Part 2

There's hawks on both sides of the US government that support this.
The west profits at the expense of others and the politicians who support it get kickbacks.

Take Belarus and Kazakhstan for example, they only recently moved closer to Russia when the west tried to start civil unrest in their countries, which forced them to align with Moscow.

The West uses the CIA, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, and organises protesters through things like Oslo Freedom Forum, and VPN networks.

What choice do countries like Russia have when people in the West like Victoria Nuland and Lindsay Graham exist for no other purpose to create foreign conflicts, and never ever stop to push forward these 'rule the world' for profit agendas?

Then they say the want Putin assassinated, or the Russian government overthrown, or Russia chopped up into tiny manageable pieces;
- before they move onto China.

Right now Ukraine says they will ONLY enter peace discussions with the Russian government after they face a war crimes tribunal.
(Basically saying the existing government will be removed, and they will negotiate new agreements with a new pro-western Russian puppet government that is aligned with the west)

It's one thing to do this type of thing to smaller regional countries, but another thing entirely to do it to nuclear armed states.

I don't want a nuclear bloody war or billions of people dead.
The West is the aggressor, but it does so hiding behind issues of human rights etc.
- Situations which itself has had a hand in creating.

Hi Foxy,
I know your opinions on things as well as you know mine.
Let me put things in a way where we can at least find some common understanding.
I support Russia in this conflict, and to some degree China as well if what they're doing is to simply defend themselves from the West.
I don't support communism, (and in regards to Russia I don't see them as a communist country anymore) but I do support their both their right to defend themselves.
I support whatever steps they have to take reciprical of the Wests own rules to defend their countries from existential threats.

If they step out of this zone I too will oppose it, but I can't guarantee that this thing wont spiral out of control, as things stand.
Russia wants demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, but they're also fighting for their very existence as the west will not stop with its own goals.
All of this could've been avoided if Ukraine respected the Misnk agreements.
Russia couldn't allow the west to take Crimea, and it could not stand by indefinitely while Ukraine attacked schools and hospitals in the Donbass with Russian speaking people who themselves wanted no part of Ukraine after the western sponsored coup (Maidan) and wanted to be independent.
Russia had no choice, this war was unavoidable.
Since the war started Russia moved to remove the Ukrainian government or force them into negotiations (to become non-aligned - not join NATO), and to protect these Russian speaking citizens from constant attack.

Hi Fester,
I hadn't heard about that particular engagement, but it wouldn't at all surprise me if true.
One of Ukraine's strategies was to move on Melitopol, and then further to the Sea of Azov to cut off the land corridor to Crimea.
Surovikin has since moved to reinforce Melitopol.
I don't know about whether or not troops deserted, though I'm not saying they didn't.
I watch videos that mainly cover the general situation, but don't necessarily cover all individual battles.
I noticed a few 'Z's on some of the targets in the video.

Hi AC,

I think the munitions in the video were s600s. They weren't even developed at the start of the war and the Ukrainians would only have a few of them. I think the video was of a battle field evaluation by a trained unit. The s300s looked little better than the drones the Ukrainians were building, but the s600s look very deadly, much like a Javelin with a 40km range. If the Ukrainians can get enough of them they could target the Russian guns very effectively. They could be at least as effective as the HIMARS and would save a heap of Ukrainian lives and push the Russians back much faster. Who'd have thought all those kids playing their video games could become a key in defeating the Russian army?

Dear Critic,

You keep blindly blaming "The West", "The West" and "The West", but when asked for concrete examples, it always comes down to just one single country and its various agencies and corporations - the United States of America.

Even while the USA are aggressors, The West is NOT just the USA. Not even America as such - even their closest neighbours, Canada and Mexico, do not share the USA's bad behaviours.

You mentioned the CIA for example: it is not European, it is not Australian, it is not even Canadian - it's a governmental body of the USA alone: I too am upset when I frequently want to watch religious Hindu DVDs, made in India and sold to me here in Australia, but they won't allow me to start watching before forcing on me, with no way to override, these insulting & humiliating CIA warnings about illegal-copying, etc. according to that unrelated 3rd-country's laws.

Or why must fearful Australian financial institutions interrogate me about USA residency and taxation whenever I want to open a new bank account here, sometimes even just to maintain an existing Australian account?

I understand why you resent the arrogant USA and want them punished, but I urge you, please find some other way(s) to punish the USA alone without also creating disastrous havoc for all decent freedom-loving countries who genuinely care about human rights, not just as a tactic!

Russian victories wouldn't have that much impact on America, across the Atlantic - but they would destroy Europe. While some professional and adventurous American soldiers might also be killed in action here and there, 10's of millions if not 100's of million European civilians would be killed, the rest raped, robbed, tortured and enslaved by Russia if they remain passive.

Despite all American colonialism, arrogance and stupidity, Europe (and Australia) have both the right and duty to defend themselves from Russian (and Chinese) attacks (even if these once happened to originate by American aggression), and better do so early and on Ukrainian soil rather than later on our own soil.

Hi Yuyutsu,
Try not to get too upset about things you can't control.

"...I urge you, please find some other way(s) to punish the USA alone without also creating disastrous havoc for all decent freedom-loving countries who genuinely care about human rights..."

I'm not creating havoc for anyone.
I don't control what any government does, I'm merely exercising my right to have an opinion on matters that impact me;
- Impact all of us.

"Russian victories wouldn't have that much impact on America, across the Atlantic - but they would destroy Europe."

Russia hasn't embarked on 'Red terror' across Europe.
They are merely taking steps to ensure the security of their nation and people.
What do you think would happen tomorrow if the Chinese military started setting up shop in Mexico or Cuba.
- Mexico or Cuba would be invaded.

Monroe Doctrine 1823
The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs.

Have you ever heard of the concept 'Treat others the way you would like to be treated'?
- This is how one builds mutual respect.

"Understandably, the United States has always taken a particular interest in its closest neighbors – the nations of the Western Hemisphere. Equally understandably, expressions of this concern have not always been favorably regarded by other American nations."

http://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine

So the US takes a position where it claims a right to have an interest on the goings on of it's neighbours, but it does not offer the same mutual respect to Russia or China who also have an interest in the goings on of their neighbours, right?
- And the US actively interferes in the goings on of these nuclear nations neighbours, right.

[Cont.]
Putin explained at the 2008 NATO conference in Budapest that plans to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO were going to be a problem, would cross a line.
Did anyone listen?
Putin tried to avoid these events with the Minsk accords, signed onto by all major parties.
Merkels admissions that they never planned to implement them, but simply use them to buy more time to build up Ukraine's military tells Russia that the collective west cannot be trusted to abide by agreements.
- He was right to invade, and this situation we now have was completely avoidable.

Russia didn't cut off European energy.
The EU is itself responsible for the mess it finds itself in.
It may get through this year but they have little prospect of getting through next years winter without Russian energy.

What about Liz Truss sending a text "It's done" after the Nordstream pipeline was blown up?
Russia didn't stop the Siemans gas turbines from being returned.
Europe has done this to itself, the last time Russia pushed across Europe was in WWII, they took 27 million deaths defeating the NAZIs.
Today is an age of nuclear weapons, they'd be inviting a nuclear war if they tried anything like that.

Russia is not invading Europe, and China is not invading Australia.
You're speculating on future events, that would undoubtedly earn a nuclear response if either of them tried.