Replying to Avatar Sourcenode

I've had a couple days to reflect on the Putin interview and watch how others have reacted to it.

This post may trigger some, but I have no control over how people choose to interpret what they read.

First, I will say Putin and Russia's military actions are reprehensible. I will never be an advocate for big government, war, or any sort of violence.

That being said I have not found a major point from the conversation that I disagree with. I am not an expert in European history so I can't comment on the accuracy of the first thirty minutes, but regarding the current global state of affairs, it seems Putin has a grasp on the reality of the situation. He seems to be exclusively focused on Russia's best interest and he resisted several opportunities to trash his opponents.

In comparison, the US has been screaming about Russia interfering in elections and blaming them for our inflation. Neither of these claims have been proven and the latter is completely ridiculous from a monetary policy perspective.

The arguments I have heard against Putin's position have largely been character attacks or appeals to emotion. Both are worth considering, but lack logos. So far I have not heard a logical rebuttal of his claims.

I would like to hear rational arguments against his position if anyone has some points to share.

I have no desire to argue Russia's position or any other nation. My primary interest has always been in fostering peace and a greater understanding of the world we live in.

Yeah, Biden couldn't do an interview like this, and it would be pointless anyway. You'd have to talk to the real puppet-masters behind the scenes, possibly Victoria Nuland or Susan Rice (or even other Deep State denizens buried more deeply in The Swamp) to get the U.S.-NATO rationale.

Perhaps along the national self-determination line of argument, one could argue that #Ukraine has the right to join NATO if it wants to. Russia saying that it can't is like the U.S. trying to dictate what nations can and can't have nukes. But I do understand Russia not wanting missiles pointed at it right on her border, just like the U.S. objected to Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba during the Cold War. Perhaps if the Ukraine were to join NATO they should agree not to do this.

But the real rationale for US-NATO actions in this conflict probably has to do with stirring up trouble for #Russia in order to keep the Military-Industrial-Complex gravy-train alive, as well as hiding the money-laundering and bioweapons development that the Deep State had going on there...

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Yes. I wasn't familiar with the two names you mentioned in the first paragraph. Might have to take a look..

I can defend much of the Azov Battalion, but I think Nuland is an irrational Russiaphobe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The US does it's money laundering in Manhattan and keeps its secret biolabs where they can control them (like Boston) and not in f***king conflict zone. Why would anyone do that??