[helloworld11]

Quite aside from all the injustices, lies and pushes for military action by the U.S. since the end of the Cold War, this article takes a blatantly one-sided view that essentially seems to state "well, you shouldn't have pushed Russia into a corner. The invasion is your fault".

As another reply below says, no mention of Russia's own military aggression with neighbors under Putin's rule or of the fact that if NATO grew closer to the country's borders, it mostly did so with the full willingness of the countries that later joined. Having Russia close to them caused a choice and that choice (fully within their rights as countries) was to become closer with the NATO alliance and western Europe because they found it preferable to possible Russian domination.

The writer describes war and military provocation as a lucrative business and insinuates that western greed motivated the expansion of NATO, but sidesteps that Russia's own military/political moves are often no less motivated by the same things where possible.

[bllguo]

sure it is one-sided, but at least it tries to give a plausible explanation rather than all the inflammatory nonsense about putin being a madman hellbent on conquering Europe. I find the general lack of interest in understanding the motivations of the opposition very disappointing

people in this very thread are saying things like "his actions make no sense." Frankly if that's your contribution, maybe realize you're out of your depth? can we at least _try_ to learn from this so we can prevent future war?