Zelensky is a tad more legitimate than mad bad Vlad. At least he seemed to be elected by "most" of the population.

If only Ukraine had demilitarized as Putin demanded the once most powerful land army in Europe could have conquered Ukraine in days as planned instead of decades as in Chechnya and Dagestan.

Zelenskyy is a Jew and Putin believes Ukraine is run by Nazis? Pull the other leg.

Whilst Russias general objectives are to demilitarize and denazify, it's goals for a peaceful settlement of the conflict are more than what the author alludes to.

Putin outlined Russia's terms for a ceasefire and negotiations in June 2024. He said that Russia must be allowed to keep all the land it occupies, and be handed all of the provinces that it claims but does not fully control. He also said that Ukraine must officially end its plans to join NATO. Further, he demanded that the international community recognize Russia's annexations and lift their sanctions against it.

Without acceptance of these terms, there's no ceasefire and nothing to negotiate.

The West wants a ceasefire first and then negotiations, but the West cannot be trusted. The Europeans and Ukraine still wan to find a way to win the war, by trying to force Putin into a ceasefire during which they will send in NATO 'peacekeepers' get an opportunity to rearm when they are stronger and continue to provoke Russia into breaking this ceasefire, and coupled with U.S. security guarantees result in US boots on the ground and a full hot war between US and Russia that potentially may result in both the return of their lost territories, and nuclear war.
Russia wants iron clad agreements and the root causes of the conflict addressed before ending hostilities as they're already in a stronger position militarily, and they do not see Zelensky as legitimate because his term of office has expired.

How NATO Dismantled Ukraine’s Sovereignty & Democracy
http://youtu.be/uA5hswYNUS8

THE IMPORTANCE OF OPPOSING THE NEOCON ATTACK ON RUSSIA AND ITS ALLIES
http://www.youtube.com/live/oDR_A-hckfE

Watch the videos, read the article / document.

Overextending and Unbalancing Russia
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
Published Apr 24, 2019 - 3 years prior to the Russian Invasion.

"This brief summarizes a report that comprehensively examines nonviolent, cost-imposing options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress—overextend and unbalance—Russia’s economy and armed forces and the regime's political standing at home and abroad."

- So they were planning asymmetrical warfare against Russia.

"Expanding U.S. energy production would stress Russia’s economy, potentially constraining its government budget and, by extension, its defense spending."

"Imposing deeper trade and financial sanctions would also likely degrade the Russian economy, especially if such sanctions are comprehensive and multilateral. Thus, their effectiveness will depend on the willingness of other countries to join in such a process."

"Increasing Europe’s ability to import gas from suppliers other than Russia could economically extend Russia and buffer Europe against Russian energy coercion."

"Encouraging the emigration from Russia of skilled labor and well-educated youth has few costs or risks and could help the United States and other receiving countries and hurt Russia, but any effects—both positive for receiving countries and negative for Russia—would be difficult to notice except over a very long period."

"Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages."

"Increasing support to the Syrian rebels could jeopardize other U.S. policy priorities, such as combating radical Islamic terrorism, and could risk further destabilizing the entire region."

"Promoting liberalization in Belarus likely would not succeed and could provoke a strong Russian response, one that would result in a general deterioration of the security environment in Europe and a setback for U.S. policy."

[Cont.]

"Diminishing faith in the Russian electoral system would be difficult because of state control over most media sources. Doing so could increase discontent with the regime, but there are serious risks that the Kremlin could increase repression or lash out and pursue a diversionary conflict abroad that might run counter to Western interests."

"Creating the perception that the regime is not pursuing the public interest could focus on widespread, large-scale corruption and further challenge the legitimacy of the state."

"Encouraging domestic protests and other nonviolent resistance would focus on distracting or destabilizing the Russian regime and reducing the likelihood that it would pursue aggressive actions abroad, but the risks are high and it would be difficult for Western governments to directly increase the incidence or intensity of anti-regime activities in Russia."

"Undermining Russia’s image abroad would focus on diminishing Russian standing and influence, thus undercutting regime claims of restoring Russia to its former glory. Further sanctions, the removal of Russia from non-UN international forums, and boycotting such events as the World Cup could be implemented by Western states and would damage Russian prestige."

"Reposturing bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets...

Reposturing fighters so that they are closer to their targets than bombers...

Deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia...

Repositioning U.S. and allied ballistic missile defense systems to better engage Russian ballistic missiles...

There are also ways to get Russia to extend itself in strategic competition...

A key risk of these options is being drawn into arms races that result in cost-imposing strategies directed against the United States...

The United States might goad Russia into a costly arms race by breaking out of the nuclear arms control regime..."

DO YOU NOT SEE WHAT THEY DID?
THEY TOLD YOU IT WAS 'UNPROVOKED'

They convinced you to foot the bill for a risky confrontation with a nuclear superpower THEY PROVOKED.

If you don't understand this stuff you're a part of their policy plans, and a victim of their propaganda.

Full Policy Paper below

Extending Russia
Competing from Advantageous Ground
Apr 24, 2019
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

A rogue state - who, by modern standards, is arguably just as bad as the Nazis - wants to "de-Nazify" another country?

The irony is thick.

.

(Continued …)

.

Putin and his propagandists have long claimed to be fighting the heirs of Nazi Germany. From its crackdown on domestic dissent to its aggression on the international stage, the Kremlin has regularly smeared its adversaries as fascists and fascist collaborators.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that Putin claimed would achieve its 'denazification', heightened this propaganda.

According to Andreas Umland, an expert on Ukrainian nationalism at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, Ukraine has a far right like most countries of the world have, but their organizational strength and electoral support are smaller than in Russia and in many other European countries.

Since Ukraine regained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, far-right, ultra-nationalist political groups have struggled to make much headway in Ukrainian politics.

The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right indicates that during much of Ukraine’s post-Soviet history, the radical right has remained on the political periphery, wielding little influence over national politics. Since Ukraine’s declaration of independence, its radical right’s national electoral support has rarely exceeded 3 percent of the popular vote.

There are no neo-Nazi elements in Zelensk’s government. Putin’s assertions about the need to liberate Ukraine from the grip of neo-Nazis and genocide against ethnic Russians in Ukraine are propaganda.

Umland considers that the primary reason Putin uses this as justification for his invasion of Ukraine is because the defeat of the Nazis is the high point of modern Russian history. It is a major reference point for the Russian national identity. The fact that the Soviet Union secured the victory over Hitler is a principal source of Russian pride.

For Izabella Tabarovsky, Senior Advisor of the Kennan Institute in Washington, “Russia should be de-Nazifying itself,” because there are far-right, fascist elements in Russia, too.

.

Hi Banjo Patterson,
I'm not sure if you lost your first comment, your only comment on this thread started with "(Continued …)"

I think you should watch the first video I linked to in this thread, for some more background info.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

The “(Continued …)”, I’m afraid, was a mistake that I forgot to eliminate before posting.

Sorry about that.

I read your posts with interest.

The unimaginable revelation of Putin and the Russian colonisation of Ukraine sends a chill down my spine when I realise the magnitude of the dramatic consequences of Yeltsin’s choice of an insignificant little man, who appeared to be quite a docile person, to succeed him as President of Russia.

I always thought that CEO was difficult. Human Resources is even worse !

.

"The unimaginable revelation of Putin and the Russian colonisation of Ukraine"
It didn't have to be this way if not for the Wests incessant thirst for maintaining primacy, and the bankers thirst for capitalist exploitation.

Russia didn't want this war, it saw it an being unavoidable and an existential threat and I believe that to be true, with sanctions, overthrows, the march of NATO (military spending racket) and Europeans openly talking about trying to break up the country.

And I think Putin has done a pretty great job of bring Russia back from the brink, he inherited a shattered country rife with corruption and ruled by the oligarchs who were only interested in personal greed.

It took him a long time to slowly bring the country back in a way that was better for the people who lived there, without becoming ruled by foreign interests. Sure heaps more needs to be done, but if I were Russia, I'd be thankful for Putin, despite the conflicts for which I'd have significant animosity towards the West.

A lot of Russian industries are coming back to life, including as a direct result of Western departure, and Russia is becoming more self sufficient, relying less upon the West.

They make their own turbines, they make their own commercial passenger jets.
(If the US has lost it's car industry to China, then I'm sure this scares them as it's just another essential item the the West can't profit from and hold over other countries.)
Western companies have started to openly express a desire to return to Russia, they've already lost hundreds of billions by leaving.

And despite the West using militarism and fear as a tool to bolster their economies (US - China, EU - Russia) Russia can dangle a carrot with it's rare earth minerals, and the EU is losing out badly with the high cost of energy after cutting itself off from cheap Russian gas, like it was a bad thing. (Only a bad thing if you wish to divide the world and make profits or war at the citizens expense)

Armchair Critic - you wrote "It took him (Putin) a long time to slowly bring the country back in a way that was better for the people who lived there".
You are joking, aren't you? Putin has wasted or damaged up to a million Russian lives thanks to his invasion of Ukraine. How is this better for the people who lived there please?

Armchair Critic,

Your post echoes familiar Kremlin narratives. Putin didn’t save Russia - he built a cage and called it a fortress.

//Russia didn't want this war, it saw it as being unavoidable and an existential threat…//

Russia chose to invade Ukraine. No one forced them to annex Crimea in 2014 or launch a full-scale invasion in 2022. Ukraine posed no military threat - only a democratic one that undermined Putin’s influence over former Soviet states. NATO is a defensive alliance. Countries apply to join - often to protect themselves from Russia, not threaten it.

//...sanctions, overthrows, the march of NATO... Europeans openly talking about trying to break up the country.//

Ukraine’s 2014 revolution wasn’t a Western coup - it was a public rejection of corruption. The claim that Europe is trying to “break up” Russia is pure propaganda. The West’s actions have been reactive, not expansionist.

//Putin has done a pretty great job of bring[ing] Russia back from the brink...//

He didn’t fix corruption - he consolidated it. Russia under Putin has become a repressive autocracy. Opposition is jailed or killed, media is state-controlled, and elections are a farce. Economic stability built on authoritarianism isn’t a revival - it’s stagnation under tight control.

//Russia is becoming more self sufficient, relying less upon the West.//

That’s not a strength - it’s isolation. Producing your own turbines and jets means little if they're outdated or unsellable. Much of this “self-sufficiency” is emergency adaptation, not prosperity.

//Western companies have started to openly express a desire to return to Russia…//

Yes, because businesses want profit - but that doesn't mean the Russian economy is thriving. They’ve lost innovation, partnerships, and global integration.

//Russia can dangle a carrot with its rare earth minerals…//

And the West is responding - diversifying supply and accelerating renewables. The leverage is fading.

//I’d be thankful for Putin... despite the conflicts...//

Gratitude for an autocrat who wages imperial wars and crushes dissent is misplaced. Russia deserved reform and democracy - not repression and aggression.