[4gotunameagain]

Your comment contradicts nothing from my argument. Of course the rhetoric changed as the situation changed.

It is silly to think that the largest country of the world needed a couple of ukrainian villages.

Unfortunately - and I know that you will disagree - even if Putin was the one that invaded, I place the blame on Ukraine and NATO.

[mopsi]

  > Of course the rhetoric changed as the situation changed.

Blaming NATO is just another such rhetoric, put forward because it is the most advantageous in the current situation. It activates fools who begin self-flagellation, and in the process, disrupt military aid to Ukraine, which helps the Russian war effort.

Even among Russians who can be considered serious experts, no one takes the "blame NATO" narrative seriously. It's an excuse. A pretext. Look up Hitler's speeches from early September 1939 and you will see similar rhetoric about Germany being surrounded by the Franco-British alliance, with Poland as its spearhead. The similarity is uncanny, because it follows a standard pattern of excuses used by aggressors: portraying themselves as threatened, framing their actions as defensive, and blaming external forces for the conflicts they themselves initiate.

[4gotunameagain]

Again, your comment is full of emotionally fuelled words, and no substance or refutation of my points.

I am honestly sorry your country has been invaded (you seem to be Ukrainian). But I would much rather have peace at the cost of Ukrainian territory, than continuous escalation and geopolitical rifts, at the cost of Ukrainian lives and risking an even larger conflict in Europe.

It was a mistake to let Ukraine be courted by the west.