- [Stance in this video] Ukraine didnt release the actual points of the 15 point peace talks discussions, because “they were so insane, they dindt bother”.
vs. a reality of:
- Selensky stated in a public speech that the more aggressive, and devastating the attacks, the better, because it helps him gather political support in countries all over the world.
or
- Russian pundit declaring, the US will have no interest whatsoever to not let this war escalate into a long term conflict of attrition - and Selenskyj wouldnt survive, standing up against that US position. (Meaning, essentially, no peace talks for quite a while.)
Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont believe a single word of the western position on that one.
- [Stance in this video] The short answer on why Putin raised strategic nuclear weapons readiness levels, was distraction.
vs.
- Was a direct threat.
or
- Was there to trigger a mindset that prevents US and allied Partners from crossing certain lines.
Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont believe a single word of the public western interpretation on that one.
- [In this video] Putin feared successful democracy successfully undermining his state concept (Outlook on economic growth in the Ukraine).
vs.
- at the current demographic outlook, Russia without “puffer states” will not be able to be defended militarily, as a regional block anymore, and wont have any capacity to do anything about it - in about 30 years time.
or
- Putin saw the direct intervention in political systems in former block countries and financing of pro western opposition parties as a direct threat to russias powerstucture.
Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont believe a single word of the popular western interpretation on that one.
- [In this video] Cyberattacks and efforts to put Trump into power (which I dont dispute) was an attempt at reaching Russias political goals, at a far lower cost and somewhat succeeded.
vs.
- Destabilizing European politics, via the financing of ultra right wing parties, was an attempt at reaching Russias political goals, at a far lower cost and almost succeeded.
or
- Low cost destabilization options that can be upscaled to something more useful in case they draw traction are a useful option in the toolset of all major foreign intelligence agencies, if needed.
Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont necessarily believe a single word of the popular western interpretation on that one.
- [In this video] United States policy of containment, which allowed for Russia to take action and gain influence in Syria, up until Belarus in 2021, because we shared common goals in terms of the western security policy outlook, and drew a red line at an extended influence zone in eastern europe, is a problematic view, because it wouldnt allow for national selfdetermination in those buffer states, and although from great power politics perspectives, you think its ok - if you live in one of these countries its a serious problem.
vs.
- The west has now a legitimization problem that unites energy producing countries, because the concept of proxy wars didnt care the least about self determination.
or
- They simply started to make the self determination stuff up, when Ukraine bonded with US interests shortly after moving against german and european interests (Steinmeier-Formula) in the months before Minsk 2 failed/stalled.
Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont believe a single word of the popular western interpretation on that one.
- [In this video] Conflict doesnt pay, there was no reason for russia to stand up, because of very profitable economic relations with the west.
vs.
- Energy independence was the stated goal of the current european commissions “Green new Deal” initiative, increasing Europe’s energy independence from fossile fuels mid to long term.
or
- We decreased long term energy supply contracts with russia, to lessen energy dependency, then tried to buy up the missing delta on spot markets, and when russia didnt supply the difference, even though prices shot through the roof, we blamed them for following ulterior motives. Then froze Nordstream 2 instantly after the first unmarked vehicles crossed over into the Donbas in the starting hours of the current conflict, suggesting a permanent, or long term freeze of the project (depending on the news outlet it was one or the other), while Uvdl still had reservations to use the word “invasion” on CNN. Of course, that quickly cleared up. Oh, and the pretext of stopping the initiative was written under the Trump administration in a bipartisan effort. And Selenskyj accused the German parlament of “only thinking about economics”, when they were considering Nordstream 2, because it would have threatened Ukraine security interests, for Russia to be able to shift even parts of natural gas delivery to a different pipeline, even though the EU and Germany guaranteed minimum quantities, that had to be delivered through the Ukraine pipeline, and were the Ukraines main financier for development projects, including development projects in the green energy sector.
Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont believe a single word of the popular western interpretation on that one either.
