Hi gringo. I must confess I didn't take much notice, if any, of Crimea and Georgia so when Russia invaded Ukraine I was somewhat surprised. But I take the view there's nearly always two sides to an argument! It didn't seem to fit that Putin woke up one morning and decided to grab some or all of Ukraine's land solely for territorial reasons. A lot of what I was hearing in the mainstream media didn't seem to make sense and/or was irrelevant eg attempting to draw parellels with Hitler/WW2, Putin's state of health, significant other(s) and fathering children. Also the clamping down on Oligarchs ie the West knew about all of this so why wait to take action? It seemed somewhat hypocritical. So I started to look for alternative views. Jim Rickards seems to make more sense to me and he's not some anti-establishment figure for the sake of it.
I am not condoning Putin's actions but I think Russia was provoked by the West's attempts to expand NATO. The whole thing could have, and should have imo, been avoided by leaders agreeing a neutral buffer zone.
Thanks for the reply, CC. It is more telling to hear the views of someone like yourself on this- the majority of the country who pay little to no attention to wider geopolitics-who just want to get on with their lives. If the propaganda is starting to wear thin with them-then the whole enterprise is in trouble.
I am finding that lately, purely my own personal experience, that more people are seeing through the silly propaganda that calls itself, "The News".
The part highlighted in red- I think people are beginning to realise this. Public support is vital to realise their ambitions and this can only come from a successful propaganda campaign to demonise Russia and Putin personally. NATO do this with every intervention they make-demonise the leader. With people's heads full of propaganda about, Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam-NATO then bombs and destroys the lives of ordinary civilians and enough people in the West believe we are the good guys, the cavalry riding into town to save them from Gaddafi, Assad... that is why it hasn't changed in 30/40 years.
The destruction and lies have finally come up against Russia. And they are falling apart in front of our eyes. The plausible veneer being stripped away has led to the "silent majority" paying more attention. The greater the scrutiny-the more the narrative crumbles.
The only way this ends-short of armageddon- is Western publics calling to account NATO governments and aggression. Hopefully we are getting there. You have expressed the same sentiments that I am hearing from others who initially went along with the prevailing narrative. The "silent majority" are beginning to turn.
Thank you for your full reply.
