western imperial war propagandists said something, guess it must be true
Russian state media literally said it themselves, in their own words, and you're attributing it to "western Imperial war propagandists". Clownery.
I think that a peaceful settlement should be negotiated. That is the whole of my recommendation. Anything beyond that is descriptive or speculative, not prescriptive.
You did undeniably phrase my position as "Ukraine should demilitarize", repeatedly, but that is as far as it goes. I've used the word once, in order to describe what Russia probably expects from a settlement, and even then that goes far short of "demilitarize", since the words "to at least some extent" appear immediately after it; I'm going "to empty that water bottle to at least some extent" carries a vastly different meaning than "I'm going to empty that water bottle." That has been your monthly English lesson. You're welcome.
This is some truly pathetic prevarication.
Sorry, you merely expect them to cripple their defensive capability
to some extent, rather than fully lose their entire defensive force. So much better!
And the reason that Ukraine would be expected to demilitarize to at least some extent is because it has been militarized quite a bit; the United States and NATO have been preparing Ukraine to fight Russia. You might think it somehow prescient, but it's hardly impressive to predict that a country that you refuse to negotiate with or listen to about its concerns over your war preparations would eventually choose to go wreck the immediate source of its consternation in response. Especially when that source of consternation has also been in civil war with much of its ethnic Russian minority as a result of their reaction to a right-wing and US-backed coup.
*In civil war with a separatist state formed within its borders by Russian-armed insurgents and disguised Russian troops.
There was a coup in 2014 in which Nazi groups overthrew the government and agents of the United States picked its next leader. That government would go on to crush dissent in various ways, leading you to applaud it as "democratic" since Ukraine's oligarch class in that time also managed to poop out more than one political party to represent its interests. You have made Ukraine's human rights abuses relevant by your baffling insistence that Ukraine is a democratic country and by your incessant need to compare it to Russia in that respect.
Agents of the United States didn't pick their next leader. They overthrew a leader who had been bought & owned by Russia (remember Yanukovych's own advisor stating Ukraine must be destroyed? That's the government you want us to mourn?). Then they voted, and you disliked the outcome, so you erased Ukrainian self-determination in response.
The overthrow in 2014 involved Nazi groups.... on both sides of the conflict, and
more prominently on the anti-Maidan side, since Russia pumps endless money into fascist and Nazi groups throughout its European targets. In order to create a convenient, evil-vs-Russia narrative, you've endlessly exaggerated their role in one side, and endlessly erased their role in the other.
But let us explore your premise. You would of course agree, then, that the crimes or alleged crimes of the government of Syria are irrelevant to the United States bombing that country or materially supporting its rebels; you would simply condemn the United States for its aggression because you're consistent, as you've made quite loud.
I'm a great deal more consistent than you've been, in that I'm actually capable of applying the same standard.
The crimes of a government can, theoretically, get to the stage where its incumbent on other states to intervene. But no, that stage was not reached in Syria. I don't really know why you expect any other response from me, other than the fact that you're terrible at remembering what you and/or your opponents have actually said. I did condemn American aggression in Syria and still do.
Of course, American aggression in Syria is significantly less than Russian aggression here.
Russia in Ukraine in less than 1 year has already outdone the death toll of America in Syria over 8 years. And then there's the fact that Russian Nazi mercenaries
continue to operate in Syria, on a scale larger than any ongoing western involvement there.
The most powerful entities bear the responsibility for maintaining or changing that environment, as they are the ones with the power to do so. You object to Russia acting like the United States does routinely in reaction to aggression by and to defend itself from the United States. I don't think it is particularly reasonable to criticize a country for doing what it deems necessary to safeguard its existence in a global context shaped by the very same countries that threaten that existence. Call what Russia is doing 'imperialism' if you want, it doesn't change the fact that they are reacting to a growing military threat on their borders from the most powerful offensive military alliance assembled in world history.
Meaningless justification for applying completely different standards, and ignoring the fact that Russia has had a larger formative impact on Ukraine than any other outside power.
An odd framing for a war that is the result of US and NATO insistence on their absolute right to expand a hostile military alliance on Russia's border and their unwillingness to even consider negotiation about the security interests of everyone involved.
It's not a result of that hysterical paranoia, no.
Literally the only foreign military placements in Ukraine, at the time of the invasion, were Russian. Russia was the only power to sponsor an insurgency in Ukraine. Russia was the one that broke its binding peace agreements with Ukraine. Russia was the one aggressively expanding its hostile military into Ukraine at every single step of the way.
Then Ukraine... considered membership of NATO-- didn't even join, was just considering-- and it's literally the only alliance in the area which could have afforded them protection from the constant invasion and attack of Russia.
