Though Ukraine is showing the limits of Russia's power. For that matter, Iran is showing the limits of ours. Hopefully we don't test the limits of China's.

That is a demonstrable lie: https://theukrainepapers.org/

Also (forgive double-reply, but perhaps it's for the best when this site doesn't seem to let one indent): https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/25/ukraine-timeline-tells-the-tale/

The ravings of a Russian apologist? I don't think so. Russia loves that "NATO made us do it" bullcrap. The reality is that Russia has a smaller GDP than Italy, smaller than three US states. Russia fears attack? By whom? And why??? Russia's is an extraction economy like Saudi Arabia or Sierra Leone. If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons most people couldn't find it on a map.

Did you even read the damned thing? If you're telling me everyone cited in what I posted is "a Russian apologist [and what the hell is that even supposed to mean?]", then you're Jack D. Ripper-level delusional. YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO. How is that so hard to understand? Vietnam. Afghanistan under Reagan (which this is most like). Iraq. Afghanistan + Iraq again. Libya. Syria. Gaza (though thankfully the dam is starting to break on that one). Ukraine is no different. The Pentagon is involved, MI6 is involved, so you know it's a lie from the get-go. That's what they do, every time. Also, Russia is literally bigger than Pluto; the only way "most people couldn't find it on a map" would be if you think only Americans (and maybe their expendable allies du jour) are "people", because nobody else would be so geography-illiterate.

Scaramouche, I looked at the first, rolled my eyes, and moved on. As to being lied to: yes, every day, by nearly everyone with a position to advance or defend. I listen to some of it, depending on the source. There are quotidian liars who mostly just shade the truth to their advantage, there are professional liars whose job it is to lie, and there are pathological liars, our current president being a sui generis example. The bottom line is that I make my judgments based on the best obective evidence I can find. Vladimir Putin is a revanchist. Full stop. He makes no bones about it, has compared himself to Peter the Great, and has characterized the collapse of the Soviet Union as a "historic, strategic mistake." Russia has been a threat to Europe since the days of the tsars, that threat realized in part by Josef Stalin in the waning days of WWII. Actually from before. When Stalin and Hitler were allies, they divied up Poland and Stalin was pressing for more.

(apologies for delayed reply, I make a weekly habit of Internet-abstinence that went longer than normal this time) "The bottom line is that I make my judgments based on the best obective [sic] evidence I can find." OK, so what's wrong with what I've provided? "Vladimir Putin is a revanchist. Full stop." What does that even mean, and how would it prove anything? You talk about "objective evidence", then you switch to a personality-study of one man. Does that not strike you as incongruous? The whole point I'm trying to make is that you've been sold a lie OF OMISSION, one that totally changes the calculus of the entire situation. The biggest lie of the whole thing is the word "unprovoked": It was deliberately provoked, by NATO; they, not Russia, have been the prime movers of this conflict ever since the '90s (and like I said, look at the trajectory of Afghanistan starting in the '80s; WE made the Mujahideen, WE made the Taliban). You don't sound "objective" at all, you sound partisan.

Scaramouche, ask yourself a few questions: What does it gain NATO to provoke Russia? If NATO intentionally provoked Russia, why did it do so little to support Ukraine when Russia attacked? Did NATO provoke Russia to invade Crimea with "little green men?" Does it make more sense that Putin's long-expressed desire to resurrect a "Greater Russia" was behind the attack on Ukraine or some supposed NATO provocation? Russia and the West have had a contentious relationship for over a century (remember, Russia was a Hitler ally before Hitler turned on Stalin). What did NATO do that was so provocative? Talk about Ukrainian accession to NATO? How would that have been different from Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Czechia, etc when they joined NATO? What actual threat does Russia face from the West? It has a third world extraction economy. What does NATO gain by threatening it? Yes, the CIA armed the Afghan resistance. Russia armed North Korean and Vietnam. Out of space to continue :(

For reasons you clearly aware of, forgive my replying in segments: "What does it gain NATO to provoke Russia?" NeoCon delusions of invincibility combined with racist and now-obsolete assumptions about Russia; Britain in particular has nursed an Ahabian vendetta against Russia for CENTURIES, simply because it's really really big and keeps refusing to roll over. Put another way, what DID it gain NATO to provoke the USSR via Afghanistan? That seemed to work in the short-term, didn't it? In fact, for a while it seemed to have FINALLY led to Russia's subjugation. That's what the '90s were, for them. Putin was supposed to be "our [next] man in Moscow", but he turned around and said "I think Russians should have dibs on Russia's resources", so THAT'S why he's demonized over here. Not only is he neither Hitler nor Stalin, he's more like FDR on steroids - plenty to criticize (Moscow's normalizing biometrics, so I hear), but you've got the wrong archvillain.

"If NATO intentionally provoked Russia, why did it do so little to support Ukraine when Russia attacked?" Define "little" - member countries keep finding billions and billions for Ukraine at the exact same time as they're telling their own people to accept increasing austerity. Also, like I said, NeoCon megalomania. Again, it's like Afghanistan in the '80s: How much support did they get? The goal was to WEAKEN Russia, make it throw out its proverbial back...so it couldn't help out when they went after the ultimate goal: China. The end-game is eternal supremacy, but achieved NOT by being better, but hammering down any nail that stands up. "The French want no-one to be their superior. The English want inferiors. The Frenchman constantly raises his eyes above him with anxiety. The Englishman lowers his beneath him with satisfaction." - Alexis de Tocqueville

"Does it make more sense that Putin's long-expressed desire to resurrect a 'Greater Russia' was behind the attack on Ukraine or some supposed NATO provocation?" I think my Consortium News article addresses this. The idea that one guy woke up with a wild conquerin' hair one morning is definitely the weaker argument. It's cartoonish, the real world doesn't work that way.

"Russia and the West have had a contentious relationship for over a century (remember, Russia was a Hitler ally before Hitler turned on Stalin)." England, America, France, South Africa, Turkey, the Catholic Church, IBM...damned-near everybody loved Hitler before they didn't. Soviet Russia was never a Hitler "ally", they signed a non-aggression pact, that's not an alliance. They hated each other's guts, but Stalin was trying to be practical. As I've already said, you are right about the contentious relationship, but you seem to have an utterly one-sided sense of why.

"What did NATO do that was so provocative?" Again, see the article I linked; the answer to this is particularly well-documented. Read any mainstream, American article about Ukraine written between 2015 and FEB 2022, and you'll read about its being the most corrupt nation in Europe, and strangled by a neo-NAZI regime (Zelensky originally ran to drive them out, but when he got there they simply went "you and what army?" - poor man's been living under a gun ever since) with some crackpot nationalist mythology that's been driving them to terrorize the Russians in the east, roped in under Ukraine almost by accident. They were promised a referendum on whether to defect to Russia, but when the vote went through and "Yes" won, suddenly that was no good. This did NOT start in 2022.

"It has a third world extraction economy. What does NATO gain by threatening it?" I believe I have addressed this by now - put side-by-side, however, I think you've answered your own question, JEOPARDY!-style.

"Yes, the CIA armed the Afghan resistance. Russia armed North Korean and Vietnam." Notice how Afghanistan and Korea were both NEIGHBORS to the USSR? How is that equivalent? As for Vietnam, they would've preferred to have US as a patron, but at the time, America said "piss off, Wilson's 4 Points aren't for YOU"; beyond that, I see no ignominy in supporting the Vietcong. Afghan "Resistance", OTOH? Funny choice of word. I shall conclude by risking a digression for the sake of illustrating just how monstrous American foreign policy really can be (I don't normally believe in "content-warnings", but here I'll make an exception): https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/11/the-us-military-aided-mass-child-rape-in-afghanistan-now-its-soldiers-are-committing-this-crime-at-fort-bragg/

Dude (or dudette) I'm going to leave this thread now. You've elected to buy into a narrative that I reject. I clearly accept a narrative that you reject. I am no fan of the USSR. I am no fan of Putin. I am a fan of any nation defending itself against aggression. I will also challenge you on your assertion that Ukraine was or is the most corrupt nation in Europe. Russia's autocratic oligarchy would give any competitor a run for its money on corruption. All that said, I'm out. Last words are yours if you want them.

Apologies again for the delayed reply but: "I am a fan of any nation defending itself against aggression." I take it you never bothered to read the two links I opened up with, because their whole point from square 1, carefully documented is you've been lied to about who is really the aggressor (Ukraine is a catspaw). It's a real-world application of this: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-media-pointing-camera RE corruption, I'll set aside the unanswerable question of whether Russia is "in Europe" to start with and say that you're being fed a dated image of Russia. Vladimir Putin is as popular as he is at home - AND loathed as he is in The West - PRECISELY because he cleaned things up. We are told to hate him for the exact same reason we are told to hate Nicholas Maduro or Ho Chi Minh or Ibrahim Traore: Not for anything else good or bad, but simply because he had the gall to suggest that his country's resources belong to his country and NOT to kleptocrats.

I will close with this, something specifically by someone who used to think just as you do: https://thespectaclemag.substack.com/p/the-ukrainian-people-are-fighting?triedRedirect=true