Putin recognizes the independence of Donbass

[Estro Felino]

I don't think so, at least not when trying to present a historical perspective to the events in question. One thing that I've noticed is that many Americans (and perhaps this may be true for the West overall) seem to have a poor historical memory and a short attention span. This, coupled with the fact that most people can't even name their own senators or find their own state on a map, it's relatively easy to manipulate the masses into going to war.

Sadly true.

 

[Stevicus]

I think Putin is a thug and a gangster, but that doesn't mean I accept the narrative being sold to us by my government and yours. Russian insistence that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO seems entirely reasonable, and the fact no western government seems willing to see the geopolitical realities from a Russian perspective, does not bode well for a negotiated settlement. Ignorance of Russian history, it's relations with the west, and it's absolute commitment to retaining the Crimea, seems pretty universal in the west, sadly.

I agree. I've noticed in the standard Western narrative, there's zero attention to the historical perspective or even having the common courtesy that the Russians might have a different point of view. I've spent some time there and studied some of their history, and it's true that they really don't see the world as we do. That doesn't make them bad people; they have their good side and their dark side, just as we do.

 

[Flankerl]

Okay, and...?

It's the opposite of what you claimed?

what Matteo Salvini said

Yes you like and care what Fascists say. It is known.

Why? Because the EU is light years away from the European spirit.
Which is understood by people like Putin, who is a patriotic courageous leader.

That explains why Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania are all for more NATO forces in Eastern Europe.
They just love Putin so much. Probably comes with being a Russian neighbour.

 

[Flankerl]

I've noticed in the standard Western narrative, there's zero attention to the historical perspective or even having the common courtesy that the Russians might have a different point of view

Because it's irrelevant.
Ukraine is an independent country with internationally recognised borders and it denies Russian claims to its territory and people.

End of discussion right there.

Russian insistence that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO seems entirely reasonable

Why?
Is Ukraine Russian territory?
Is it a Russian Oblast?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think Putin is a thug and a gangster, but that doesn't mean I accept the narrative being sold to us by my government and yours. Russian insistence that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO seems entirely reasonable, and the fact no western government seems willing to see the geopolitical realities from a Russian perspective, does not bode well for a negotiated settlement. Ignorance of Russian history, it's relations with the west, and it's absolute commitment to retaining the Crimea, seems pretty universal in the west, sadly.

Yeah, because NATO has plans to invade Russia, right?

 

[metis]

By great man, I mean a man that defends his own nation and its roots.

What he's doing against the Ukraine is not defense.

The fact that the EU is ruled by three women proves that European men have lost that sense of responsibility that only women have.

There's a huge element of truth to that.

 

[Stevicus]

He's obviously not an imbecile or mad, but he might be delusional as to what he thinks Russia should be as a country and as to the respect it deserves. If one looks at the history, one might blame much on past leaders - such as Stalin and his early friendship with Germany, and where this gamble rather back-fired on Russia. And also, given the lack of economic success of the country (with regards to so many others), the power that Russia has wielded in the past mainly has come from owning nuclear weapons - so much like North Korea, and being more like inflated ego.

Russian history is quite fascinating, actually. I guess you could say they've had an ongoing struggle to gain the respect they deserve. They were invaded numerous times from all directions. The Mongols from the East, the Germans from the West, the Turks from the South, and the Swedes from the North. They've been isolated and boxed in, geographically, which is why one of their main objectives was to gain an ice-free seaport. Another dimension to their history relates to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and for the longest time, a major goal was to retake that city for Orthodoxy. They had a longstanding enmity with the Ottoman Empire and numerous wars where the Russians slowly chipped away at them, causing a gradual weakening and eventual collapse. It was similar in southeastern Europe where the Ottoman Empire had ruled for centuries.

But the Russians did gain respectability during the Napoleonic Wars, being one of the major powers to defeat Napoleon. Up until then, they had been quietly moving eastward into what is now Siberia and the Russian Far East.

One thing I could never understand was Britain's and France's reaction and involvement in the Crimean War. I could see the Russians' point of view, as they had an ongoing enmity with Turkey and wanted to retake Constantinople, but why would the British want to prevent that? What stake did they have in the Ottoman Empire? Why side with them?

There's a lot of European wars I never could understand or why different countries took different sides (or sometimes switched sides). America's Founders believed we'd be better off by staying out of those torrid affairs.

As Russia was isolated, the industrial revolution didn't really spread to that country until the late 19th century, so in that respect, they had appeared backward and agrarian compared to the burgeoning industrialized West. Their weaknesses were revealed in their poor performance against Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, and an even worse performance against the Germans in WW1. Nicholas II was considered weak and vacillating - a terrible monarch all the way around.

But by the same token, the Western Allies in WW1 never really seemed to appreciate or understand the difficulties their friend and ally in the East was going through. No doubt they were having plenty of difficulties on their own, but the Russians were starving and out of ammunition. They needed help, but the West just let them suffer and eventually hung them out to dry. After all the blood that they shed for the Allied cause; they were just tossed aside like they didn't count. The Bolsheviks gained power precisely because they said they would pull Russia out of the war, which is what the people wanted. They were sick of it.

Of course, in the aftermath, Stalin took power and pushed for rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. You can blame Stalin for many things, but if you look at the "before" and "after" picture of what Russia was like before and after Stalin, you would see stark differences and marked improvements. Making a country better is about all anyone can expect from a national leader. They're not expected to be saints.

In the post-Stalinist era, there was a general thaw and a softening of policies which turned the Cold War more into a Cool War, in which many in the West were favoring detente, cooperation, and friendship with the Soviet Union. This was especially true in the US during the post-Vietnam era, when many people had had their fill of the rabid anti-communists and red scaremongers we were having to deal with. But the Iranians took actions which directly led to a resurgence in US warmongering, war fever, and brought another red scaremonger, Ronald Reagan into power. He was out to show the rest of the world that "America means business."

Russians might blame Gorbachev for weakening the Soviet state. Some credit Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union economically and winning the Cold War. Some say it was inevitable regardless of what Reagan or Gorbachev might have done. A few words of scorn might also be said about Boris Yeltsin and his corrupt, incompetent buffoonery.

Again, the West could have handled things better before Putin came to power and when there was still a window of opportunity for warm, cordial relations with that country. The West is not innocent at all, and our own governments must acknowledge their own responsibilities here.

 

[Estro Felino]

What he's doing against the Ukraine is not defense.

There's a huge element of truth to that.

I love Americans.
You cannot even imagine how much I like them.
The problem is that the American Deep State is light years away from the people.

If Americans are the angels, the Deep State is Satan.
Unfortunately it is like that.
When I criticize the Deep State, my intention is absolutely not to imply that the average American ( business owner, farmer, employee) has something to do with it.

And btw... I am speaking of evil people, of Satan's servants who want to undo the middle class both in Europe and in the US.
Because Europe and US are the same thing as for rights, freedoms.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yeah, because NATO has plans to invade Russia, right?

Well from the Russian perspective, the USA and her allies have invaded two countries close to her borders this century - Afghanistan and Iraq. So I don’t suppose they have the same rose tinted view of NATOs honourable intentions, as perhaps you do.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well from the Russian perspective, the USA and her allies have invaded two countries close to her borders this century - Afghanistan and Iraq. So I don’t suppose they have the same rose tinted view of NATOs honourable intentions, as perhaps you do.

Russia invaded Afghanistan long before the US did.

 

[Stevicus]

It's the opposite of what you claimed?

Why? Just because you say so and that's it? No citations or elaboration, just a proclamation from @Flankerl.

End of discussion right there.

Whatever you say.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The West is not innocent at all..

Nobody is squeaky clean.
That doesn't give Putin the right to invade Ukraine.
Unless of course, you side with the goose-stepping military nations, whose ambition is to conquer the west and rule by force.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well from the Russian perspective, the USA and her allies have invaded two countries close to her borders this century - Afghanistan and Iraq. So I don’t suppose they have the same rose tinted view of NATOs honourable intentions, as perhaps you do.

Russia has violated the Minsk Agreement which they signed in 2014.

 

[Estro Felino]

Russia invaded Afghanistan long before the US did.

Shall we speak of Syria and Libya?

Nobody is squeaky clean.
That doesn't give Putin the right to invade Ukraine.
Unless of course, you side with the goose-stepping military nations, whose ambition is to conquer the west and rule by force.

Let there be referendums so they can decide who to be with.

 

[metis]

I love Americans.

And I love Sicilians and even married one!

And btw... I am speaking of evil people, of Satan's servants who want to undo the middle class both in Europe and in the US.

But "deep state" has to be defined as far as what and whom.

Because Europe and US are the same thing as for rights, freedoms.

Then Putin certainly should not be praised on that basis as fascists are certainly not about freedom other than their own so as to do anything they want to do.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Shall we speak of Syria and Libya?



Let there be referendums so they can decide who to be with.

And here thought the subject was Ukraine.

 

[Estro Felino]

And I love Sicilians and even married one!
But "deep state" has to be defined as far as what and whom.

Then Putin certainly should not be praised on that basis as fascists are certainly not about freedom other than their own so as to do anything they want to do.

I did not invent the expression Deep State.
Someone else did. Just figure that it is an expression we use even in Italian to define ours. Il nostro Deep State.

The Deep State is much more powerful than the Congress and the POTUS. It is led by people who work for the wealthiest people in the world. Who have certain interests, like tripling their assets.
And wars do create that money. Selling weapons, tanks, for example. Controlling currencies, stock market...

 

[RestlessSoul]

Russia invaded Afghanistan long before the US did.

And so did Britain long before that, but you’re missing the point here I think. How many wars have the US been involved in since WWII? How many republics in central and South America, and the Caribbean, have the US undermined or overthrown? You buy the Russia bad/US good narrative if you like, I prefer to at least try for a more objective view.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Russia has violated the Minsk Agreement which they signed in 2014.

Yes, Russia is hardly blameless. But they are not the only untrustworthy players in the carnival of fools that is international politics.

Do you think it's the job of the US and her allies, to police the world? And how well do you think that's been going, up to now?

 

[Stevicus]

Nobody is squeaky clean.
That doesn't give Putin the right to invade Ukraine.

Never said it gave him the right. I'm just saying there's more to the story than what you are apparently willing to admit based on your characterization below:

Unless of course, you side with the goose-stepping military nations, whose ambition is to conquer the west and rule by force.

That's really all it is to you. Just some comic book story with superheroes and arch villains.

The real world is much more complicated than this.