Russia Ukraine war, page-2701

What should be a discussion of the issues, becomes an education into what should be more civilised exchanges.

For instance, I find it offensive that you assume those who have weighed this up and find Putin the most egregious, only use mainstream media to get their information. This is why I expressed annoyance.

And by the way, not all msm is the same. There is a world of difference between the Daily Mail and the BBC or SBS news. But I digress.

I took a good look at what academics and notable commentators were saying, and indeed have said about this region, about Putin and the nature of Russian politics, even prior to this latest conflict. I've listened to YouTube videos of talks and presentations. I also found good analysis of the history of the Ukraine and Russia. I looked at various sources. This is essential for perspective.

You leap from assumptions, (that only you has looked further than what you widely and wholly denounce as "msm"), and then patronise me further by making the conclusion that had I looked further (which I have) it's impossible to not support Russia.

Those are huge leaps of logic.

Implicitly you also assume that if a source is not msm it must be more accurate.

Not so! False reasoning.

I also have friends with a background in international relations. Incredibly, I'm capable of engaging with people and having a civilised discourse which doesn't involve blindly agreeing with all of their propositions or conclusions. Imagine that?

I'm a pretty logical thinker and I don't need to justify myself to this depth and extent so I will hold back on some further explanations and context. This is tedious for me, but I hope to stimulate you into more deep thought than being simply reactive. Oh this person is following this line, therefore they are slaves to the supposed msm view. I must save them from it!

Similar conclusions don't follow the same path. And similar doesn't mean the same. Note the differences thanks.

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.
This is false reasoning but I agree he shouldn't operate like this. It's a mistake to view the west and NATO as being necessarily hostile. NATO developed to contain Russia. And Russia has been expansionist AND authoritarian. It's a bad combination. That's how they had so much territory. Absurdly Putin asked to join NATO. What was he thinking? He's hurt and he nurses his hurts and lashes out.

It's also a mistake to view the west as necessarily acting together. Or conflating the west with the US and NATO. Finally it's been goaded into acting together and even Germany has been goaded into throwing off its post WW2 policies. That's some achievement of Putins.

It's a deep impulse to want freedom and not want oppression. Putin is very prescriptive about what he will allow socially. He has a vision and he wants to impose it. He doesn't understand the advantages of a pluralistic society. He's alarmingly insular.

Yes, China and Russia by and large support populations very effectively in some ways, and they are more organised.
But most of the plutocrats want to live in the west. The young and highly educated tend to want to as well. What does that tell you?

These are very big issues and I'm glossing over them with my final statements there, no doubt you will take exception. I ask you to recognise that I'm weighing up the west not in some idealogical way, but in a pragmatic way. Authoritarianism is not a good system. The impetus towards democracy is so big that Putin and his msm will finally not be able to contain it. He's coming unstuck because his msm (which is far more homogeneous and controlled) is constantly manufacturing consent, and actively hiding the truth.

Accept it.