Ironically enough, Putin is demanding that Ukraine remains neutral and disarm themselves in order for the war to end. You don't think Russia wouldn't immediately invade once more after some number of years when Ukraine is fully demilitarized? If you don't think trusting the West is a good idea, fine. Putin wouldn't be the lesser of two evils though.

So you are basing the right of Putin to invade Ukraine on the theory that NATO would attack Ukraine.

Once more, I would need you to clarify your position: Are you saying that Putin has invaded Ukraine because if not more people would have died? And if so, what are the grounds for such an assertion?

So the Ukrainians should have just given up and done what Putin was telling them to do, is that your point? And then what?

Again, Putin say A but Putin does B. You intend to find the answer in A. Is not there. If you think that any truth comes out of his mouth your may be actually cutely naive. Information provided by the enemy is never information (first rule of war, and you should know).

Cuban crisis, you mean during the cold war? I can certainly see why you understand Putin and even seem to agree that he has some short of right over Ukraine - particularly the right to not let them choose. You are both thinking of a world that does no longer exist.

Practical example: I go to my neighbour and tell him that he cannot have a dog, despite there are now laws on the matter. He gets a dog. According to you, now I have the right to enter his house and kill the dog because, let's say, I am stronger and have a knife.

Putin had the occasion to be part of the world as an economic power with diplomatic links to large bits of Europe and could have become again a real powerhouse. Putin failed, this war is the tantrum of the kid that lost the game by his own incompetence to move his nation to a future of prosperity.

You clearly believe what he says, not what he does.


Sure.

I'm just wondering how you can be such a self-centered people to think that the world is just trying to find the most sophisticated ways to frame you. How do you explain such obsession of others with your country and your population? By your logic, Ukraine has been inventing all these horrible events all these 42 days, gathering millions of actors (I didn't have a high opinion of our cinema, really, but it turns out that no one can distinguish our "creativity" from reality), obviously using extremely expensive technology (again, I had no idea we had it) to create a fake of this magnitude to deceive everyone but you. Have you ever thought that the organization of such an action requires a perfectly honed system that would work smoothly. Do you know examples of such systems throughout human history? It is impossible to create it artificially, because there will always be a human factor that destroys such a system. Isn't it more likely that all these shots of dead, tortured, raped people are true? And that your propaganda system has spawned the monsters that do it all?

Putin is not a mad dictator, he is simply a guy from another age and a Russian supremacist, like our troll be.open here. He is not mad, he understands his acts and the consequences, it is his ethics and understanding of the world, that is still anchored on the cold war and Russian supremacy that are causing this.

Your 'little war' accounted for a notable part of my confidence in 'the media' being adjusted in the right direction.  Back then I was a 'progressive' and a 'democrat' and while I didn't 'love' the Clintons, I did like and trust them and basically assumed that whatever Bill was supporting was basically the right thing.  Even then I could see that they would lie, but figured that it was for a good end-goal which I would/should agree with if I understood it better.

I remember one widely reported incident where one side was starving captured civilians in barbed wire prison camp.  A later analysis of the 'reporting' pointed out that the reporters were on the inside of the wire enclosure and they focused on a guy who had a congenital birth defect which gave him a sunken chest.  The science of fake news and crisis actors has developed a lot since then, and the incidence of it has mushroomed until now it is basically the standard for reporting and actual reporting on real information is a novelty for corporate media.

I was hanging out with a bunch of Croats because I was commercial fishing in Alaska at the time.  They were pretty fired up and radical (and fun to hang out and drink with.)  One of the American born 20-somethings was heading over to the old country there to fight right after the fishing season was over with full support of his family.  I don't have any reason to doubt that he followed up on his plan.  If so, I hope he survived.

This is not something unique to Russians. I bet almost all aggressors and genocidal maniacs have at some point reacted in such a way and denied or minimized their atrocities, or even claimed they were never committed.

For example, after the Bosnian genocide in the 1990s, when it was shown that a staggering 8,000 Muslims had been massacred in a matter of several days, the Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic first denied that any war crimes had taken place, and then justified it by claiming that all the victims were Bosnian army forces and they were all killed in a firefight.

Likewise, when the Rohingya have been massacred by the Burmese military, the Burmese president, Aung San Suu Kyi, dismissed these crimes as "fake news" and said the Rohingyas were attacking themselves.

These examples could go on for pages, but the point is, in every instance when independent investigators finally do investigate these crimes and documents them, the aggressor and their enablers denounce the proceedings as "fake," or claim they never occurred.

On the civil cars being overrun... well at least there is one recorded evidence of one case. It did not seem intended, yet there it was.

Worry not, there facts are documented to exhaustion as today is easy to get a satellite image and literally anyone older than 10 years has a phone with recording capabilities. If you are right, it will be known... sadly, it simply appears that the frustrated army forces in the area just went psycho on the poor defenceless civilians and that is certainly not a war, but plain assassination.

You see, Stalin was able to hide massacres from Russian people even after he died, Putin does not enjoy such a luxury.

Tell me, what is the logic of the Russian military to kill civilians when leaving Bucha? Why Ukraine staged this provocation, I can understand, but why would the Russians do it? I think the staged fake was made in a big hurry and a medical examination, together with forensic experts, will soon shed light on this situation.

You know, even the Nazis during World War II did not blame the victims themselves for their crimes. They at least spoke openly about their views. By your logic, did the Jews burn themselves in concentration camps? Unlike them, you are not only brutally cruel, you are also the last cowards. Did the Ukrainians themselves arrange the massacre in Bucha? Well, it's extremely easy to do when the city is under occupation for more than three weeks. In the occupation you are so proud of, because it is almost near Kyiv. Probably, people want to see your "velikaya rasseya" on their doorstep so much that they burn your fascist symbols on their backs. They rape themselves and their children, they shoot themselves with their hands tied behind their backs. Just to set you up, innocent sheep. Because the world has nothing to do but think about you.

And about "genocide" -Ukraine is responsible for it. Until 2014 people were living in peace there, until CIA backed coup removed legally elected president

Miners aren't gonna switch to this as main POW coin. The Algo is power hungry pos. ETC/Ergo/Conflux are all beating this dead coin.

This is the only reason why I am writing here, wasting my time for free every day, although it would be wiser for me to remain silent. I just don't like lies.

I am asking when the WSJ published it. I am not aware of what is "the press united" but I can tell already that the title "Zelensky rejected a peace offer" is already quite interesting.

- There was no war, so there cannot be a "peace offer".
- "Do as I say or I will kill you" is not a peace offer, is a threat. So the title would be "Zelensky decided to resist Putin's threat instead".

This goes once more to the argument of Putin deciding what can and cannot be done in Ukraine by the use of force and, somehow, blaming Ukraine for it.