Your self admitted simplistic analysis ignores that the conflict began years before, most recently, with the US overthrow of a democratic Ukranian government in 2014.

That's what being simple does. It allows us to ignore realities that conflict with our beliefs.

Just as simple minded as religious fanatics!

Who said focus?
Don't humanists believe in looking at both sides of an issue?

@Krish55 apparently you're not much of a humanist. Here is the definition. Focus has nothing to do with the definition or looking at both sides of an issue it's called being compassionate and blowing up people for selfish reasons Isn't so compassionate.
[americanhumanist.org]

@lerlo Where was blowing up people advocated?
Moreover, to be compassionate about an issue, one needs to understand all sides of it. Is that simple position contrary to humanism in your opinion?

@Krish55 what's your're not understanding from apparently every comment in response to your post, let's pretend you have both sides, is there any justification whatsoever for killing people unprovoked?

@lerlo Who said there was any justification?
So you are dismissing categorically that there could be another side or sides to this issue? Is that only true for this issue or for all issues?
What exactly is the humanist position on that?

@Krish55 talk about a fixation...In this particular instance yes, there is no Russian "side" except the power grab and of course that's not what they will tell you that their side is. The rest will be total bullshit kind of like anything that comes out of your ex president's mouth

@lerlo

1. So what precisely is this fixation of which you speak? Is it a fixation to question your logic and thought process?
2. So how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the Russian view is BS without actually having looked at the Russian side in the first place?

@Krish55 your fixation on hearing both sides despite the fact that there is really only one side. You have no idea what I know about the Russian explanation for their "military operation." If you think the Russian "side" justifies their actions then you're no humanist and maybe shouldn't even be a human

@lerlo

1. Now you are making a threat, which I will report.
2. It's not very humanist to engage in personal attacks during a debate.
3. So how do you know what the Russian side is if you haven't listened to it?
4. You are also drawing the flawed logical conclusion that simply listening to the Russian side means that one will automatically accept what they say at face value.
5. Humanists are humble and accept their human frailties. They admit when they make flawed arguments. Are you a humanist in that sense?

I agree that this was a cover story before this surprise attack. But that doesn't mean the other articles are invalid. Western media carry cover stories for Western attacks also.

@DenoPenno Yes, we should look at the views of other nations on every issue.

The Western media is most certainly not presenting Russia's side. They are discrediting it without presenting it honestly.

@Krish55 And why don't you just tell us what the justification is for murdering thousands of innocent people for no reason at all.

Yes, if you like simple truths, you won't like this group!

@Krish55 You are right. Convolution is never simple.

Others more trained than I have presented it:

@Krish55 do you not comprehend that this 2015 lecture does not address the situation despite you posting it twice?

@waitingforgodo It means that the war is not only Putin's fault. The West also bears responsibility.

It not that simple. The conflict started in 2014 with the US aided overthrow of the democratic gov't at the time. The persecution of Russian speakers. The encirclement by NATO> The US would have invaded Mexico in a similar situation long ago.

@Krish55 Stop with everything being to do with America, why do Americans have to make everything about you? I don’t accept your version of events and believe you have been swallowing too much Soviet propaganda…but regardless of perceived grievances by Russia, there cannot be any justification for invading Ukraine or for the scale of belligerence which Russia is waging against the civilian population. If you think otherwise then I’m afraid you are merely a “useful fool” by believing and being a mouthpiece for Putin’s propaganda. NATO is a defensive organisation…that it’s its whole raison d’etre and the sole purpose of its existence is to defend its members against aggression by non-members. If Putin finds that threatening then it’s because he himself is intent on being an aggressor. The mistake the USA and other western countries made was not admitting Ukraine into both the EU and NATO as that may have acted as a deterrent to Putin, as NATO’s charter of protection to a member state would’ve put him direct conflict with the full might of NATO. If ever there was a case for showing the world how necessary it is to have that protection, then Ukraine is it.

@Marionville Are you denying the US role in the 2014 coup as executed by US Ambassador Nuland? That's like Trump denying a role in Jan 6!

So 2014 didn't happen because saying so hurts your feelings?

@Krish55 If it’s the Maidan Uprising you’re talking about …that was a people’s popular uprising against President Yanukovych’s U-turn from what Parliament had agreed, to have closer ties and ultimately EU membership. Instead he went in the opposite direction and against the wishes of Parliament and the majority of the population, and signed up to closer links with Russia. Once again your version of history is at odds with mine…and once again you’ve been swallowing too much old style Soviet propaganda. Ever since that time, Putin has been hell bent on taking Ukraine back under his direct control and signalling to the west that they should not allow Ukraine entry into EU or NATO. Unfortunately instead of signing them up they showed unwillingness to do so for fear of angering Putin, but like all true despots he saw that only as a sign of weakness and this has led directly to the dire situation in Ukraine now. Appeasement never works, but we never seem to learn the lessons of history I’m afraid.

@Marionville He was elected. And you support an uprising against him? Like the Jan 6 uprising? Here is a distinguished US PoliSci prof at Chicago U, a US West Point grad and Air Force veteran:

@Marionville, you are presenting well-informed & extremely cogent replies to an obvious russian-planted troll..........

@AnneWimsey See, liberals can engage in Red-baiting and its equivalents also... It's very mindlessly easy to dismiss someont's point once you have labelled it. So was Kissinger a Russian troll also? He another expert who warned against NATO expansion:

Propaganda means one-sided. Doesn't necessarity mean inaccurate. We are only getting one side of the propaganda battle. We need to get the other.

@Garban My point is not to equate but simply to hear both sides.

@Garban Good question. What I would then look for is some sort of independent confirmation, neither Russian nor Western.

@Garban Yes!

@Krish55 Please don’t be naïve. Surely you know that propaganda isn’t simply one-sided information, but is designed to promote a political agenda. Invented by the Catholic Church, propaganda is defined as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”

Putin was KBG operative who well knows the value of a free and independent press to a democratic polity. Since democracy is not Putin‘s goal, he also knows the importance of eliminating an independent press, which he has set about to do since at least 2000. And so today all we have in Russia are propaganda outlets for Putin‘s oppressive regime.

@p-nullifidian And we are getting a one-sided, misleading view from our press. The two sides have to be compared and examined critically.

@Krish55 The American press is not the only source of information regarding this conflict. That said, please feel free to compare the reporting across the spectrum, using the guide that I suggested: mediabiasfactcheck.com. Here you will see a significant delta between such networks as Fox and MSNBC, and those in between.

But there are many networks and outlets in Europe that one can read. As I’ve said before, it is better for Americans to follow the lead of Russia‘s neighbors, such as the Baltic states or Poland or Ukraine or Georgia, in gauging the level of outrage we should register over Putin‘s invasion.

Finally, we don’t need press reports, pontifications or justifications in order to make a judgment as to whether or not an unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country was moral, ethical or even internationally lawful. Please focus your attention on Vladimir Putin, his history is a KGB operative, his moral high ground, and his justifications for attacking his neighbor.

@p-nullifidian It's self-serving of the West to not look at how it provoked the conflict. Under similar circumstances, the US would have invaded Mexico long ago with overwheming support from Americans. It's a hypocritical double standard!

@Krish55 Once again, why focus on American indignation? If we are unable to take the moral high ground on this issue, let us rely on Russia’s closest neighbors to provide us with their impression of what is happening in the region. Let us consult with Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Georgia, and the Ukraine. There are others but that’s a pretty good start. Forget about Mexico and US foreign policy for a moment. Let’s just listen to the neighbors of the Bear as to whether they think Putin is a good, decent, moral, upstanding character who is just doing what’s best for the region.

Other than Putin‘s lapdog Belarus, who supports what Putin is doing here? Can you work with me here on this topic? Can we stay focused on the region and not make it about us for once?

@p-nullifidian Ambassador Nuland made it about us in 2014.

@Krish55 The story really begins in 2008, when Putin attacked Georgia using a remarkably similar run-up to the Ukraine strategy. The Western response to that aggression was predictably anemic (thus emboldening Putin’s future ambitions), nevertheless I’m sure if you try hard enough you can find a way to link it to US geopolitical machinations. Maybe that could be your homework assignment for Sunday…because nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in the world without American involvement, right? But, just remember, we’re talking about Georgia the country, not Georgia the state.

@Krish55 An ambassador’s intimate conversations some eight years ago are not germane to the topic at hand: Putin’s assault on Ukraine (not to mention, Crimea and Georgia). Can we please stay focused here? Is Putin behaving ethically and morally in his assault on Ukraine?

@NostraDumbass Seriously, that was funny. Good humor!
The two Russian red lines on joining NATO are both Ukraine and Georgia.

@Krish55 Last time I checked Georgia and Ukraine are independent nations free to choose their own friends, identities and national destinies. Russia sees it differently and would like to re-colonize both in their pursuit of empire. Funny how you only have a problem with this sort of naked imperialism and fascism when it originates further to the west. (And just WTF gives RusFuehrer Putin the right to draw all these blood-soaked red lines, anyway?) Manifest destiny?

@NostraDumbass The US would not tolerate Mexico being in an alliance with Russia and China.

@Krish55 So….you’re opposed to the emancipation and self-determination of oppressed nations such as Ukraine and Georgia? Strange position to take for someone who claims to be a progressive Black-Lives-Matter crusader fighting against the evils of White Privilege. I guess certain forms of liberation are more worthy of support than others, huh? Doublethink’s a bitch, isn’t it? Good luck talking yourself out of this corner.

@NostraDumbass Joining the aggressive, war mongering NATO is not part of self emancipation.

@Krish55 “Joining the aggressive war mongering NATO?” he says amidst the carnage of a ….. what ?…friendly, playful Russian “Special Military Frolic”. Do you also believe Jan. 6th was “legitimate political discourse?” Well, in order to remain intellectually consistent (choke! gag!) you pretty much have to. Honestly, those last 2 responses of yours have been breathtakingly pathetic and evasive. Yours is a mind hijacked by extremist thinking to the point where the thinking part has been reduced to the vanishing point in favour of “cut-and-paste sloganeering “. You are an intellectually and morally bankrupt far-left sycophant of the first and worst degree. My new favourite comedian, in other words.

@NostraDumbass Nothing you said refutes that NATO and its members have been aggressive and warmongering.

@Krish55 Like I said: Cut and paste sloganeering. But as the late great Christopher Hitchens once said about religion: “That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” So what you need to do is provide explicit examples of recent NATO assaults on sovereign states comparable to what Russia is now doing. Otherwise, just asserting it to be so and repeating it incessantly is….well, lying. A form of Trumpism, basically. Which leads directly to a great irony here: Your incandescent antipathy towards NATO and the All-Encompassing Evils of Western Capitalism has driven you straight into the arms of a Fascist Dictator. I mean, surely you can’t be unaware that Putin’s base is remarkably similar to that of Trump’s: a toxic blend of religious nativism and nationalistic chauvinism. Kinda, sorta makes you look like a Nazi sympathizer, doesn’t it?

@NostraDumbass
You made a good point at the end there. Yes, Putin's base is the Russian right wing. That's why I don't like him.

We agree that we don't want the right wing to grow anywhere. The problem is that it grows when a country has legitimate grievances that are not addressed. Trumpism grew because Obama and Dems didn't address growing wealth inequality. Nazism grew because Germany had legitimate grievances after WWI about the unfair Versailles treaty.

Similarly, encircling Russia with NATO gave Putin and his right wing a legitimate grievance. Just because we don't like them, it doesn't mean that their grievance isn't legitimate.

@Krish55 The growth of the right in the US has very little to do with wealth inequality. It’s driven by Christian Nationalism, the perceived loss of power and privilege by conservative religionists. It will continue to pursue its Dominionist ambitions long after Trump is gone. Read Katherine Stewart’s “The Power Worshippers” in order to understand what’s really behind his popularity.

As for Putin, the “threat” of NATO encirclement is a red herring. It is a pretext for his aggression, which is really driven by ideological concerns, as was Hitler’s. Simply stated, Putin is more afraid of a free democratic Ukraine on his doorstep than NATO hardware, because the greatest fear of such a despot is the “infection” of his own populace with a desire for freedom and prosperity as it begins to develop in a closely related neighbour.

@NostraDumbass Ukraine was not democratic before the invasion. Zelensky jailed the opposition leader and closed down newspapers in the years before the invasion.