Since you made some good honest points I'll reply to each just so there is no confusion where I stand.
"
I live in the relative world, where nobody is a saint."
Me too, but the msm is always favouring one side, and most of the population get their information from the msm, so I have to argue in more absolute terms to get the point across. A few others on here are doing likewise. So I might get called a Putin lover, or sycophant, or worse lol.
"
The point is that if the US is no saint, it doesn't automatically justify what Russia is doing."
I agree.
"
I know you can't follow the logic of that, because you think in absolutes."
See my first point.
"
So I doubt you'd surprise me with any of your links. I'm a realist and this is something you don't believe."
You are a realist but don't want to see opposing evidence? The point is we can't take current events out of context. That's another tactic used my the msm. For example, you might notice that according to the msm, Ukraine history only goes back as far as president Poroshenko. They won't mention Yanukovych (friendly with Russia) because that would mean having to explain how he was overthrown by Yatsenyuk in a western sponsored coup in 2014.
"
But just as I'd rather live in a pluralistic liberal democracy, than an autocracy that's heavily monitored and censored."
Me too. Australia is a beautiful country to live in. But shouldn't we be a bit more neutral and try to avoid megaphone diplomacy?
"
Also I'm amazed at the games played by Ukraine. Talk about having balls!"
Certainly true if this was WW2. But in this modern world with a proliferation of high tech weapons it's obvious Putin couldn't expand past Ukraine. It would lead to WW3. Western powers know that, and they know that all Putin wanted was to keep Ukraine neutral, so it's only sanctions at this stage. One could argue that a lot of lives would have been saved if Zelensky did some deals with Russia and resisted western coercion behind the scenes.
"
Putin hides behind his mega artillery and mega bombs and still he cannot manage to win."
If Putin wanted to use the full capability of his military the major cities would have been rubble within days. Millions killed. It's obvious that Putin was trying to minimise the damage, and the only logical reason for that is because he wanted so see the country fully functional again as soon as possible, but with some guarantees for Russia.
Do I agree with the invasion? NO. But I can also see that he was at his wits end after years of trying to deal with the west. I can also see that he could have (should have?) simply folded and accepted that the US and NATO had already won the global game. I think
@Osi was making that point in his posts.
"
Even if he "wins" by using his mega military hardware from here on he actually loses."
"
He's lost the game of statesmanship".
Yes, since he's already made the move, from his (and Russia's) point of view it's critical that Ukraine be restored to something as good or better than it was as soon as possible, hopefully neutral, perhaps with some investment from Russia, and maybe China. But I agree that perhaps the game of statesmanship is lost forever, and certainly if he has to back out without finishing off the "project", so to speak.
One thing I'm fairly certain of (IMO): The western powers will thwart attempts to rebuild the country if it might look good for Russia and/or China. If more lives are lost or people starve it will mean little to them. And our media will be feeding us the usual BS.
"
Like most bullies, the man is actually a coward."
The msm likes to personalise it like that because most people can instantly identify with those emotions, perhaps from life experiences.
