Bless your heart.
You get your information from RT, a state owned propaganda source controlled by an oligarch who knows that if he doesn’t toe the line, he’ll end up in prison or dead from drinking radioactive tea. A better source of information would be NPR, The NY Times, The Post, or CNN.
Which would've led to another World War, one between two nuclear powers. Millions would have died not to mention the environmental mess.
Who's said anything about wanting war? The closest thing I’ve said is to sanction the **** out of Russian financial institutions and oligarchs. Hopefully that brings a change either in decision making if not regime change.
But this isn't about NATO, it's about Ukraine and other former satellites existing. Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union.
Compromise? What is there to compromise on here? Russia is slowly swallowing up former satellites. Where will this stop? Once the Soviet Union is recreated? Once Russia takes over Poland and Scandinavian countries?
Why would Putin need to build up a military when he can bully nations around and dolts like you demand that western countries compromise?
I find this series of questions entirely committed to a partisan US view. As You well know, I am not a fan of the UN/US/UJ version of the New World Order. I am a Constitutional advocate of global human rights and restricted or limited governance. This does make me a supporter of Putin or Xi, or any brand of communist ideologue whose views cannot be consistent with a limited government.
I read CNN more than I read RT, and I find that US media is pretty much operating as propaganda retailer for globalist interests. Trump is attacked as an outsider of that control group. Putin is attacked as an opponent of that control group, even though he has a lot of Marxist views mixed in with his pretend Russian nationalist agenda. He favors Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, North Korea, Iran, and practically "owns" Syria. He seems to believe that Islamic fundamentalism is "bad" and opposes, in public view, terrorism though he may use it behind the scenes. Russian intelligence has warned us of many terrorist threats and coming attacks against us, most of which warnings have been ignored by our "intelligence" only to find out too late it was good information. What has caught my attention about Putin is his reaction from 2014 to the allegedly Western-backed coup in Ukraine, in 2014, amid gleeful Western and NATO reports that now Ukraine would become a member of NATO.
Putin said then that the UN or "New World Order" was not "New Law" or a new system of governance, but "No Law". By "No Law" he meant the controlling powers of the UN and New World Order had broken its assurances of not pushing the NATO alliance into former Soviet States and positioning military including missiles much closer to Moscow. So, he called the interests behind that push "Thugs" and started saying they intended to do whatever they wanted.
In my opinion, Western interests are driving to secure Russian Oil within their control and basically eliminate real Russian interests, and Russian independence.
Until the Maidan coup, Russia made no effective resistance to NATO expansion. Consequent to that coup in Ukraine, Russia has improved its military, dropped its nuclear treaty commitments, and build new missiles with nuke capacity. Prior to these new missiles, we could boast that we could shoot down anything launched from anywhere on planet earth. It appears that Iran will have these missiles, and that China and NK already do.
Putin has apparently got some backing from China, and they are working on transportation links and pipelines for oil and gas.
I don't think Russia and/or China are capable of holding peripheral territories like the former USSR states, or places like Japan, Vietnam, or Taiwan. Going into those areas would have huge personnel costs and involve major military outlays. I think we would see a bunch of new Afghanistans. I don't think Putin can take or hold Ukraine on any long-term basis. Even Luhansk and Donetsk would be very pricey holdings.
I think he wants a treaty that rolls back NATO a few steps. and keeps missiles and tanks further from Moscow, and clear title to all the Russian oil. Which I believe he thinks would mean, long term, the rise of a Russia/China combo to displace the US/UK alliance in world geopolitics as top dog.
Our leaders are already getting edgy about China's projections of new bases and relationships (colonies); worldwide.
If we are going to have a future, it will have to come from actually being honest and actually honoring ours treaty duties, wnd building a stronger military than anyone orany set of nations. J. William Fulbright posed another path in his book j"The Arrogance of Power" that I think essentially games out as letting China and a few other "powers" believe they have the lead, and then letting the rest of the world nip at their heels.
Either way, I believe, there is no real peace and continual war.
and no truth. "No Law" and "No Truth">
www.tabletmag.com
