Your essay is fundamentally deeply flawed because it is based on a serious lack of knowledge of the actual facts of how the war started in Ukraine, who started the war (US/Ukraine) and of all the players involved (including the neo-Nazis in Ukraine who have been *central* to Kiev's proxy war on East Ukraine and Russia).
Your assertion that Putin was stating his 'view' of the conflict and the history is specious. Putin was stating decades of *facts* that led to Russian intervention in 2022. Everything he said was accurate. I know this because I have been closely studying Ukraine through top notch independent news sources like John Pilger, Oliver Stone, John Mearsheimer, and Consortium News, since 2004 when the Bush II administration led the first coup attempt in Ukraine (failed). These sources show clearly that the last 20 years of attacks on Russia through Ukraine have been led by Washington DC and Kiev, not by Russia.
Until you've got these facts straight, you frankly need to refrain from taking shots in the dark on such a serious matter - a US war of aggression which has dangerously, unnecessarily and unconscionably put the entire world on the threshold of a global nuclear conflict.
I disagree with your understatement of Western provocation and neo-nazism (which may yet cause Ukraine's leadership major problems), but this is an excellent opinion peace. It's nice to read someone reflecting rather than reacting.
I especially despise the Media when it plays the man instead of the ball (or, as it was in this case, many balls).
Did you watch Tucker being interviewed the next day? That was a helluva surprise, was cleverly planned for legitimacy, showed he had smarts, and was politically entertaining.
But I do think the neo-Nazi thing is bullshit. I mean, Belarus is hardly better in that respect and Russia is all buddy-buddy with that regime. Putin is using this as an excuse and it's not needed, in my mind. He has a valid point about the NATO threat and the West not fulfilling their promises after the USSR fell. He should just emphasize that.
Sure, Russia has neo-nazis too, and Putin will use whatever topic weapon he has, but that will not reduce its danger to Ukraine. I won't kill you with links but I wrote 2 intensive articles about it during my own bullshit detecting journey. On the Media aspect, it was interesting seeing Vice and others report on it before the war, and then switch approach once the war started.
Furthermore, it's those radicals that were the vaseline for NATO's plans. Simply, it's easier to stoke radicals. Since Mariupol, Azov has been normalised by Western Media, and is currently in Avdeevka assisting the Ukrainian withdrawal, and are apparently unhappy with Zelensky's new General's handling of the situation.
Your essay is fundamentally deeply flawed because it is based on a serious lack of knowledge of the actual facts of how the war started in Ukraine, who started the war (US/Ukraine) and of all the players involved (including the neo-Nazis in Ukraine who have been *central* to Kiev's proxy war on East Ukraine and Russia).
Your assertion that Putin was stating his 'view' of the conflict and the history is specious. Putin was stating decades of *facts* that led to Russian intervention in 2022. Everything he said was accurate. I know this because I have been closely studying Ukraine through top notch independent news sources like John Pilger, Oliver Stone, John Mearsheimer, and Consortium News, since 2004 when the Bush II administration led the first coup attempt in Ukraine (failed). These sources show clearly that the last 20 years of attacks on Russia through Ukraine have been led by Washington DC and Kiev, not by Russia.
That first coup attempt was Bush's 'Orange Revolution'. Here is the link to a report written by Canadian journalist Yves Engler, detailing Canada's role in the series of western coup attempts in Ukraine: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/revisiting-our-secret-role-in-ukraines-2004-orange-revolution
And here is a link to my essay laying out the facts from 2009 to the present, with citations from Pilger, Consortium news and others: https://ericbrooks.substack.com/p/why-are-both-republicans-and-democrats
Until you've got these facts straight, you frankly need to refrain from taking shots in the dark on such a serious matter - a US war of aggression which has dangerously, unnecessarily and unconscionably put the entire world on the threshold of a global nuclear conflict.
I disagree with your understatement of Western provocation and neo-nazism (which may yet cause Ukraine's leadership major problems), but this is an excellent opinion peace. It's nice to read someone reflecting rather than reacting.
I especially despise the Media when it plays the man instead of the ball (or, as it was in this case, many balls).
Did you watch Tucker being interviewed the next day? That was a helluva surprise, was cleverly planned for legitimacy, showed he had smarts, and was politically entertaining.
Nope, I didn't see his other interview. Maybe I will look that up.
I didn't mean to understate Western provocation. I have written about that in the past: https://fab.industries/blog/2022/realpolitik-2/
But I do think the neo-Nazi thing is bullshit. I mean, Belarus is hardly better in that respect and Russia is all buddy-buddy with that regime. Putin is using this as an excuse and it's not needed, in my mind. He has a valid point about the NATO threat and the West not fulfilling their promises after the USSR fell. He should just emphasize that.
You'll find it interesting, especially the warm welcome in Dubai - https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/tucker-carlson-world-government-summit-2024
Sure, Russia has neo-nazis too, and Putin will use whatever topic weapon he has, but that will not reduce its danger to Ukraine. I won't kill you with links but I wrote 2 intensive articles about it during my own bullshit detecting journey. On the Media aspect, it was interesting seeing Vice and others report on it before the war, and then switch approach once the war started.
Furthermore, it's those radicals that were the vaseline for NATO's plans. Simply, it's easier to stoke radicals. Since Mariupol, Azov has been normalised by Western Media, and is currently in Avdeevka assisting the Ukrainian withdrawal, and are apparently unhappy with Zelensky's new General's handling of the situation.