This same political party which fails to make it into a significant position of power at home but still engages openly with foreign diplomatic entities close to or in the whitehouse included. Nothing conspiratorial, just 100% fact. Again this does not justify any military action, this is just the scene as things were before the war.

This is akin to the reform party in the UK negotiating with China or the liberal party in the USA negotiating with the EU. It could, should and would be shutdown by the ruling party unless it benefited them in some way.

Again imagine if a nation went through a revolution on the doorstep of America then Russia was to move to support this revolution unilaterally through arming them and supporting them. Regardless of subtitles this is the optics as seen by Russia. We know Ukraine was armed because otherwise there would be tanks in Kiev. Again this doesn't justify any military action, but the fact this happened behind the scenes and wasn't transparent concerns people.

Everybody knows there's Russian assets in Georgia now, this could be benign military aid and rest or could be nuclear first strike assets. Given the lack of transparency we have to assume the latter, that is how risk assessment works.

Reason and justification are different. If you don't understand this please steer clear of upper management or politics in your career for everyone sake. Bay of pigs was not justified yet nobody is freaking about that incident they wave a banner and start chest thumping "because we're the good guys"... If Russia wanted to march on Kiev and damn civilian casualties they could have done so on the first few weeks. Clearly Russia is not interested in this and clearly the West until recently hasn't been interested in reducing the death toll so we keep throwing people at the guns to make a point of who is stronger and who can outlast which isn't David and Goliath, it's a significant fraction of the Ukrainian people Vs a fraction of Russia's standing army.

Again this isn't insulting those in a position of fighting. They probably have a "ours is to do or die" situation. But given that a lot of Western weapons are now ending up in the world's black markets and corruption again and again from the top, this is being faught less strategically by either side and more a case of who can feed the meat grinder the most bodies.

> Maybe you're starting to get an inkling why a lot of us don't consider that acceptable?

And again nobody is promoting that. Nobody is yet. Nobody is saying that is for the better. Nobody is saying this is amazing.

People are saying there were large highly polarised pro Russian regions within Ukraine before this war started and deciding to make them subservient to Kiev without an acknowledgement of their political right to self determination is a problem. Again this isn't a justification it's an unfortunate fact. But demanding a "restore everything to what it was and go away", is just saying "I refuse to listen to you I'm going to do my thing", which is where a lot of the political strife comes from. Demanding the borders be exactly as you want them is fine, but what does that mean? What do they want and how do you get to get to a point where both are satisfied if not happy? American and Russian investment in the region and profits split between everyone? It's a sensible goal. If people present this calmly hell it might even happen, but chest thumping will make sure it doesn't.

Regardless of how we got here now. This is the situation. It needs to be fixed and the fix saves lives.

Yes Ukraine denuclearized. And before that we had Vlad the impaler running the region and before that...

There is history and there are direct contributing factors to an incident. I'm not bringing up ancient historical points I'm bringing up factors relating to individuals who were in positions of influence and power when the war started. That unfortunately has a direct bearing on the situation. I'm sure if Dr Christmas was working in her region we'd be discussing her background in arms reduction at the time but that is settled. (Yes bad 007 reference)

My point is that if we want to go back far enough who drew up borders, when, how and we're there sensible are basically the reasons for most global conflicts currently being faught. And most are a result of a collapsing empire giving someone who was a friend just a little bit more support, power, weaponry and land then they should have received in fairness. Eventually countries in this situation collapse as was almost happening in Ukraine in 2020, saying Russia bad for supporting people to wanted to leave Ukraine is the same as saying Hillary was misguided for visiting or we should arrest the Spanish politicians who wanted the same recently for their region. No matter how it's cut it's oppression of a popular option by a state. And for sake of clarity, yes we all know Russia could give a masterclass on disappearing and killing political dissidents. In that regard, yes, current Russian political people bad. But that doesn't mean they will go away because you don't like them. It means you have to understand them, engage with them and try to find common ground whilst hoping the situation internally changes naturally like Gorbochev coming to power. Saying Russian plants, simps and CIA assets is often an extension of either sides true political influence abroad, and something to be feared, but trump is no more a KGB agent than Putin is an MI5 asset gone rouge. Great, even compelling fiction, but not real.

Ok on this point at agree the war only lasted more than about a week because of Western intervention. We're ignoring the socioeconomic divides that existed within the country and we're supporting the side we like strongly. Why before the war were Ukraine troops being trained in Western countries? This again looks like a prelude to something or another Castro like insurgency on Russian borders.

Yes Russia engaged in a trade war over trade. Omg. So does the UK, India, China, now America... This is a million miles away from a shooting war in terms of justification and frankly may contribute to bad blood, but is just trade. Given that this kept leading to Ukraine flip flopping rather of picking sides rather than finding a way to work with both shows how the country is being abused by both sides to their own ends at the cost of the Ukrainian people ultimately as with all conflicts sadly.

Actually there's precedent for DMZ within territories within the region and moving back military assets from a flash point is sensible global politics. If this isn't obvious again then cest la vie. Again beating the "Russia will never do this unless we fight them" is stupid, it's a clear line in the sand that shows you understand their upper hand and strategic and military might which doesn't compromise because they likely gained territory. However deciding that we're going to engage in a proxy war just fight Russia is just admitting we want to send more people to die.

I hate to bring it up but for those feeling passionately enough, there has been very little Western govt effort to stop individuals to go and join the war effort with Kiev if you believe this is a manpower or technical challenge to be overcome. The sad reality is tanks in Kiev and political arrests by day 4 or 5 of the war would have probably been less bloody in the short and medium term and we'll never know if Russia was looking to hold the country or simply bring about change because we're not Russia.

Yes again, for the umpteenth time Russia is clearly the aggressor. Nobody is denying this unless they're trolling you. But people thumping their chests thinking this is a cold war starting again. Get a break. This is an isolated incident with complex history not the "the first domino to fall". With that regard it needs to be treated like it is. Not a battlefield that needs a surrender by one side. But a conflict that can be stopped by hearing where the differences now lie.

If you want to view the world as black or white America is a country founded on the slaughter of indigenous peoples by a group who demonstrably wrongly claim religious oppression who have taken land and assets from indigenous and local people's around the world and refuse to give them back. Hawaii being an excellent example, but then we have Iraq and our original "coalition of the willing" who openly declared an illegitimate war, but people now shrug that off as "well can't change that now". Direct USA involvement alone as well as the impact of EU states in several middle Eastern countries is worse than a week defined conflict with all defined goals. The coalition of the willing have us death, oppression and then a return to a hungry starving people.

Both are bad. Both could be resolved better. But true global politics is closer to giants in the playground so we should be trying to get them to stop standing on anthills.