Your preference for totalitarian governments over democracies shows through in every post.
Think you have overly/wrongly generalised my view - I think i) some form of totalitarian government can be super contrary to Western blanket prejudice/damnation, and ii) all major "democratic" governments are institutionally destined to make shite decisions continuously*. Fancy Israel being supposedly the only democracy in the Middle East! That bone saw fellow and the Ayatollahs are looking like saints in comparison!
I am a simple guy - I judge a system based on its results - do you think the "democratic" systems in US, UK, India, Japan or Israel are electing good leaders, making good decisions, delivering good results? Would you consider any of them a shinning light in governance?
Your argument seems to be that Russia (or Putin) is more likely to resort to the nuclear option first (i.e. is more ruthless/desperate) therefore appeasement is the only answer.
IMHO that is not quite what the text I quoted says. Think the gist is why make a dangerous animal feel threatened, if it wasn't going to threaten you otherwise. On the other hand, if said animal was going to attack you irrespective, your only option is to counter it at all cost.
This works until the aggressor, buoyed by the success of his last actions, ups the ante and spots another opportunity for aggression...and you can guarantee he will having seen the results of his last venture. If appeasement was the only option with the first aggression then it will, for the same reasons as previously, be the only answer the next time around, ad infinitum.
Congrats! You have just described American foreign adventures to a T, have you not?
Now stand in Russia's shoes, as America's target for sanctions, destabilisation and regime change for decades. You see unlike the wilfully blind and dumb populace in the West, the global majority are perfectly able to stand in e.g. China's shoes, watching American gunboats sailing up and down their coast - when they have not fired a single lethal shot beyond their border for 45 years. Yet you wise guys think Russia, China are the aggressors?
I believe that eventually some kind of negotiated settlement will take place because of the lack of resolve of the Western nations as a result of their own perceived internal self-interests, but this will be taken by Russia as further justification for their actions and fed as such to their ill-informed, long-suffering people, and will have more to do with expediency than right or wrong.
Question is should this NATO expansion "adventure" been allowed to proceed by the democratic republics of yanks, krauts, frogs and pommies if they weren't so stupid in the first place? After all Russia always had veto power, if necessary on the battlefield, on whether Ukraine can hold a knife at their throat from their point of view, and not without justification/precedence - have you blanked out in your mind that this "adventure" happened to be led by the very country that threatened Armageddon and got its way in the Cuban missile crisis!? Yet you all think Russia was unprovoked?
How the hell do you guys handle cognitive dissonance in your head with what you know and what you believe?
It's very clear that Ukraine isn't being given the option to choose to remain a neutral state by Russia.
I am not aware of anyone arguing seriously that it was Russia that failed to fulfil the Minsk agreements, e.g., especially given what Merkel and Hollande disclosed since the war, so I see no basis for your assertion.
That is all rather reductionist. It could be solely one or the other, or could be a mixture of both. Or Neither.
The text evokes memories of red-coated Brit soldiers marching through India type of imperialist power. It isn't about that.
Wot? You don't think the West have consistently justified the war by
calling Putin an imperial aggressor? Seriously?
It is about Russia wishing to exert influence by military means outside its borders. And there is certainly some evidence of this being the case :
Russian involvement in Syria has been critical for the current regime
Ongoing significant Russian involvement in CAR
Mali war has seen Russian deployment of mercenary groups which has displaced French forces.
None of these could be viewed as Russian concern over its borders. All of them are Russia using affiliated (but officially deniable) forces to further their influence in critical territories.
In all 3 examples you give Russia is on the side of the sovereign governments - so tell me are these countries somehow only allowed to invite Western "assistance", preferably a NATO ally of France their prior colonial master perhaps? Or are you so used to our entitlement to colonise/invade that you don't even notice the imperialism intrinsic in your own comment? How many more invasions, deaths, genocides in our name do we need for eyes to open?
Our (US, UK, NATO, EU in the shape of VdL etc.) narrative has long been Putin's out to conquer countries - when Putin is not stupid enough to even want to conquer Ukraine because occupying Western Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine - they have been there, done that, in Afghanistan. The consequence of this false narrative is serious - it justifies our causing the war, and it prolongs the war, by the most imperialistic, deadly (yet "democratic*") country and its vassals on earth.
Nukes are a diminishing threat. Use of any nuclear weaponry in Ukraine would escalate to NATO deployment, Nuking Poland would start a Nuclear war. Plus Russia has some tepid allies currently (whilst it serves their interests). China would immediately withdraw every bit of economic support from Russia. Nuclear weapons in Ukraine would initiate a new Nuclear Arms race with smaller countries - especially those concerned about China. China wants the fragile Nuclear impasse currently in place to hold. Russia would be truly isolated.
Interesting - so you think Trump would launch if Poland is nuked? Before or after he quit NATO?
Let's say Biden would, is he going to nuke China also without provocation? If he doesn't, you do realise China will be the sole superpower left standing after, right? Now, do tell if you still think a nuked Poland, or Germany, or Holland, would cause Biden to push the button?
Your description of the Russia-China relationship is based on fantasy rather than cold logic. No matter what Russia does to Ukraine/Poland/Germany/Holland etc., and no matter how distasteful China finds it, China is not going to let Russia lose. It is for no better reason than because US and their vassals call and treat China openly as their #1 adversary and are following Tonya Harding's footsteps faithfully, despite China's 1st, 2nd and 3rd objective all being continual internal development in peace. You don't need to be Sun Tzu to understand this, it is another prime example of the utter stupidity of all said liberal democracies*.
A reason for the war that is not being mentioned much is the simple concept of a leader that is feeling vulnerable using a conflict to boost nationalist feeling and deflect from the domestic problems in the country
It is also a great way to get young men off the streets and give their families something more important to worry about than the state the country is in
It is also a good way for a leader to gain respect and reputation - if they win
What you say is Western copium, I am afraid. Take a look at Russian economic performance before and since Putin's long rule and you will understand why he never needed to feel insecure. Then take a close look at what actually happened in WW2, who actually suffered the death of 27 millions from the West, whom actually truly destroyed the aggressors in their "sacred" war by sheer grit (hint: not exactly what Hollywood tells you), and you might start to understand why they have reasons to be paranoid, and are behind him.
Are you sure your comment is not
psychological projection of our own situation?
Isn't it charming, after seeing our politicians' and media's wonderfully accurate representation of the Gaza conflict, that you all still believe what you saw/heard from our "leaders"/media? Ok I know I know, confirmation bias is a hard nut to crack...
* Happy to talk about the fundamental disease of liberal democracy rather than just these symptoms in a separate thread, if people are interested - it is probably the biggest problem under the sun, but alas a hopeless one, imho.
