I did my research on Ukraine history and Putin ..unfortunately the west is in the wrong side of history! USA have a bad track record of lying and lots of endless war ! ( Syria, Libya, IRAQ, Kosovo, Serbia, Afganstein , Panama war by Ronald Reagan or Contra War , Vietman War) .
Your research seems very one-sided then. Let's check your list.
You presented 9 examples. First off, the US's only campaigns against Serbia were during the Kosovo crisis, so that's a duplicate. Russia was also involved in Syria and Libya, so it's ridiculous to count them. One of the reasons you give for supporting Russia was the 16,000 people kiilled by Ukraine in Donbas, the majority of which were combatants and many of which were Russian military, and yet you cite Kosovo which was a response to 14,000 civilians murdered in 2 years. If you think Russia is justified because of the police action in Donbas, you can't cite Kosovo as it was a far bloodier event against pure civilians, unless you're an absolute hypocrite. You can't count Afghanistan since the Soviets did the exact same thing. Russia has their own version of the Contra with Myanmar.
So really your list is 3 ways: Iraq, Panama and Vietnam. 3 I happen to agree with. Bad America!
But why haven't you looked at the Russian list? Forget Soviet Union, straight up Russia: Transnistria, East Prigorodny, Abkhazia, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Chechnya again, Georgia, Ingushetia, Ukraine (Crimea) and then Ukraine again. 11 vs 3, 10 if you only want to count Ukraine once. Who's on the wrong side?
Morally backing a guy means squat whether he is right or wrong! He being right might make you feel better, but you have to be realistic!
Sometime is necessary be pragmatic and learn to live with the necessary evil in the world! It hard to tell who telling the turth or lies or half truths or half lies!
What? You literally just said he's on the right side of history, now you're saying he's not righteous and justified but have to learn to live with his evil?
You defend Putin's actions. You don't say, "He's bad but a necessary evil." No, you say, "He's there getting rid of the Nazis and saving the little of the Donbas from being killed by Ukraine." Unless you're prepared to admit that's all nonsense and the only reason you support is because of nukes and your earlier comments about being on the right side of history are nonsense, then I'm not sure what your point is here.
This is part of life. Nuke is the game changer, and for rest of humanity and “ on a enough long time line everyone survival rate drop to zero”
Which is why I've asked if you've considered that letting Russia have Ukraine increases the risk of nuclear war rather than preventing it. You're putting all your money, being the entire history of humanity, on the belief that if you let Russia have Ukraine out of fear of nuclear war, that you don't encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons and aggressive actions by other nations with nuclear weapons. You're betting everything on an argument that's basically, "If you never stand up to a bully, they'll stop and there will be less bullies in the world."
Putin have the upper hands he have hypersonic nukes! He have the advantage of first strike capability and will inflect the most damage will destroy most of USA and NATO first strike capability!
Russia spends $65 billion on its military. The US spends $2 trillion. The US has some of the best universities in the world feeding the biggest defense contractors in the world, and is allied to every other nation renowned for their universities as well as 2 other countries that outsoend Russia on defense.
Why do you think the US doesn't have hypersonic missiles? The B-52 is ancient, slow, and has no stealth capabilities, yet it will be in service beyond any other aircraft currently in the US fleet. Why? Because it can air launch hypersonic missiles beyond the range of Russian radar and air defenses. If the US didn't have hypersonic missiles, the B-52 would already be out of service.
The US has submarines off the coast of Russia as we speak with nuclear missiles that can hit Moscow in under 6 minutes. They can nuke St Petersburg in 2. I'm not sure what "first strike" means to you, but in military strategy, the concept of "first strike" means you eliminate the enemy's ability to retaliate. So Russia does not have "first strike" abilities. In all likelihood, at best Russia would take out DC from a sub off the East Coast and any additional ordinance would be hitting the US after all major Russian cities have already been hit. That's not first strike.
In any case, if your entire support of Putin is bad on your fears of nuclear war, then you should just be honest about that and stop spreading propaganda about neonazis and other nonsense, and also realize you're just encouraging more countries to get nukes and more countries with nukes to do whatever they want. You're actively encouraging an increase in the risk of nuclear war by supporting Putin.
That all I care about! I am only a pleb. I wake in morning get my exercise , enjoying my life and my retirement and my family . and play with my pet Labrador . That all I care about! The rest of the politicians can all go to hell ! In the end the all powerful politicians are liars & crooks! Usually the plebs if they are lucky get the scrap and enjoy their life.
Then stop saying the US is on the wrong side of history and Putin is justified and admit you're just a selfish coward that's willing to let genocide happen as long you get to exercise and post with your dog, even if it only increases the risk of your children and grandchildren seeing nuclear war.
