See, this type of comparison is a not-right-in-the-head justification.
Plus the fact they have given multiple differing weird reasons for ukraine.
Further if you are so much wanting peaceful relations and ukraine is our brothers and sisters, that your solution to this peace is to start an open war...how sensical is that?
This is Putin legacy building before he dies.
“...this type of comparison is a not-right-in-the-head justification.
Plus the fact they have given multiple differing weird reasons for ukraine.”
🇺🇸🕶👍
There is literally no moral, logical, or reasonable way to argue against this statement.
Dr Carol Quigley was correct. The globalist had already taken control by the late 1960’s, but there were also roughly four globalist factions, all seeking ascendancy/control over the rest.
These included the EU, US, CCCP, and the outlier of China.
Different theories were discussed, but it was plausible there would be a Moscow/Beijing, EU/Beijing, or US/EU vs Moscow/Beijing “tug of war”, to control all others.
Leftist from each of these were seeking global ascendancy and hegemony. The US was the most powerful, but also the most split politically. Prescott Bush was mentioned in Quigley’s 1960’s “Tragedy and Hope”, as being part of a group seeking US control over the global governance architecture. The hard left in America were happy with a non-Us led global government, and an overt Marxist one at that. More like a “Supreme Soviet” type idea.
However, regardless of who would win out, they were all globalists. Outside of Quigley, several of those in the know, saw corruption and demoralization/perversion .strategies were also threats to the West within the efforts to take control.
It was much more detailed than what I have portrayed.
Decades later, it has become apparent the later axis/allies alignment is the direction.
Moscow was really close to controlling the EU through energy and food supply. If they would have been successful, we would have seen a Moscow/Bejing axis determining EU finance, trade, and military/NATO policy.
UA was/is merely a “stepping stone”. UA was never an end, and Moscow and Bejing needed a neutralized/corrupted US government and Pentagon to even get this far.
Regardless of UA, this will go sideways for the Moscow/Beijing/Tehran as proxy axis.
This will in time get much more deadly.
And by the way, the ridiculous psyop, and now end of the AZOV BN, was not marked by Moscow ceasing anything.