Fascinating- discussion- it appears that both mhaze and Armchair Critic agree at least that lefties are a problem- based on their perceptions- for Armchair Critic seeing the issue as lying with Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton and Euromaiden and MH370 and Bezos (Washington Post), etc- whereas mhaze seeing it as within the Russian Communist State with Putin at the helm. mhaze perhaps sees the Democrats in relative right wing opposition to Putin's Leftist Communist Authoritarian Russia- but perception isn't always the reality- and Russia is in transition- as is the US in a sense in perhaps the opposite direction. Trotsky was seen as less authoritarian than Stalin in the way that he tyrannized the nation- but why did he - in another sense Trotsky was more Communist Authoritarian than Stalin- why did Trotsky adopt his policies. Means, motive, opportunity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism#Critique

According to wikipedia there is a view that Civic Nationalism was invented to discredit nations founded on an ethnic basis and this view has been pushed in schools and in the media and with powerful interest groups- even though this is perhaps undemocratic and tyrannical. The UN's definition of genocide includes "undermining ethnic self determination". The is an issue of how to deliminate and prioritise these these concepts- if you assume a Civic Nationalist point of view you could disregard the importance of the ethnic complexity of the two Ukrainian Leaders and the situation in Crimea.

AC,

Re Taiwan. I'll make my point plainer. The CCP claims it wants a world that "rejects interference in other countries' internal affairs." You've fallen for that. Yet at the same time they have conquered one country (Tibet) and propose to conquer another (Taiwan). The CCP is saying one thing and doing another. Its pronouncements are designed to deceive their apologists - in your case successfully.

You claim to see the big picture. But that isn't possible when you're looking at the world through a window pane designed by one side. Is that too prosaic? Let me put it more plainly. You cannot possibly see the big picture when you accept without demur all the claims of one side and reject without thought all the claims of the other. The big picture you think you see is a fiction created by the aggressors.

As to my list of things that might lead to peace...you tell me they are unrealistic when I'd already said they couldn't happen due to intransigence on both sides!! But you claim that you'd support anything that would stop the fighting but then reject anything that is disadvantageous to the Russian motherland. Peace on terms favourable to one side only isn't peace but surrender. And surrendering to aggression just leads to more aggression which would be plainly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary historic understanding.

AC

Perhaps I should set you straight on the Donbass rebellion. You write as though its an established fact that the Ukrainian government indiscriminately killed its citizens in the eastern provinces. You'd be wrong.

The truth is that the Donbass uprising was a coordinated response controlled out of Moscow to the overthrow by popular revolt of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of Yanukovych in 2014. The Russian response was to ferment revolt in the eastern provinces. Russia has admitted to arming the revolt and sending in Russian forces to bolster the rebellion. They needed to do that because the rebellion lacked popular support. We should also recall that in arming the rebellion, the Russian supplied the missiles that were used to kill 27 Australians and 298 overall on flight MH17.

The response from Kiev was to resist the rebellion both diplomatically and militarily. This, it seems, is unacceptable in your mind. Resisting Russia in any way, is, by definition, wrong according the the Russian apologists.

So while you paint a picture of Russian citizens in Ukraine unilaterally targeted by Kiev, the facts are very different. But then again I could probably apply the phrase "the facts are very different" to most of what you write.

This play-book of using border populations to create artificial crises that then need military solutions is a standard ploy used by aggressor nations. You could and probably should acquaint yourself with the Sudeten Germans to learn how this tactic works. Its that type of thing that I'd call the rudimentary historic understanding that you lack

The rebellion in the Donbass began as protests in Sloviansk

"We should also recall that in arming the rebellion, the Russian supplied the missiles that were used to kill 27 Australians and 298 overall on flight MH17."
- I was never really convinced about that, Ukrainians had BUKs too.

"The response from Kiev was to resist the rebellion both diplomatically and militarily. This, it seems, is unacceptable in your mind. Resisting Russia in any way, is, by definition, wrong according the the Russian apologists."

You've got it back to front, I resist more the Western sponsored coup and the US installed Kiev Banderite regime.
You want me to show you Vicky Nuland and Geoffery Pratt talking on the phone about which US puppet leader they wish to install?

F%#! the EU - Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pratt during Maidan (2014)
http://youtu.be/G5FVVZE3XS8

Or maybe you want this instead?
Pre-Maidan! Ukraine Deputy has proof of USA staging civil war in Ukraine
http://youtu.be/y9hOl8TuBUM

You seem to think that removing a democratically elected leader with a US sponsored coup is perfectly legitimate. Yes?

You seem to think the Western sponsored coup which was originally a grassroots peaceful protest co-opted by US sponsored Right Sector and Sbovoda to shoot up the place, that's fine.
Why would ethnic Russians want to live under Ukrainian NAZI rule, especially when they tried to ban the Russian language - but anyway, lets argue your point of view that the separatists were Russian sponsored conter-coup in relation to events in Kiev

US sponsored coup in Kiev just fine
Russian sponsored counter-coup in the ethic Russian heartlands not fine
How do you hold those 2 contradicting positions?

I don't support sanctions or regime changes,
I find myself saying this time and time again, but it just never seems to sink in.
Have you seen whats happening in Georgia right now?
http://youtu.be/zlffElQrRhU?t=217

AC,

In 2014 the Donbas and Luhansk regions were still minority Russian-populated districts. The uprising fomented by Russia would have gone nowhere had Russia not sent in its military.

The missile that brought down the airliner was fired from well within the Russian-occupied areas. There is no doubt as to who fired the missile, all that remains is why.

I see the attempted invasion of Bakhmut has stalled with Wagner claiming to be running out of ammunition men and equipment. I also see that the Russian units that have been massacred at Vuhledar
are refusing to fight.

The Russian lines will collapse the question is when.