anthony

1. The coup. A legal government was forced out by revolutionaries. 2. Kyiv's lengthy assault on the Donbas; the easterners who (not irrationally) had decided that they could have no future part in a nation that could "steal the election" (so to speak) by coup, sought "separation" and were attacked. 3. Putin's invasion. Following Ukraine's failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements re: Luhansk and Donetsk 'republics'. That is 3 evasions and 3 initiations of force, this invasion the most egregious. There's the simplistic ethics. 1+2=3

The Law of Non-contradiction. Those who truly want this war over soon, will need to insist Yelensky stops dragging his feet to a peace negotiation. Otherwise anyone's compassion rings hollow. One cannot both bemoan the casualties - and - want Ukraine to be armed and trained with the very latest ordnance so to prolong/intensify the war... causing more casualties. *The proxy war*. To expect and press other people to fight "to the last Ukrainian" or the last Russian - is self-indulgence: hubris, self-satisfaction, vengeance and macho posturing. Enough virtue-signaling! Time to "jaw-jaw, not war-war". Russia sends peace proposal to Ukraine — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union WWW.RT.COM Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said Russia forwarded a draft agreement to Ukraine, adding that the “ball is in Ukraine’s court” now

Kramatusk has been raised. Highly suspect. Too many unanswered questions for an attack that was senseless and arbitrary and a first and only on railway stations, for the Russians pov, a gainless exercise from any angle. A missile of controversial origins is also suspect. "The cruelty is the point" shows his prejudice. "Intentionally targeting ... " bla, bla, bla: a demonstrable falsehood. I doubt this is the intellectual quality of most professors of political science in the US. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj3kKXGnaT3AhXJesAKHSaHAEwQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Ffactchecks%2F2022%2Fapr%2F18%2Ffacebook-posts%2Fno-evidence-ukraine-attacked-train-station-one-its%2F&usg=AOvVaw1Z5-U_K7Y_6wnt7op9JaWi An impartial reader will notice this so-called 'fact check' produces little counter-evidence to this attack being a Ukrainian subterfuge (for propagandist, PR, purposes). It simply refutes the false "BBC-report" claim, a red herring. Who aimed and fired the missiles? Not proven, either way, does NOT equal "False"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjR4prx_6P3AhWnQkEAHS3RAkwQFnoECDIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohchr.org%2Fen%2Fnews%2F2022%2F04%2Fukraine-civilian-casualty-update-18-april-2022&usg=AOvVaw3RaTCnD3bj1z0RDQQxY1Se Just because the entire world wants to believe it so doesn't make it so. (Basic subjectivity which O'ists can recognize). "Tens of thousands"! Well no. The Number does not still reflect that. How about 2,000 civilian deaths (until a few days ago)? from the UN source which is hardly biased to Russia. Yes, yes -of course - the grim death-and-injury toll will rise further and isn't fully counted. From these latest battles one can extrapolate several hundred more. But double, triple, ten times? Tendentious nonsense. Hysterical illogic.

Did Mr Freeman lie? "Tendentious nonsense" - to targeting civilians. "Suggests the Russian have been holding back" - to ratio of civilians : combatants killed. (+/- 2 minutes) One thing, to ignore what I've been saying, that the casualty figures for civilians is very low considering 60 days of intense, urban fighting - from which one may deduce a policy by the Russian Army to minimize casualties - another to disregard an experienced diplomat. That's where the MSM gets you. Believe ¬our¬ (carefully pre-selected) 'authorities' and (cooked-up) numbers... The confusion and doubts and knee-jerk emotional responses I hear of by CNN's etc., viewers is a conscious ploy. If you don't use and trust your own suss you are lost in ¬their¬ story.

Haven't gone past half way, but this ex-diplomat has a grasp of events not seen elsewhere. What a find:

You may find deeper connections to a vast political-corporative collusion (not even concealed, virtuously bragged about!) in this contribution by one truth-seeking, individualist-anarchist on Schwab and other things.

You will know much more than me, having followed many trails to this point, I am far behind but I'm coming across the evidence myself, so I can well believe that. That absolute tie-up of Big Corp, Silicon Valley and sections of the US government and politicians is still sinking in, Michael. It is that massive. One small doubt I have with the gangsters - "elitist looters", I'm considering - covering their tracks in Ukraine, is I don't think they are capable of feeling embarrassment at being caught out. There's something inhuman in that incapacity to ¬see themselves¬ nor to feel shame or recognize their hypocrisy. Anyhow, they probably rely on their pet media to gloss over or drown out their foul activities. Will they ever get their come-uppance in Court? Their only concern seems grabbing wealth and their public ratings, the second handers.

Confirming what I estimated, the Donbas, South and East Ukraine, was always Putin's single territorial objective. The rest of the assault a tactical bluff and misdirection which every western observer, in 'confirmation bias' citing Russia's prior world aggression, fell for. Their militant rhetoric: Putin wanted to take Kyiv, defeating and occupying Ukraine, then into Poland, on to the Baltic States (um, Sweden, Finland too) - you name it! - has been a fantasy, disinformation by war-mongers and fear mongers. NOW, knowing this true aim of Putin's, the question is: would the West "go in"? To lead the defense of a portion of Ukraine - not, of "Europe"? What the hell for? Why the hell even arm Ukraine with "lethal aid"? The Donbas already was and IS predominantly "Russian", in all but by international law and recognition.. It is Kyiv's war, sympathetic as anyone will be to the Ukrainians' plight and condemnatory of Putin. They will need to find a way to settle a treaty soon, while they still have a bargaining position, and resist counting on pulling in the West any deeper. Kyiv and many Ukrainian people did their part to create this war. 2014, and the Maidan revolt orchestrated to overthrow their democratically elected Russia-friendly Gvt and President, violent riots and counter riots across the country until that govt. capitulated: the true beginning of this conflict. An un-Democratic aggression by purportedly pro-EU revolutionaries who apparently couldn't wait for the next elections to get their way. They over-ruled with force and intimidation, the majority electorate, among whom were the Russian-leaning/speaking Ukrainian citizens. The alienated, disenfranchised East Ukrainians, with good cause, now lost interest in remaining with Ukraine, under Kyiv, so conducted their own election/referendum for self-rule. The new Govt. attacked the East for daring a break away, to prevent and preempt them. Russian irregulars instigated by Moscow taking advantage of the situation, entered on the side of the Donbas - and so on - one almost unbroken, escalating conflict and the loss of 13,000 lives, until the present invasion, THE biggest 'escalation' yet, more likely to follow. Seldom was so much fear and loathing and rhetoric - for a quite avoidable war. Inherent, baked-in Russophobia by NATO and Ukrainians, much the fault.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwju58v7u573AhXUSsAKHS_zAK0QFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fnews%2F2022%2F4%2F8%2Frussia-suspended-from-un-human-rights-body-how-countries-voted&usg=AOvVaw0Tr_MN61GIxJcrrbUoy5ha Russia suspended by UNHRC.

Pacifism as doctrine practiced to he nth degree is suicidal, i.e. one would not defend one's life if at risk of taking an others. At a national level, assuming a free nation, this isn't problematic. The pacifists or peace advocates in the country will not be ordered or required to defend the nation. A voluntarist armed forces, resolute and well-trained would do so. Those who don't want to fight don't have a duty to do so and have every right not to. Dennis May makes the collectivist error in envisaging a country which would be largely/predominantly pacifist. Therefore, that nation would fall to enemies he believes. Hasn't he heard of 'the division of labor'? Besides, freedom isn't only defended with guns, the pen works too, as does a civilian populace keeping the 'home front' going - freedom in action. This Ukraine war is generating a sentimentalist militancy among a high proportion of the British, who seem to want to recapture days of lost glory and national hubris, in a conflict that has nothing to do with self defense of G. Britain - or with honoring a military alliance with the other nation.. They ought to recall their history. They've been in the collective grip of Jingoism before. 100+ years ago, "conscientious objectors" were vilified, ostracized and attacked by the war-mongering public as cowards for not wanting to go into continental Europe to kill for God and Country. Most 'conchies' were conscripted by the Gvt. anyhow and died also "in the trenches". I read, one-half of the English young men of that generation were killed in WW1. Pacifism v. militant Jingoism = false dichotomy. Pacifism is ultimately self-immolation, Jingoism will ultimately cause self-immolation. (Sacrificial altruism goes all the way down). Moral self-defense, either to rightfully protect one's own life from assault, resulting in possibly killing an attacker, or by professional soldiers valuing the nation's survival at some risk of their own lives, the objective solution.

Simple question: who vastly expanded their political-military sphere of influence - after the Soviet's collapse, after the Warsaw Pact was voluntarily dissolved (1991) - Russia or Nato? The "encirclement" of Russia by Nato nations (12 to 30 presently) was clearly senseless, gratuitous and provocative; Russia had shown no belligerent designs on any of them. Your neighborhood watch had turned into the aggressive gang. And it's Russia who believe they need the castle walls against it - in self-defense. You can't accept that perception by Russia, I know. No, and I kept repeating, not Russia - the No.1 - nor Ukraine nor Nato come out smelling of roses. They all evaded reality at some time or constantly. This biased global rhetoric, the convenient hero-demon mindset is not the reality. There are thugs all over, some wear business suits and fake respectability. Rational people conceive of much worse than has happened so far, with these escalations and grandiose talk. Nobody wants nuclear war, right? Then they must look at reality, not noble principles. Invasions? well they've occurred in the past also for poor or immoral rationales, and this won't be the worst one of all (if the war-crazies don't get their way). "Ukraine" comes from the Slavic "Borderland". For good reason. Short story, they announced their independence in 1991, and good for them. The international community all praised this. But in that ancient mix of territories, people and rulers, who's to prevent one region who had no loyalty to a European leaning President (after the duly-elected pro-Russian one was deposed and booted after the Maidan revolution) from - themselves - wanting and gaining separation from them? Indeed, announcing their own independence in identical fashion to Kyiv? And with a kind of revolution. a civil war? Well, Kyiv stopped them. It will probably pay the cost of that evasion.

Indicative of Nato's muddled thinking, loss of clear identity and its evasions, past and present - "Are we a self-defensive organization - or an offensive one? Mutually protective - or belligerent?" (in fact does anyone know?) What's going to make Finland a greater target, on the ridiculous assumption Russia would attack it and could ever succeed in attacking it: A. staying outside Nato; B. being inside? Being (one more) nearby thorn in Russia's side with missile bases (a la Cuban Crisis) - or a neutral bystander? If it's all about goading Russia and Putin to pressure them into extreme reactions, Nato and western war lovers are going about things very well.

By what I've seen, everything constructed and created can be perverted to some people's debased ends . Also, anything made can be misused and abused by a user to his or others' harm. Good?: "For whom? For what purpose?" E.g. power is great. Manpower is what got us here. Power and wealth are neutral or good or evil depending on the rationality and character of who's wielding them, his aims and their purpose. "Power" is essential, to do and build things, to make the tools to achieve more. The power of free will. The power of conceptual minds. Power ... over people - is a distinct category; and what is loosely but normally meant by "power". It's not "power" in itself that "corrupts", it is power -over others- by an abuser and manipulator.

"I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it". GS From this, the "impotence of evil" has a single condition: That "good" men do not assist the evil men, and compromise/sacrifice themselves. On its own unaided, evil has (an evil person has) no longevity, stature and power.

Putin "wants war to drag on"? The Russian Army can't afford to lose more soldiers WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK The Battle of the Donbas, if that is what we are to witness, may be Russia’s last throw of the dice with this army

These talking heads and their pet theories intrigue me. Everyone with his/her novel idea ready and on tap, for public consumption. As I heard Jordan Peterson say in another context, "that's not just false, it is anti-true". What would Putin gain from extended war?** what price is he paying now? The facts please. Any 'dragging-on' apparently comes from Zelensky. I could be interviewed saying (e.g.) that I have analyzed Zelensky to be a narcissistic glory-hound, to gain my minute of public attention. [**I forgot, the longer the war the more civilians he can massacre.]

The primary take-out for me is how Zelensky is coyly playing hard to get, harmfully so for his country. First he wouldn't sit down with Putin because of Russian atrocities/'atrocities', a week later, he will only agree to non-NATO status, - if - the West gives Ukraine defense assurances or security guarantees. Which is exactly what NATO membership confers. The same thing dressed up differently. And he knows, equally unacceptable for Putin. It's becoming quite clear Z wishes, expects and demands for the West to eventually intervene - if he could only drag the peace talks out long enough, while in the interim, he would conveniently lay blame for future innocent casualties of the war at Putin's door. A neutral observer could claim more civilians dying is -secondarily - his fault too, the result of his delaying tactic and his grandstanding. Looks certain: Zelensky anticipates ¬winning¬ this war. (With a little help from his friends). He should be told by foreign diplomats he better be instead thinking truce and peace treaties. On the other side, Putin comparatively is almost the model of consistency: he came for this and that, he publicly and repeatedly stated so, they remain on the table.

A fair take this far; straight reporting, wow.

Okay, but Putin is nowhere near the most evil man on the planet. I don't place he and Russia up there, as a clear and future threat to the West, even. Apart from the obvious nukes, they aren't a powerful military; They have no unifying purpose, their dead Communist ideology, any longer, to disseminate or inflict abroad or locally. The truly evil ones are already inside our nations, they come at you with sweet smiles wanting 'to help' and gouge out your eyes and steal your soul. I could mention a dozen or two among them 'world leaders' Thousands more behind them. Hilarious, and a sign of the soft, modern times that 'experts' predict Putin has belligerent designs on Sweden et.al. Which has nitwits swooning in anxiety. I trust these nations remain independent, don't buy into the panic-mongering, or submit to the extortionate pressure to pull them into NATO. Scheming to place Putin under more extreme border paranoia, not less: very smart. 'Wokeism' already insidiously has and will do greatly more damage non-physically than VP would, physically, acting from within countries, penetrating and weakening the people and institutions, Putin is the crude baseball bat over your head: on balance, I prefer to fight his up-front assault - it's at least visible, honest and unhypocritical.

There are no limits to sacrifice, of what "must be done for your good". Why is this man still operating and paid attention? He and his non-science, inhuman policies have been exposed. The endless pandemic for profit and control. Revulsion from the West at the misery inflicted on the Chinese by the CCP should exceed anything else going on. That they have the power to 'remove' those simple pleasures, people's pets, is evil enough. That they can actually carry it off, there are no words for.

The final act in the evasive sequence must carry the predominant blame. Putin still did NOT 'have to do' what he did. Aided, empowered, enabled by many hundreds of evasions by many others, before that, that have to be judged, also, for their denial of reality, humanity and otherwise. Those enabling, morally compromised evaders have little moral rectitude to point fingers at Putin.

MSK, I think your above is close to the truth from my reading. Only from the arms manufacturers pov: they get to try out and advertise their latest wares on real, live battlegrounds. Nothing like a hot war, for testing, (been short of those for a while). "Look how our shoulder fired missiles take out tanks! A girl can "fire-and-forget!" And all displayed on Prime Time. (African dictator: Man, get me a dozen of those ). The competition is fierce in that market, between countries and corporations: the Jaguar, at $200K a pop and other makes, reportedly have destroyed +/- 600 Russian tanks, and I guess are ending the dominance of tank warfare in cities. (Anyone spare a little sympathy for the tank crews? all I hope is they're rendered instantly unconscious from concussion before the intense heat gets them). One thousand of those fired adds to a fat profit, and of course their stock must be replenished, given a nicely prolonged war. Until recently, the 'arms dealer' was despised as the lowest of the low human beings (by the old, anti-war Left in particular), now war mongers of all persuasions are extolling their products.