Maybe we should look at the legality of the war, from the perspective of international law.

Putin didn't send forces into Ukraine until Luhansk and Donetsk claimed independence (which they have a right to do under UN Charter Article 1)
- and then formally asked to become part of the Russian Federation.

It was approved by the Russian Duma.
At this point Donetsk and Luhansk are now technically Russian territory.
(Only the west and its vassal states including ours don't recognise it)

Now if you consider them independent states, they don't have a recognised right of self defense / or collective self defense as Russia enacted in Syria because they are not member of the UN.

But there's a clause.
Russia (party to collective self-defense) is a part of the UN, which means that clause is nullified.

Next you have a right of nations (and there is a precedent for it in International law) to pre-empt any attack which is unavoidable.
This gives Russia a legal right to attack Ukrainian forces if there is unavoidable and imminent threat to those people and regions.

Which makes Russia's entire war in Ukraine LEGAL, as per international law.

Russia and Ukraine are both sovereign states and members
of the United Nations. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter
prohibits the threat or use of force by member states.
Therefore the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine violated
international law (including the Charter of the UN) and
constituted a crime of aggression in international criminal law.

Russia is a party to the Geneva Convention yet it systematically
and defiantly violates international humanitarian law in
Ukraine.

Armchair wrote: "You imply I'm lying..."

Well actually I didn't - just that you're mistaken. Indeed the only person here talking about "lying" is you. Perhaps a little education on projection might be of use.... http://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/projection

Beside, I've already agreed that statements like "Nobody wants to hear things they don't want to hear" are true.... moronic, but true.

In the end, AC, all you have here is a fervent belief in the assertions of one man. The video you linked to is one man, spruiking his book by making wild and unsupported assertions about a paper he alleges to have seen.

Now that might be enough for you, but I have a somewhat higher standard of proof. I'd certainly want to see some evidence from some other source that this paper wasn't actually just a figment of Clark's imagination, or a marketing tool to sell his book. Alas no such collaboration exists. Still it worked with those who just want it to be true, no proof required.

But even if all this elaborate conspiracy is true, its also utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The paper, if it existed, talked about what would happen in the five years after 2005 ie 2005-2010. But we were talking about what happened in 2015-2018.

I suspect that you'd just stumbled across something you just wanted to be true and were desperate to write about. So the mere mention of Syria triggered you spluttering tirade, irrespective of relevance. If I'd mentioned the Battle of Qadesh , it probably would have been enough to set you off.

Russia wants mineral and agriculture expansion and does not want the survival of any Ukraine citizens within the area. They did not destroy the steel works but will starve to death those held there. The Steel works will be an asset to Russia when they believe they will win all lands and seaports in a corridor along the Black Sea to Moldova.

Similarly, China will want agriculture, minerals, iron Ore and coal and will purge a population occupying the land to feed their future.

"In the end, AC, all you have here is a fervent belief in the assertions of one man."

Spoken with such confidence as though the so called 'Arab Spring' never happened right?

You remember Saddam?
Maybe do you remember Gaddafi?
What about Assad 'the dictator' (democratically elected)
What about Persian Gulf crisis and attacks against Aramco blamed on Iran?
Tell me was there a war in Sudan and Somalia? Ummm Yes
That's 6 out of 7
And its no secret that Israel (US Ally FYI) has always wanted to take land up to the Litani
http://www.wrmea.org/006-september-october/for-israel-southern-lebanon-means-the-litani-river.html

There's more on that list that aren't.
Must be pure coincidence right?

Someones you have to accept it when your losing the argument;
- because you said something stupid without thinking about it first
In these situations I think its sensible not to dig your hole any deeper
Better luck next time

Russia and Ukraine are both sovereign states and members
of the United Nations. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter
prohibits the threat or use of force by member states.

Yes Foxy, but this situation isn't about the threat or use of force by member states.

It's about the right the self-defense / collective self defense.
Specifically, the defense of the citizens in the Donbass (separatists) from the 8 years that Ukraine continually made war against them.

This didn't start because Russia wanted to attack Ukraine for no reason.
This started because Russia wanted to protect the citizens in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which are 2 completely different things.

- And the only way to do that, was to attack Ukraines military assets.

You also have to take into account that the US is so authoritarian, that even though the separatists should've already enjoyed the right of self determination if they chose, free from being bombed because of it, Russia was sanctioned anyway the moment they recognised their independence.
No-one cared when they were being killed on an almost daily basis for 8 years, they were Russian-speaking people after all, how long did you expect Russia to sit by and put up with that and do nothing?
I'm fairly certain they followed the provisions of international law at every stage.

It's probably the reason why you hear allegations of Russian atrocities.
The US and the west needed more to make it stick.