I have not been convinced that Putin is the pariah that the legacy media would have us believe in.
It's also remarkable how incongruent people are when addressing the Israel v. Hamas-Hezbolla-Iran conflict, in comparison with the Russia v. Ukraine-Nato-US conflict.
For example, John Mearsheimer makes a great case for US/NATO provocation, over decades, if not an entire decade, leading up to and over Russia's red lines. That red line being the placement of missiles (in Ukraine) close enough to hit Moscow in minutes...AND, Ukrainian membership in NATO, protected by its Article 5.
But then Mearsheimer turns around and blames the Hamas-Hezbolla-Iranian incursion on the Israeli lobby in the US.
On the other hand, the Ayn Rand Center UK makes a great case for Israeli self defense, but then drops the ball on support of Russia's position with Ukraine.
Not many people are for both Russian, and Israeli defense.
But in both cases, the main need for defense is against rocket/missile attacks from hostile forward bases.
Hamas, for example, is a forward base for Iran, as is Hezbollah. In this way, Iran has flanked Israel on the north and south with missile/rockets.
Similarly, Ukraine is a forward base for the US-NATO alliance. That forward base, like Hamas in Gaza, has been arming up for years to the point it would be in position to carry off an actual offensive. It was already on the offensive within it's own borders, against the Russian heritage region within it's borders, and was about to launch a major offensive in that region when Putin decided to pre-empt it.
The only difference is Israel waited for an offensive, while Russia decided not to wait, and instead to pre-empt an actual attack that would eventually come. But Russia did wait for an actual attack on the Donbass region, but pre-empted an even larger, eminent attack on the Donbass. In either case, the offensives would be led by rockets/missiles.
I would add that Russia, represented by Putin, has been attacked for more than a decade in rhetorical legacy media smear campaigns. That smear campaign was kicked into high gear during the 2016 US Presidential campaign when, in response to a WikiLeaks leak, the DNC, Hillary, and the legacy media went all in on blaming the Russians by blaming Trump for colluding with Russians to steal the election.
It wasn't just a smear campaign on Trump, it was also to smear Putin with the effect that diplomacy would continue to be frozen between the US and Russia, and that the Ukraine would continue to be steadily armed toward readiness for an offensive, once the Democrats could steal the next election. The effect of that is when Putin saw that the next election was stolen by Democrats, he decided not to allow armament to accelerate, and for an alliance with NATO, which Biden had said could be expected.
Pound for pound, the DNC, in collusion with the legacy media, smeared Putin/Russia as much, or more, than Hitler ever smeared the Jews, Poland, or Russia...before attacking them.
A common denominator here is that rhetoric leads to an attack. You can measure the likelihood of an attack by measuring the heat of rhetoric. And, it will always be a surprise attack...unless you can read the rhetoric. Israel could not read the rhetoric. But Putin could. Any Russian could, when you remember Hitler's surprise attack, which broke the "alliance" he had with Russia at the time.
Now, for a surprise attack, you need a forward base. For Hitler, the forward base was Poland. For Iran, the forward base was Gaza. For the US, the forward base was/is Ukraine, still rife with leftover legacy Nazi units.
Once the Nazi units could suppress the Donbass, which they were in process of doing, then the Donbass would become the most forward of all forward regions in the Ukraine. There, they could install whatever missiles they could procure from US/NATO which could hit Moscow within minutes.
This would be a good time to remember that the whole Cuban missile crises was provoked by US installment of forward missiles in Turkey, as it was then part of NATO. People don't remember that the crises was resolved by Kennedy agreeing, secretly, to remove those forward missiles from Turkey.
Forward missiles weren't ok then, and they aren't ok now. If Kennedy was right to reject placement of missiles in Cuba, then Putin was right to reject placement of missiles in the Donbass, just as Kruschev was right to reject forward placement of missiles in Turkey, within the NATO sphere.
Putin would not allow Russia to be put into the same position that Israel was in at that time. Since then, in what has happened to Israel, we have found out what happens when you allow forward missile positions in neighboring territory filled with hostile rhetoric...and ignore the rhetoric.
Trump could end the conflict in 24 hours by accepting Russia's gains over the Donbass, including its land access to Crimea, which it would also keep. At the same time, he could end it in 24 hours by putting Zelenski in his place and ending the grift Zelenski has going with NATO/US. Trump could also end the grift NATO has going with the US.
By the time he takes office, i don't think Trump will give any more damns about the DNC and legacy media efforts to keep diplomacy frozen between the US and Russia, no matter who is leading Russia, even if it's Putin.
This will be interpreted as "support" for Putin. But i must say, Trump is the only mind i am aware of that maintains consistency of principle in both these conflicts. He's on the right side of the Israel v. Jihad conflict, and he's on the right side of peace with Russia. This is rare.
