have border disputes and start fighting each other. And the Cold War was over! NATO had to reinvent itself! New threats! Terrorism, international operations! Things that, uh, Trump said decades later! Armies had to change from defending their territory to small, nimble organizations capable of performing out-of-the-theater operations. Article 5. was some old relic from the Cold War, which wasn't important. And lastly, Clinton hoped to get some votes from American voters of East-European descent. Aaah, those votes, how important they are. And if Russia wanted to join, sure, just take your place in the line back there!

And then came first Bosnia and then the NATO war in Kosovo, which was the WTF moment for Russia. The ties to Russia broke then.

And the last failure was George Bush promising something that simply couldn't be kept: that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in some time. Like later. As Ukraine had, uh, a lot of problems. Vladimirs response we have seen, and as I have said, this all gave the wonderful pretext for Vlad to go for those imperial aspirations that he has. But some still believe after all of the annexations, that if only Baker's promise was kept. :roll:

And now Vladimir overplayed his had and started a disastrous war. And now NATO transformed to what was during the Cold War and Germany has done a historical 180 degree turn as a new Cold War started. This was such a bad move from Vlad, that it may be the beginning of his end.

Yet one never should underestimate just how much perseverance Russians have. If their economy will falter, then they stand in line for bread. The sanctions won't stop Putin, that's for sure. If the people survived the collapse of the Soviet economy, they surely can survive sanctions too. — ssu

Questionable though, since the fall of Soviet and the following recession still had open doors towards the west with trade and business, which were a part in restoring the economy. The sanctions right now have basically blocked Russia from being part of the technology- and business practices that are essential to modern economic vitality.

Second issue is that unlike some third world country that has bought everything, Russia can produce it's tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft. There not as expensive as their Western counterparts and manpower is cheap. — ssu

But they can't if they are blocked from trading technology, semiconductors etc. That's the point of the technology sanctions. At the same time, manpower is cheap, but with a plunged Rubel people won't get far on what they earn, so it'll turn to slave labor and a vastly underperforming technological advantage.

If for instance observers are pondering why the large long column hasn't moved anywhere for days from north of Kiev, then you can also ask why Ukrainians haven't destroyed it or encircled them into smaller pieces — ssu

But they have performed attacks on it. The biggest reason they haven't mounted a full attack is A) their airforce have been seriously taken out and a flyby would risk the few planes they have left, while B) their anti-tank/anti-vehicle capability has been draining dry. It's only just now that the Swedish anti-tank weapons have arrived in Ukraine so we might see a mounted attack soon.

The real question is what Putin's objective is and in a stalemate, what Putin would accept for armistice and peace. Because that has to be basically the objective of Ukraine. Peace that is favorable to Ukraine is a possibility: it is getting huge aid from the West and it has the will to fight. Added up, the West sending 10 000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine does start to matter, but those won't save cities and their population from Russian artillery. — ssu

Problem is that Putin has little left to spin the truth. The only way for him to win is to kill Zelenskyy, kill everyone who opposes Putin, and by force take over Ukraine and install more Russian citizens so the general public is fewer Ukrainians and more Russians. That's the only way he can "win" this and that scenario is so far-fetched that I don't think even he thinks it's a possibility.

I believe that his goal now is to destroy as much as possible, use that footage to spin the narrative that "the "neo-nazi drug addicts" destroyed beautiful Ukraine and such barbarism couldn't save the nation, it is a wasteland that I and proud Russians tried to save from the west, now lost to the brutal enemies. As we mourn the fallen, we will build a better Russia for those that survived" etc. blah blah blah new world order blah.

I think his strategy right now is to attack in a way so that he could build a propaganda narrative on it and then turn focus somewhere else, probably building relations with China who really don't want this mess on their hands. They want Russia to stop and be a partner in a way that doesn't taint their own nation, so they can only start doing that when Russia ends the war. And the west will probably be gullible and stupid once again after this war: opening trade, removing sanctions and believing Putin and Russia will be peaceful now.

I think sanctions should be kept even after the war ends. Otherwise, what's with all the talk of Putin not getting away from the crimes he's done? Sanctions should be kept until the people of Russia goes into revolution mode. We're already seeing a lot of such movements now and it might just be a matter of time before the police switch sides. When that happens there's no real stopping them flushing Putin out of power without a civil war happening, which will not help Putin further.

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. — FreeEmotion

It's not the argument. I don't think a country is a type of thing which can be blamed. A country is not a being with intention. Individual people are blamed, and ought to be held accountable, but to direct blame at a country is to attribute responsibility where none can be attributed, resulting in no one being held accountable. You seem to understand this in your reference to G. W. Bush, above. Good historians describe the actions of individuals, not the actions of a phantasm entity (a country).

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. — FreeEmotion

But here you are making the same mistake, and doubling it up, to go even further with that mistake. First you mention what the US wants, as if a country is a type of thing which could have intentions, instead of pointing to what individuals want, as if everyone within the country wants the same thing, and this constitutes what the country wants. Then, you extend this to a group of countries, "its allies", as if a whole group of countries have one intention, when it doesn't even make sense to say that one country has intention.

It's worth it to listen to professor Mearsheimer about the ongoing crisis:

https://youtu.be/ppD_bhWODDc