Then I apologize for miss understanding. Just seems lately got accusations from some members here that I'm Pro Russia and want to spin His Regime possition, just simply because I (like many in non west) choose to stay in the fences on this war and look on both sides opinions.
That last statement is completely false. You can very well start a war without any red line being crossed. Did Saddam cross a red line when the US invaded Iraq the second time under false pretenses? No. That was a premeditated attack with the purpose of regime change, supported by flase information. No red line had been crossed, and Iraq still got invaded.
When you have a country invading another with the initial purpose of changeing the democratically elected regime with a puppet regime, and when the initial objective fails it moves to annexing territory, staying in the fences looks like a tacit endorsement of the aggressor. This is why many people see you as supporting Russia.
Again it is false. You may not agree with their line but there's always lines that decision makers decide to goes to war. For Iraq, well clearly the US red line is 'Saddam's continues existence in power'. They should finish Saddam after first Gulf war, but they are not. Saddam continues existance in power then become the lines that need to be cross by some US powerbase. At least if they are finishing Saddam in first Gulf war, they can use existing pretext, and no need to fabricated new pretext for second gulf war.
Farewell I will entertaint you this time. I don't want to discuss it before because it is pointless as you don't believe on Russian red lines.
Right, just like West help Iranian Shah purge to destroy democratic ellected government, when US help and push Chille military to crush democratic elected left wing government, and so on and so on.
You are misunderstanding the meaning of crossing a red line. Maybe this is why the confusion between what you are meaning and what others understand.
Yes, this sounds like a red line that was crossed and generated a response. This can very well explain the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
So this time, they decided to invade without any red line being crossed. Ukraine or the West did nothing to change the status quo, yet Putin decided to invade because he changed his mind about the situation. This has nothing to do with red lines, but with changing ambitions and objective at the Kremlin.
If they do it by using brute force and killing people, yes it is.
No I'm not. Red line is just another threshold, but threshold that going to triger extreme response.
No for some in US power base, including Bush Jr administration, it is. They just need pretext to do it, as it is already in their thorn for sometime. War on teror and WMD just a thing they are fabricated for pretext on crossing that threshold.
No it is not as simple as that, It is still related to Crimea as their red line. From their perspective Ukraine and their Western backers are planning to disrupt the status quo. Minsk Accord for one thing is being hope by Russian to guarantee the status quo that they are hoping. By Providing Pro Russian forces in East Ukraine veto power, Russian hope this guarantee their buffer thus the status quo. In the end it is going to guarantee their precious Crimea flanks.
Then you understand why many non western decided to stay in fences, as looking to previous Western wars in non western world, they simply would not buy this western free world strugle talks.
I think there may have been an element of self-deception. Bush et al wanted to get rid of Saddam, but they couldn't justify invading unless he gave them an excuse, & Saddam (being stupid in these matters, just as he had been in 1990-91) obliged, by obfuscating what had been done with his WMDs. He wanted it to be unclear whether he'd destroyed them all, thinking that would deter attacks, while making sure (by destroying them all) the inspectors didn't find any because he understood that proof that he still had some could have severe adverse consequences for him.
I wouldn’t put the blame here with Saddam, because his fate had been sealed regardless of what he did at that time. After 9.11 the mood of the American public had changed and Bush wanted to take advantage of this by finishing off Saddam. The WMD thing was just a fabricated pretext, to justify the invasion for the public. If it was not for the WMD, they would have invented something else.
Actually I don’t understand why many non-western decided to stay on fence, because this war has nothing to do with previous wars in other parts of the world. If the US did a stupid thing 20 years ago, it doesn’t give Russia the right to do the same thing now. You can very well be against the war in Iraq and against the war in Ukraine. This is not about US vs Russia. This is about a big country invading a smaller one. Any counry that doesn’t have territorial ambitions and doesn’t plan to invade its neighbors should support Ukraine.
Put it this way, look at pattern on UN GA assemblies resolutions on Ukraine war supports. When the resolutions talk about Invasion, Ukraine territory integrity, most of Non Western world (you can call it Global South) support the resolutions.
So your argument for believing that the White House was lying when they warned about a Russian attack was because they (in your opinion) had not been "doing enough"??
It is better then your Western condescending bias, but then you are already known for that. Besides what I post is not enough action from them raise questions whether they believe or not on their own warnings. I don't know where you learn your English, that's not same with calling them lying.
The divide and misunderstanding is not about that principle, but it is about the actors. Breaking it down:
You are assuming that non-western skeptics criticism of the war is condoning russian actions or accepting Russia, which isn't necessarily case.
Yes, I know that. The problem is, by staying on the fence they look extremely hypocritical. This is compounded by the fact that Ukraine is not a historically Western country with a history of doing bad stuff (like colonialism, wars, etc.). When your principles say you should support Ukraine, but you prefer to stay on the fence (because of other reasons, like not trusting Ukraine’s allies), people start to wonder if your principles are actually real, or you just invoke them when they suit your interests.
I think the leaders of important countries like India should not bow tot the “west is the source of our ills and global problem” segment. Those who have that kind of thinking should not be encouraged to continue on their wrongful path. They should be confronted by being told the truth, which no politician is willing to do, because it’s much easier to deflect the blame for all problems on foreigners. Those who believe “the west is the source of our ills and global problem” are the non-Western equivalent of racists. Politicians should not appease them, as the phenomenon will only get worse.
This is why India's position is always about peace. It is vague and ambiguous enough to be right, most of the time without sounding hypocritical.
I highlighted the two lines to point out precisely why it will not succeed. The statements you wrote has a definitive dimension, which those people will question the nature and the validity of the truth, and path that you are trying to point out.
You make valid points. The biggest problem with democracy is populism and the fact that there will always be parties that will use identity politics as a way to have a solid voter base regardless of how poorly they govern and how much they steal.
Well that's the problem between what non Russian believe and what Russian believe, especially current thinking. One thing for sure Crimea is very ingrained on Russian psych currently and even back to 19th century Russian Imperial. It is for them now consider more or more part of their identity.