Northwest

Turkish expansionism illustrates why Syria’s longtime ban on the (Sunni) Muslim Brotherhood was/is wise. Unlike Iran, Syria has consistently refused to engage with or court the MB, except for a brief interlude prior to the Syrian proxy conflict. Iranian engagement with MB offshoot Hamas has proven to be self-defeating and has only helped Turkey expand at Iran’s expense. Hamas receives logistical and other support, only to use it vs. Iranian interests, as in Syria. In a number of interviews President Assad stated that Turkey, along with its patron Qatar, has consistently been Syria’s primary foe, while the GCC as a whole has been rather friendly toward Syria but has been under Western pressure. So according to Assad even the Saudis have not behaved as egregiously as Turkey has in Syria. Assad has also been supportive of President Sisi in Egypt and has condemned Turkey for its aggression in Nagorno-Karabakh and Libya. Had Iran consistently adopted Syria’s principled positions on the MB, it would have been in a better position by now. Popular Sunni Islamist movements tend to be much more dangerous than state-controlled ones and tend to gravitate toward the most extreme iterations of Wahhabi–Salafi “activism.” After all, Sunni leadership is historically dependent on the state, or rather a charismatic tribal leader, and tends to become more sectarian once freed from the control of the state. The MB’s promotion of Sunni “democracy” has allowed the most extreme Wahhabi–Salafi currents to challenge all existing Muslim societies, threatening not just Iran and/or the Shias, but also all existing Sunni societies, as well as long-marginalised, traditional sources of Sunni legitimacy. Certain factions within al-Qaida, Daesh, et al. not only oppose Iranian interests, but also a) want to form a pan-Sunni alliance under the MB and b) want to overthrow all Sunni regimes, save those of Turkey/Qatar. At the same time, while allying with the “populist” Wahhabi–Salafi elements, the MB tries to persuade Iran into joining a pan-Sunni “jihad” vs. Egypt, the KSA/UAE, and so on. So the Turkish-and-Qatari-backed MB wants to overthrow the Saudi, Emirati, and Egyptian regimes with the misguided assistance of Iran, thereby allowing a “populist” Wahhabi–Salafi movement to take over the Sunni world and eventually take on Iran. The Anglo-Americans and Israelis have long sought to develop a “populist” Sunni alternative to the Iranian model, recognising that the “secularist” alternatives have not proven to be effective. Turkey/Qatar help undermine Iranian influence, weaken Russia and China, and prevent the EU—especially France, Germany, and Italy—from becoming too independent. Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states are closely aligned with Turkey/Qatar, as is Pakistan. Azerbaijan is obviously just an extension of Turkey. The major states of the GCC depend on foreign and regional markets, including those of Russia, China, Iran, India, and Syria, so the collective West has been using Turkey/Qatar to weaken states such as Egypt and the KSA/UAE. By helping MB offshoots such as Hamas, Iran has aided Western plans. Iran’s best interests lie in breaking ties with Turkey/Qatar and courting “secular” Sunni states such as Egypt and Tunisia, besides Syria, while reaching out to the KSA/UAE. After all, there are plenty of elements in the KSA/UAE that oppose conflict with Iran, cognisant of the fact that a war would be detrimental to the regional economy. Turkey is not an Arab state, has a different geographic configuration, and is formally part of NATO, so it has greater incentive to start a regional war on behalf of the West (including Israel). Obviously, the Saudi leadership is at odds with Iran on Yemen, but arguably much of the Saudi elite has more shared interests with the Iranian leadership than Turkey’s ruling class does. For example, Syria’s Assad himself, Iran’s closest non-Shia partner, has never criticised the KSA/UAE/Egypt to the same degree as Turkey/Qatar. Israel benefits far more from a Turkish-and-Qatari-sponsored MB takeover of the MENA than a continuation of the statist Sunni order in the GCC. Israel wants uncontrolled sectarianism and instability. So I think that Iran has consistently gone too far in ostracising “secular” and/or statist Sunni leadership in the MENA. Instead it should recognise a potential convergence of interests. Iran should even offer to help the leaders of Egypt, the KSA/UAE, Tunisia, et al. resist potential regime-change efforts led by the Turkish-/Qatari-sponsored MB (and by extension the West/Israel). By siding with the MB Iran is undermining its own interests and actually encouraging the very dangers that it wishes to avert. There needs to be an alliance of states/actors such as Egypt, Tunisia, Haftar’s LNA (in Libya), Syria, Armenia, the KSA/UAE, and India vs. the Anglo-American-/Israeli-fronted Turkish, Qatari, and Pakistani regimes. Iran should instead focus on helping “secular” and/or statist Sunnis, along with Shias, rather than “populist” Sunni Islamists such as those of the MB.

@Eddie Mecca @-Rejector- @Abu Nur What about the above?

@Eddie Mecca According to reports Russia, Turkey, and Israel seem to be coordinating their activities in Syria, Ukraine, and the South Caucasus in such a manner as to isolate Iran. For example, Russia appears to be facilitating Turkey’s imminent offensive vs. the SAA/SDF in Manbij and Tel Rifaat, Syria, in exchange for cooperation on the Ukrainian matter. Putin has always been on good terms with the Israeli leadership and was reluctant to help Syria in 2014–5. Only Syrian and Iranian pressure finally persuaded Putin to intervene, and even then he has not helped defend Syria vs. Israeli airstrikes. Russian economic cooperation with Iran is far lower than it could be, owing to Zionist influence within the Russian leadership. According to official data, Putin’s mother was Jewish, and Putin is obviously close to the Masonic Chabad, like Jared Kushner. Russia also tacitly backed Turkey’s previous military offensives (OLIVE BRANCH, EUPHRATES SHIELD) vs. the SAA/SDF. I am not sure as to why Syria and Iran asked Russia for help in 2014–5, when it was clear that Russia has always been under Zionist control, despite pretending to be otherwise (just as “Muslim” countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey pretend to be on the side of Islam but in fact are pursuing other agendas). Inviting Russia into Syria made the latter dependent on the “protection” afforded by the Zionist nexus of NATO, Israel, and Russia. Also, I do not understand why Assad has not asked Iran to supply the Bavar-373 for protection vs. Israeli airstrikes, given that Russia is obviously not helping yet Syria continues to place its trust in Russia as well as Iran.

@islamicmusic @Ashvazdanghe I think it is rather evident that the PKK and Turkey have been silent allies all along. PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan has been successfully publishing his writings in the West despite having been imprisoned in Turkey since 1999. Turkish authorities have repeatedly agreed to meet with Öcalan. Turkey is a member of NATO yet allows the head of its supposed “public enemy number one” to gain international publicity rather easily. Israeli media have regularly supported the PKK, which in turn is subordinate to the same Western coalition that backs Turkey. At the time of his arrest in 1999 Öcalan was publicly defended by Western fronts such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Turkey needs the PKK and the PKK needs Turkey in order to aid their shared masters’ goal of dividing and ruling the Muslim world on behalf of the West/Israel. Further evidence of this is the fact that Ermine Erdoğan, Turkey’s First Lady, has promoted globalist-oriented projects such as women’s education, sustainability (in line with Agendas 21/2030), and opposition to child-marriage, despite her husband’s supporting Wahhabi–Salafi groups such as al-Qaida and Daesh in Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Libya.

@Ashvazdanghe @Uni Student @kadhim Personally, I don’t think that Western liberalism is very influential among average Muslims, as opposed to the educated intelligentsia and elite. The West is mainly spreading postmodernist concepts such as LGBTQ+I, “trans-gender” ideology, feminism, etc. among upper-class, Westernised Muslim elites, not among the vast majority (masses) of Muslims. Among the masses the West tends to favour sectarian extremism such as Wahhabi–Salafi ideology, which is superficially less “sophisticated” and can appeal to the anti-intellectualism and/or literalism of the backward masses. For example, in places such as Afghanistan, the West is not spending most of its effort in spreading liberal ideology, but in overtly and covertly supporting the Taliban, al-Qaida, Daesh, et al. I think that there is excessive focus on liberalism and insufficient focus on religious extremism/sectarianism, given that the liberal currents tend only to affect a tiny, elite stratum of the Muslim society, whereas Wahhabi–Salafi ideology percolates at the level of the masses, especially among the Sunni majority. I still do not see a majority of Afghans, for instance, adopting Western-style postmodernism in their daily lives, but a large number of Sunni Afghans, especially Pashtuns, are being infected with Wahhabi–Salafi ideology.

@Eddie Mecca In addition to the above, verse 57:21 in the Qur’ān refers to the “width” of the universe. A three-dimensional object such as a spheroid, as opposed to a plane or hemisphere, cannot have a width, but only a circumference and/or diameter. Of course, the translation could be faulty and depends on the context, as classical Arabic contains many layers and depths of meaning. The following extract is taken from an online lexicon: Whether the Earth is flat or not actually matters quite a bit, given that the qibla’ would be different on a flat plane vs. a spheroid. Just take a look at this: Note that the above graphic assumes a spherical Earth and then superimposes its geometry on the flat-Earth qibla’. The qibla’ on a flat Earth is perfectly capable of proper alignment, but if one alters the plane from 2D to 3D, the heading would no longer align with the actual location of the qibla’. Furthermore, much, though not all, of the Qur’ān is in agreement with not just the Torah, but also the Talmud, both of which were used by the ancient Hebrews to depict a flat-Earth cosmology. I am not definitively stating that the Earth is flat, but if it is, many Muslims who have been relying on a spherical Earth to determine the qibla’ will have to regard their prayers as nullified.

@Eddie Mecca Yes, to my knowledge, the redefinition of “gender” to include biological sex is a postmodernist development that emerged no earlier than the 1960s. It is a subtle form of neurolinguistic programming, so to speak, that subliminally works on one’s subconscious. It serves multiple purposes: 1) to inculcate the notion that biological sex is fluid, that is, conditioned by society rather than nature; 2) to subconsciously “atomise” relations between men and women; and 3) to turn the very word “sex” into an expletive, regardless of context, and thereby also promote monasticism or deviant sexual behaviour by implying that “sex,” unlike “gender,” is impure in and of itself—in other words, both biological distinctions between men and women and the very act of normal procreation, which involves male and female, are somehow perverse, according to postmodernism. Bear in mind that the word “gender” is derived from the Latinate genus, which does not refer to the two sexes, but to a species or lineage, as in a race/nation or family. Obviously, one would not refer to human males and females as two separate species, races, or families. So the use of the word “gender” to refer to biological sex actually reinforces the goal of the postmodernist elite, which is to break the bond between the sexes and thus undermine the family. Classifying men and women as two different species, races, or families does just that and also even opens the door to the possibility that men and women can form their own respective “families,” without having to marry members of the opposite sex. The very pronunciation of the word “gender,” especially in reference to biological sex, also sounds much more dubious than that of the term “sex.”

This is why I do not like to use the term “gender” as a synonym for biological sexuality. “Gender” inherently ascribes fluidity to a fixed phenomenon. There are two sexes, not two “genders.” By using the term “gender” or the phrase “there are only two genders,” even someone who opposes postmodernist nonsense inadvertently contributes to its gaining traction. Words and their meanings do matter in this regard. Nevertheless, so-called “humans” seem to have a penchant for illogic. Postmodernism appeals to human irrationality by claiming that one’s biology is fluid and can be explained away via “trans-gender” ideology. Personally, I hope that people on this forum stop using the term “gender” in reference to biological sex. Doing so would help combat postmodernism.

Source Obviously FM Lavrov is referring to the Zionist “Jews” who support Zelensky but do not practice Orthodox Judaism themselves, like the secularist Israeli leadership that persecutes anti-Zionists of all religions but claims to be “Jewish.” The most startling aspect is that FM Lavrov claims that Hitler himself was of Jewish ancestry and implies that the latter may have been an anti-Semitic Zionist who persecuted the Jews in order to drive them to Israel (this isn’t stated directly but can be inferred by anyone with a knowledge of history, including individuals in FM Lavrov’s targeted audience). Many people believe that anti-Semitic “Jewish” Zionists are linked to Masonry, so maybe FM Lavrov is indirectly “exposing” the Masonic Zionists who run much of the world. #ZionismIsNotJudaism #ZioNazis

@Zainuu The U.S. and Israel have long envisioned a plan to replace the KSA with Turkey by promoting a palace coup in Nejd and then exploiting the chaos to seize Hejaz and set up a pro-Turkish Wahhabi–Salafi enclave under the Muslim Brotherhood (basically a more “populist,” anti-monarchical, and extremist version of Wahhabi–Salafi terrorism than the statist, pro-monarchy Saudi variety). Now that the Saudis are moving closer to China the time is nearly ripe for the West to destabilise the Saudi regime and replace it with a Turkish proxy astride the Red Sea. The Turks would then be able to replace the Saudis as the West’s proxy in Yemen and other theatres. The recent Western-backed coup vs. Imran Khan in Pakistan has brought one of the Sharifs to power. The Sharifs are notoriously pro-Saudi and also are close to the BJP/RSS (Hindutva) in India, because the latter have also warmed to Saudi influence under Modi. Both Saudis and Turks, along with the Pakistani military hierarchy, support Wahhabi–Salafi groups such as the Afghan Taliban, which explains why the U.S. let $7 billion in weaponry fall into the Taliban’s possession prior to withdrawal. Modi’s India, owing to Saudi influence, will likely turn a blind eye while the Sharifs’ Pakistan uses the Taliban and allied Wahhabi–Salafi groups as weapons vs. Iran and China (given that India is also being promoted by the U.S. to counter China and no longer is as friendly toward Iran as it once was). Ukraine is also buying the American-abandoned weapons from the Afghan Taliban as well as Turkish drones, which is interesting in light of the fact that Turkey (and Qatar) is cooperating with Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is difficult not to apply heavy-handed measures in this and other cases because Sunni (Wahhabi–Salafi) terrorism is heavily financed and armed by the KSA, Qatar, and Turkey. Because so much of the Sunni population, even if nonviolently, passively enables/supports the terrorists, it is a bit shortsighted to criticise the authorities for being ruthless in cracking down on Sunni terrorists. The problem with India is that Modi and his Hindutva clique, like the current ruling Sharifs in Pakistan, are financed by the Saudis, so they only go after the Shia minority in Kashmir while leaving the Saudi-financed Wahhabi–Salafi-influenced groups alone. I think the Sharifs and Modi will actually work together to use these Wahhabi–Salafi groups against China, in alliance with the Uighur separatists and Afghan Taliban, because the current Pakistani and Indian ruling elites share this Western goal. The U.S. got rid of Imran Khan not only to stop Russia from gaining a foothold in Pakistan, but also to undermine the rapprochement between Pakistan and Iran (which was progressing better than ever under Imran Khan), as well as to undercut Chinese influence. The situation in Ukraine also dovetails nicely with Western goals, since the Taliban and their allies (al-Qaida, Daesh-K, et al.) can open a second front vs. Russia, and thus help the West create multiple Afghanistans to “bleed” Russia. But currently I think that the West’s main enemy in South-Central Asia is China, along with Iran, so the West’s current priority is to use regional proxy forces vs. China and Iran. Modi’s India is solidly anti-China, and the new Pakistani leadership may be more willing to follow the West on Iran etc., but Modi’s India still retains strong ties with Russia, so in this situation the West can try to split Pakistan and India on the following grounds: a) the Sharifs are anti-Russia and anti-Iran, but somewhat neutral on China, while b) Modi is pro-Russia yet anti-China/anti-Iran. As mentioned previously, both the Sharifs and Modi are Saudi-financed, but the Saudis are coming under pressure from Turkey/Qatar, which have regional ambitions, so the West is likely to support an anti-China, anti-Iran alliance that includes elements of the ruling elites in both Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India can set up training camps for Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi–Salafi militants in Kashmir and Afghanistan in order to attack China and/or Iran.

Some thoughts that I had to relieve myself of: Westerners have long been prone to nationalistic, xenophobic jingoism and a welfarist entitlement mentality, false “conservative” fronts whining about “personal responsibility/initiative” notwithstanding. Blaming foreigners is easier than working harder and being honest. The very first recourse of the collective West: if you want something for free, simply steal it from harder-working countries such as Russia, and then blame the victim. After all, the Western bankers can buy off the masses with paper money, and no one seriously moves to endanger their material “benefactors.” Most Westerners are either a) degenerate liberals or b) welfarist “CONservatives” who never assume individual or collective responsibility for their wilful ignorance, because doing so would actually invoke real-world consequences that would affect their petty status within the status quo. Inside many Westerners are little whining Nazi freeloaders who want wealth without effort or wisdom, simply because everything in the West revolves around the individual rather than the collective (community, nation, etc.). The system is designed to breed these kinds of individualists, and we see the results. The global financial elite needs to fulfil its “quota” for depopulation in accordance with Agenda 2030, so it is doing everything in its power to trigger a nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia, while publicly and disingenuously avowing that it is doing everything to prevent such a conflict (and blaming only one side, Russia, for “starting” it). In other words, we the bankers do not really want a nuclear war, but if one breaks out, Russia will be solely responsible, just as Germany was scapegoated for two financier-caused world wars. Bankers always “pass the buck” to everyone else! Putin is being constrained by the international bankers from actually making a serious effort to stop NATO’s preprogrammed suicide-by-nuke. In fact, one scenario postulates that he is “in” on the entire scheme and will flee with his fellow oligarchs to an underground shelter in the Southern Hemisphere, while abandoning Russia to the mercies of NATO’s nuclear arsenal. In other words, Putin may really be part of the banking elite, explaining why he didn’t make any serious moves to defeat Ukraine in 2014 and still refrains from using his full forces. Anyway, I have never been an especial admirer of Putin’s.

@iCenozoic ^ You ignored my previous points above and chose to continue disseminating irresponsible and improbable “what-ifs” involving Russia attacking a NATO member such as Lithuania. Russia failed in its objectives in Ukraine (the Ukrainian military is far from disarmed, Kiev was not taken, and so on) and is already suing for peace, yet is willing to further harm itself by actually triggering NATO Article V? Under current circumstances Russia will not attack Lithuania unless it is “triggered” or forced by some external actor to do so. Doing otherwise would be suicidal, given Russia’s precarious economic and military situation. But some NATO oligarchs evidently want Russia to attack or be seen as attacking a NATO member so that the banking elite can use a nuclear war to reduce the Earth’s population to a more “sustainable” level (of course, neither Russia nor the West would be the “winners” in this eventuality).

@iCenozoic The important thing to realise is that Russia’s strategy vs. Ukraine clearly did not work, despite overblown Western hysteria about Russia’s alleged “capabilities.” Russia is currently bogged down in Ukraine, and yet the Western MSM constantly predicted the fall of Kiev, which did not happen. Had Putin had the will and means he would have occupied Kiev back in 2014 but did not do so. So maybe a) Russia is a lot weaker than the West asserts or b) Putin is less decisive than the West claims or c) both. Once again the Western “experts” were wrong about Putin’s alleged capabilities, which have always been more limited than either the pro- or anti-Russia side avers. What about the arms manufacturers and bankers who benefit from a long war, regardless of which side “wins”? So far I have seen very little evidence that Russia has had ambitions beyond its “near abroad.” Attacking NATO members such as the Baltic states would be a non-starter, given that such an action would trigger Article V. But then again, maybe some arms manufacturers and international financiers would be quite happy with such an outcome, given that it would provide the impetus for a large-scale conflict in which they (not Russia or the West) would be the only winners. Personally, I think that the world could do with fewer globalist institutions and more localist solutions. NATO is, at the end of the day, just another globalist, elitist organisation that does not address the needs of its members, much less solve pressing global issues. The Russian boogeyman, like any other threat, whether real or imagined, serves as a convenient ideological straitjacket that prevents lucrative yet ineffectual institutions, “dead weight,” from being reformed or replaced. NATO doesn’t “protect” average communities, but it does enrich parasitic oligarchies. So does the regime in Russia. Standing armies and police should be replaced with local militia and voluntary security. The current globalist regime is coercive and compulsory and wasteful. A lot of NATO oligarchs are more or less arguing for moves that would make such an outcome all but inevitable. We’re already close... I don’t think most Westerners, be they elites or commoners, care about anything other than material, short-term gratification. Oh, really? What about all the other “alternative” sources, credible or not, that criticise NATO’s activities on Russia’s borders? Global superpowers have always acted as hegemonic, whether in their neighbouring regions or farther afield. The U.S. has been the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere since the late nineteenth century and has enforced its will via economic and military coercion. Unlike Russia, the U.S. has also “steamrolled” sovereign powers outside its hemisphere, including Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Geopolitics is no place for hypocritical sentimentality. All superpowers have acted as killers. The U.S. just happens to be one of the biggest. How is the EU necessarily a “freer” institution than a Russian one? Spheres of influence are based on globalism. NATO members are not “free” to leave at their discretion, nor are EU members granted a say over the policies that emanate from Brussels. Just like the U.K. post Brexit, they can “check out” at any moment, but they cannot disentangle themselves from the institutional and financial fetters that bind them to Brussels. EU/NATO members such as Hungary and Poland have no say over their domestic policies; Brussels and D.C. set the standards. Even such a central, dominant, and privileged EU/NATO satrap as Germany has no say in rejecting EU policies on migration or expelling NATO bases from its territory. Russian civilisation literally originated in Kiev and in turn derives from Byzantium via Ukraine and later Moscow (Muscovy). The Rus’ of Kiev literally founded the first Russian state in Ukraine. In Russian the Ukraine is known as the “borderland” but has always been regarded as a central component of Russian (Orthodox) civilisation. Even mainstream sources acknowledge the legacy of the historical Rus’ in Kiev. Only the western Ukraine historically fell under Latinate (Catholic) sway vis-à-vis the Habsburg monarchy and its Polish clients. So yes, part of Ukraine certainly belongs to the west, but only about a third (Galicia), while the rest arguably has always been part of or leaned strongly toward Russia (including Kiev and Donbas’). Splitting Ukraine into a NATO-protected, EU-aligned Galicia (Lviv) and a Russian-dominated Kiev + Donbas’ + Crimea makes a lot of historical sense. I don’t see why Zelensky and Putin can’t be forced to agree to such a compromise.

@iCenozoic To follow up: 1) Why would Russia risk World War III by attacking NATO members such as Poland, the Baltic states, and/or Turkey? 2) Given Russia’s disadvantaged economic and political position, why would she take such a risk, given the costs? 3) Sure, Ukrainians are suffering in part from Russia’s invasion, but how are Ukrainians more important than, say, any other demographic that is also suffering from the effects of war? 4) Do we simply trust the “experts” in the media and so on who are telling us the same narrative about Russia simply because they are “experts” and have formed a “consensus” about what the West should do? 5) Foreign policy is not based on moralistic posturing about humanitarian concerns, but about strategic interests. To claim that the West is concerned about Ukraine for moral reasons is as nonsensical as claiming that Russia is.

@iCenozoic The Baltic states, Poland, and/or Finland are largely devoid of strategic natural resources that would be of benefit to Russia. (Russia already has plenty of trees, for instance.) Those locations are only valuable as transit nodes and/or bases for Western outposts on Russia’s border(s). Your line of reasoning is the same specious that the U.S. has used to get involved in foreign conflicts: that if the U.S. does not act, then its foes will attack closer to home, seize key resources, assail vital allies, etc. It is especially absurd if you already believe that Russia is trapped in Ukraine and under immense Western pressure. Why would Russia worsen her own situation by directly attacking other neighbouring states, especially actual NATO members such as the Baltic states and/or Poland? As far as Turkey is concerned, Erdoğan and Putin are currently on better terms than ever before, so a renewed Russo–Turkish conflict would benefit the collective West (and its ally Ukraine) far more than either party. Currently the West has more of an incentive to stage a false-flag incident that might trigger NATO’s Article V and decisively alter the geopolitical calculation in favour of Ukraine. This doesn’t mean that the West would do so, of course, but strategically it has more of a motive than Russia does, given that the latter is in a relatively poor (disadvantaged) economic and political position. Russia did attack and invade Georgia in 2008, and succeeded in obtaining her objectives there, but did not follow up by directly attacking a NATO member. This remains the case more than a decade later. It is irresponsible and dangerous to claim that Russia would attack the West if the latter did nothing to aid Ukraine. Such an argument could easily lead to a wider war that sane circles on either side do not want. It’s the same kind of “Munich argument” that was used to attack Iraq and countless other targets: by comparing the target to Hitler and inaction to Chamberlain’s infamous “appeasement“ of 1938. In fact, Netanyahu uses this kind of reasoning all the time to justify a preemptive Western/Israeli attack on Iran, simply because Iran “might” seek nuclear weapons and “might” use them vs. Western/Israeli targets. Russia had the past eight years to occupy Kiev and destroy Ukraine, but did not undertake a large-scale military action prior to February 2022. This belies the claim that Russia is solely motivated by an aggressive calculus. None of this means that Putin is entirely innocent or a likeable figure, but it also disproves some of the more sensational Western claims that are being widely disseminated by the mainstream media.