Sorry that you're being downvoted for an unpopular take.

Here is an interesting article from an economic forecaster, Martin Armstrong, that underlines some of the dirty dealings that lead us to where we are with this conflict.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/russia...

*PS can someone please upvote so HN isn't a constant echo-chamber

PPS well that went well

There a lots of these articles now on why it is really the west's fault for not giving Putin whatever he wanted. This is deeply disrespectful to the Ukrainian people fighting a defensive war against a brutal dictator that kills his own people without second thoughts.

When you see a bully walking around the classroom punching other kids we should not think wait we must look at both sides of the story. I am sure the bully needs and deserves help, but right now lets address the kids getting punched.

Neither NATO nor EU has tried to force countries to join, in fact they often reject applications. They exists because the US is willing to provide security guarantees to smaller countries without interfering in their domestic agenda.

For example Norway just joined the anti-nuclear weapon group as an observer. The US was not a fan at all, but did not try to block it.

The involvement of the west was questionable. Ukraine had a revolution that purged a pro-Russian government. The west should never have been involved after the government changed. Because now the obvious accusation is that it facilitated that change and some leaked info from the Bush government could very well hint at that as they wanted to influence who would become part of a new government. That would not be unusual for the US, on the contrary it is pretty much by the playbook of facilitated regime changes.

And such influence is certainly not in the interest of the people that primarily rose up against corruption.

This reads more like an unsourced, conspiratorial rant than an educated analysis of NATO expansion.

He managed to hit: - Netflix won't host his movie that is a one-sided defence of his $700M fraud conviction, equates it to cancel culture - The Clintons are to blame - The Clintons wanted to "take over" Russia after the fall of the USSR - NATO isn't a defensive alliance because it "moves in aggressive ways" - The emergence of the LPR and DPR was totally just a self determined act and had nothing to do with a Russian invasion

Repeating Putin talking points and engaging in whataboutism doesn't make for a meaningful analysis.

Thank you for a well thought out response. As I understand it, the LPR and DPR were actually funded by Russia to prolong instability in Ukraine. One of the reasons for that was because NATO wouldn't want to admit a country currently in conflict and that would suit Russia's interests.

The sad or comic thing about this succinct write up is that it reads like the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic - but it is TRUE.

Browder and Safra are but the tip of the iceberg.

Both are directly or indirectly linked to Epstein and Maxwell as I am sure you are aware.

Wonder what the aliens watching Earth think of all this!