I reckon it's not about fweedom and democwacy at all but is in fact really all about uniting the entire planet under one power structure by working to absorb all countries into the US-centralized empire and toppling any government that refuses.
The word "detente" has been deliberately scrubbed from the western lexicon. This has created a false dichotomy where everyone thinks the only choices are either escalate until we have a nuclear war or "OMG SO JUST GIVE PUTIN WHATEVER HE WANTS AND LET HIM TAKE OVER EUROPE???"
Any time you oppose freakish world-threatening escalations that's the response you always get: "SO JUST GIVE IN TO THE BULLY AND LET HIM HAVE EVERYTHING???" They're sincerely unaware that there's a third choice between World War 3 and making Putin Emperor of Planet Earth.
This is by design, because detente and US unipolar hegemony are mutually exclusive. You can't let Russia be its own nation and also dominate the entire planet; it's either one or the other. Detente was a popular concept back when we lived in a *multipolar* world, during the USSR.
I've lost count of how many times I've seen major western institutions humiliate themselves with propaganda glorifying Ukrainians who on closer examination turn out to be neo-Nazis. It's a daily occurrence now.
The US empire has had a standing policy of preventing the rise of any rival superpowers since the USSR collapsed. Both Moscow and Beijing have refused to kiss the imperial ring and crippling Russia is an essential part of hamstringing China's rise. This was all planned years ago.
Gilbert Doctorow described back in 2017 how Moscow and Beijing have formed a mutually beneficial "tandem" based on their respective strengths; Russia as a major military force willing to confront the US empire, and China as a rising economic superpower. consortiumnews.com/2017/10/23/rus…
Empire architects had previously expected that Moscow would be forced to pivot to Washington and become a member state of the empire. The fact that it chose Beijing instead to retain its sovereignty is what set all this in motion.
Can't help but wonder if Australians like myself will soon be labeled "of strategic interest to Russia" for circulating unauthorized ideas about this conflict.
"The men targeted are journalists, authors or Putin's press officers."
We don't make a big enough deal about how MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for not supporting the Iraq war. Couldn't ask for more damning evidence that mass media institutions care about ratings and propaganda and not truth or facts or holding the powerful to account.
Corporate media have every incentive to beat the drums of war as loud as possible 24/7, from ratings to maintaining access to government officials to defending the status quo their plutocratic owners have built their kingdoms upon.
Anyone who wants to make money in news media now knows that in order to do that you've got to consistently demonstrate that you will always promote the interests of the oligarchic empire at every opportunity. Donahue didn't play the game.
Again: pouring weapons into Ukraine is not how you save lives. You save lives by accepting Russia's conditions. Pouring weapons into Ukraine is how you try to draw Moscow into a long, bloody insurgency like the US did in Afghanistan and Syria which will cost thousands more lives.
These demands will be met whether Kyiv agrees to them or not. Only difference is agreeing to them now saves thousands of lives. Kyiv cannot stop Russia. Whether Russia is dumb enough to be drawn into fighting an empire-backed insurgency is another matter.
Do you sincerely believe Ukrainian mothers are willing to sacrifice their sons to keep Crimea and the Donbas and future NATO membership? Do you? Do you really? Because that sounds like something an empire and its puppet regime would want, not them.