The "idealism" Glenn talks about is a fake idealism that serves as pretext for imperial expansion of Western hegemony.
In previous ages, humans used religion as a pretext for fighting wars against those who worshipped different gods from our own. Since secular society cannot use religion for imperial expansion, we have invented a secular ideology of human rights and democracy for which we ought to fight wars.
The irony is that by "promoting democracy" worldwide as pretext for imperial expansion, we destroy democracy at home and abroad. At home, because we need to lie about our real intentions and because we have to suppress dissenting voices. Abroad, because we corrupt the democratic process in foreign countries by bankrolling dissidents who serve our geopolitical aims but not necessarily the interests of their own country.
The perfidy is that many people sincerely believe in human rights and democracy without being aware that they are being used for imperial aims. That's probably the reason why the Neocons today are liberals rather than conservatives.
Yes, he makes this clear in the article, calling it dishonest.
I'd also prefer stronger words, but academics gonna academic.
Also, the choice of the Raymond Aron quote and how he applies it in the article makes it clear that the US/EU/NATO axis is guilty of everything they accuse Russia of doing, only moreso.
Such a good argument! I suppose the idealist, to be an idealist, must maintain a disjunction between their idealism and empirical actuality, in the worrying tradition of " reality creation". In that sense the idealist and the religious dogmatist have in common a belief in the imposition on reality of their supposedly superior epistemology, which can hardly expect to avoid strong resistance from actuality itself. The idealist seems to be a subjectivist convinced of the objectivity of their internal representations, which seems to be a form of insanity, of demanding that maps dictate territory. Does the situation of privilege and the hidden desire to preserve, maintain and advance it not perhaps constitute part of the causality of the idealist disorder? Does the conflict with the old civilisation of Russia afford the adolescent empire of the USA an opportunity to grow up? What a pity the cost must be so high of so much power being in the hands of such a disturbed system of denials, dogmatism and aggression!
Humwawa, Jul 6: Maybe, but that is a secondary question. What is at stake is that so many people actually think that way – they are perfectly happy to moralize. Or they go exclusively by a rule ethics instead of a consequence ethic or a mixture of the two.
And that is always dangerous. Even when the Russians do it – as they do, as documented by Minda Holm at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (Mutual lack of introspection and the Russia factor in the liberal West, 2019). Both parties of the conflict are completely enchanted of what the other bastards are doing, and all they do is to condemn that. They give a big fuck to the question how one should get out of the mess both parties have created for themselves.
I can agree that the US neocons don't care, they probably think the US will gain from Europe's loss. But the European politicians should care, they don't gain anything from the conflict, they rather lose from having a new Iron Curtain sealing them off from the world. Still, they are unable to see that, because they are blinded by moralizing.
Excellent! I have often used the example of Mexico in discussions with my fellow-Americans. Often they are at first stunned at the *very idea* of Mexico making a military alliance with the PRC and dismiss the analogy out of hand, thus demonstrating their lack of "strategic empathy." Others pause, and think..."OMG! NOW I see what you're getting at!" Sadly, the first group greatly outnumbers the second.
very realistic-reflecting points - that fx. also John Mearsheimer points to!
Norman Finkelstein and all others, supporting that "all nations & people should naturalli /of course be equal" - are also putting forward arguments like this.
Actually this is a trend.
And, more "ingredients" goes into the "dish" ...
- white/western hegenomy,
- imperialism,
- etno-centricism,
- security-policy,
But, the fast is - that they all exists and also have been exposed, since october 7. 2023.
And - as it was important to get white-supremacy exposed, after George Floyd, by Black Lifes Matter etc - then it is now important to continue digging - and to keep collecting and connecting the dots!
and, it is important, NOT to end in a "we do not agree".
We need to "leave space for each other" - and "respect each other & our arguments"!
We need to build - and not be stubborn.
Stubborn, is another word for, what now can cause a 3. World War or middle-east Regional Big War!
Merging and Respecting - and Accepting, that the other party/part, has the same borders, concerns & feelings, as we have!
we are all people, humans - and we all have family, children, and we all want to live!
This is a great article. It discusses the morality or lack thereof of political reality, versus idealistic delusions of the western Rules Based Order. By analyzing it this way, Diesen has inadvertently provided a good example of the woke leftist descent into idealistic delusions of FREEDOM! and EQUALITY! as the goals of their reality-free morality.
It should be obvious by now that western governments are infected by the secular Church of Woke Leftism. Wok(/loc)usts rush to destruction in the name of FREEDOM! and EQUALITY! These are pristine, absolute concepts of the mind, that depend on being universally applied. Absolute freedom from self-responsibility, freedom to foist off your insanity on all of society without consequences. Absolute freedom from reality itself, including your DNA. Absolute equality in all things, requiring ceaseless revolution to double-down and destroy all boundaries and limits, to equalize with equity, even though such results are impossible to implement in the real world which exists only because of boundaries and limits.
Does any of that constitute morality? No, it's a fake morality that wokusts, in the throes of their mindless narratives and purity spirals, have forced down the throat of Western Civilization, as they drag it down into destruction.
There are a lot of manipulations. You didn't pass the chatGPT check.
1. Moral Framing and Loaded Language
Example: "The most appealing and dangerous idealist argument that destroyed Ukraine is that it has the right to join any military alliance it desires."
Manipulation: By framing the principle of Ukraine's sovereignty as "dangerous" and a cause of destruction, the argument shifts blame from Russia's invasion to Ukraine's aspirations. It uses emotionally charged language ("destroyed Ukraine") to dismiss a legitimate international principle.
Subtle tactic: It presents idealism as naïve and moral compromise with aggressors as "realistic" and "peaceful," creating a false dichotomy.
2. Selective Historical Interpretation
Example: "It did not use to be controversial to argue that Russian security interests must be taken into account when operating on its borders."
Manipulation: This statement omits key historical context where Russian actions, such as the invasion of Georgia (2008) and annexation of Crimea (2014), escalated tensions. It frames NATO expansion as unilateral provocation without acknowledging the sovereign rights of states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries to seek alliances for self-defense.
3. Appeal to False Equivalence
Example: "Mexico has plenty of freedoms in the international system, but it does not have the freedom to join a Chinese-led military alliance."
Manipulation: The analogy between Ukraine-NATO and Mexico-China is oversimplified. The comparison ignores differences in historical, geopolitical, and regional dynamics. Unlike Mexico, Ukraine faced a clear existential threat from Russia, which justified its NATO aspirations.
4. Cherry-Picking Evidence
Example: Citing polls before 2014 where NATO membership had low support in Ukraine.
Manipulation: The text ignores the drastic shift in Ukrainian public opinion after Russia’s invasion of Crimea and support for separatists in Donbas. By focusing on outdated data, the argument misrepresents current attitudes toward NATO membership.
5. Misrepresentation of Events
Example: "The solution was to push for a 'democratic revolution' in 2014 that toppled the democratically elected government of Ukraine."
Manipulation: This simplifies and distorts the Euromaidan protests as a Western-instigated coup, ignoring the widespread domestic protests against corruption and President Yanukovych's decision to abandon an EU association agreement under pressure from Russia.
Omitted context: The claim neglects the democratic legitimacy of post-2014 elections in Ukraine and frames Ukraine’s agency as entirely controlled by the West.
6. Blame-Shifting
Example: "NATO shifted the pressure to Ukraine, and the NATO-Russia conflict became a Russia-Ukraine conflict."
Manipulation: This absolves Russia of its decision to invade by portraying its actions as an inevitable response to NATO expansion. It downplays Russia's role as an aggressor and ignores that Ukraine was not close to joining NATO when Russia invaded in 2014 or 2022.
7. False Dichotomy
Example: "The only thing that can bring peace to Ukraine and end the carnage is to restore its neutrality."
Manipulation: This presents neutrality as the sole path to peace while dismissing Ukraine's right to self-determination. It ignores that neutrality did not prevent Russian aggression in 2014 or the build-up to the 2022 invasion.
8. Selective Use of Authorities
Example: Quotes from Roderic Lyne, Angela Merkel, and William Burns warning against NATO expansion.
Manipulation: The text uses these quotes to argue that NATO expansion caused the war, but it omits their broader context. None of these figures justified Russia’s invasion or argued against Ukraine’s sovereignty. Their warnings were about managing risks, not denying Ukraine's rights.
9. Imbalanced Attribution of Morality
Example: "Why do the idealists get to present themselves as moral and 'pro-Ukrainian'? Why are the realists...immoral and 'anti-Ukrainian'?"
Manipulation: This rhetorical question frames the debate as a moral superiority contest, sidestepping the fact that "realist" policies often involve compromises that disregard smaller states' rights.
10. Conflation of Neutrality with Peace
Example: "The only thing that can bring peace to Ukraine and end the carnage is to restore its neutrality."
Manipulation: This assumes that neutrality guarantees peace, ignoring that Ukraine’s non-alignment did not prevent Russian aggression in the past. It also fails to consider that neutrality may leave Ukraine vulnerable to further coercion.
Sorry, but your post contains many errors of its own. Such as #6, in which you completely ignore that it was the United States that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and began the whole thing based on a lie. Your position is quite sickening.
The aim for eudemonia or happiness is a never-ending search throughout history. More specifically, philosophers and scientists have grappled with the question of defining the content (components, composition, conscription) of this term within its social (economic, political, cultural) context. Here, we will only consider a small aspect of this large subject by focusing on the political quality of happiness.
If we simply define “happiness” as a psychological feeling of optimal equilibrium and “political” as a sociological process of conflict resolution by dialectical means, then “political happiness” would be a condition fulfilling individual satisfaction of peaceful problem-solving procedures: a situation when most people are content to resolve public issues legitimately and agreeably by mutual compromises.
Since politics is a particular social activity of conflict resolution to determine the acceptable distribution of common values or assets, it should satisfy most people who participate in this liberal democratic activity. Thus, this type of decision-making, i.e. choosing who gets what, when and how, combines and balances social justice with personal pleasure or collective and individual happiness.
The highest virtue of politics over other kinds of conflict resolution, such as command or violence, is its peaceful and conciliatory process ending in mutually negotiated agreement. This unique quality of politics makes it the best way to create and maintain a happy constituency, both individually and collectively, and thus should be preferable to all other methods promoting common happiness.
Of course, political happiness does not necessarily result in general happiness, either for individuals or societies. Economic happiness, for example, would require other conditions of necessary provisions for life. Similarly, other kinds of happiness need different quantities or qualities to fulfill their requirements.
Although some people may be economically happier under different fascist, communist or capitalist regimes, or culturally happier in nationalist and isolationist conditions, socio-liberal democratic politics is a most civilized and utilitarian ideal of providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
All things considered, political happiness optimizes freedom of choice and offers a variety of options for it. It is thus, the most creative way to search for “liberty, equality and fraternity,” leading to social development and human advancement.
John lists various judgements against the genocide of Palestinians. I copied the rest of his post.
"Given the West’s presumed commitment to human rights and especially to preventing genocide, one would have expected countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany, to have stopped the Israeli genocide in its tracks.
Instead, the governments in those three countries, especially the United States, have supported Israel’s unimaginable behavior in Gaza at every turn. Indeed, those three countries are complicit in this genocide.
Moreover, almost all of the many human rights advocates in those countries, and in the West more generally, have stayed silent while Israel executed its genocide. The mainstream media has made hardly any effort to expose and challenge what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Indeed some key outlets have staunchly supported Israel’s actions.
One wonders what people in the West who have either supported Israel’s genocide or remained silent tell themselves to justify their behavior and sleep at night.
Russian refugees from the Kursk region are pleading for help, saying, "Our men defended Donbas and we supported the special military operation, Vladimir Vladimirovich, help us reclaim our land." They seem to be experiencing the consequences of their actions.
Video taken near a military airfield in Lipetsk (Russia) burning and detonating after a UAV attack
Local authorities have declared a state of emergency, residents of 4 settlements located near the airfield are being evacuated. Public transport in the city is not running.
Mexico's GDP is comparable to Russia's. Does Mexico get to have a sphere of interests? What metric are you using to determine which countries have spheres of interests? Why doesn't Ukraine enjoy a sphere of interests and get to decide what alliances Russia enters into?
The answer was Vladimir Putin and Russia. You can ask Glenn Diesen if he thought Russia would attack? USA said they were totally sure. Putin and Lavrov denied it and they obviously lied.
Are you sure they lied, they still may not want the war but realism sometimes dictates that you do that which you may not want to do. Besides, we do know that many in the West lied, repeatedly.
The "idealism" Glenn talks about is a fake idealism that serves as pretext for imperial expansion of Western hegemony.
In previous ages, humans used religion as a pretext for fighting wars against those who worshipped different gods from our own. Since secular society cannot use religion for imperial expansion, we have invented a secular ideology of human rights and democracy for which we ought to fight wars.
The irony is that by "promoting democracy" worldwide as pretext for imperial expansion, we destroy democracy at home and abroad. At home, because we need to lie about our real intentions and because we have to suppress dissenting voices. Abroad, because we corrupt the democratic process in foreign countries by bankrolling dissidents who serve our geopolitical aims but not necessarily the interests of their own country.
The perfidy is that many people sincerely believe in human rights and democracy without being aware that they are being used for imperial aims. That's probably the reason why the Neocons today are liberals rather than conservatives.
Yes, he makes this clear in the article, calling it dishonest.
I'd also prefer stronger words, but academics gonna academic.
Also, the choice of the Raymond Aron quote and how he applies it in the article makes it clear that the US/EU/NATO axis is guilty of everything they accuse Russia of doing, only moreso.
Excellent points - thanks for posting.
Such a good argument! I suppose the idealist, to be an idealist, must maintain a disjunction between their idealism and empirical actuality, in the worrying tradition of " reality creation". In that sense the idealist and the religious dogmatist have in common a belief in the imposition on reality of their supposedly superior epistemology, which can hardly expect to avoid strong resistance from actuality itself. The idealist seems to be a subjectivist convinced of the objectivity of their internal representations, which seems to be a form of insanity, of demanding that maps dictate territory. Does the situation of privilege and the hidden desire to preserve, maintain and advance it not perhaps constitute part of the causality of the idealist disorder? Does the conflict with the old civilisation of Russia afford the adolescent empire of the USA an opportunity to grow up? What a pity the cost must be so high of so much power being in the hands of such a disturbed system of denials, dogmatism and aggression!
Humwawa, Jul 6: Maybe, but that is a secondary question. What is at stake is that so many people actually think that way – they are perfectly happy to moralize. Or they go exclusively by a rule ethics instead of a consequence ethic or a mixture of the two.
And that is always dangerous. Even when the Russians do it – as they do, as documented by Minda Holm at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (Mutual lack of introspection and the Russia factor in the liberal West, 2019). Both parties of the conflict are completely enchanted of what the other bastards are doing, and all they do is to condemn that. They give a big fuck to the question how one should get out of the mess both parties have created for themselves.
I can agree that the US neocons don't care, they probably think the US will gain from Europe's loss. But the European politicians should care, they don't gain anything from the conflict, they rather lose from having a new Iron Curtain sealing them off from the world. Still, they are unable to see that, because they are blinded by moralizing.
Excellent! I have often used the example of Mexico in discussions with my fellow-Americans. Often they are at first stunned at the *very idea* of Mexico making a military alliance with the PRC and dismiss the analogy out of hand, thus demonstrating their lack of "strategic empathy." Others pause, and think..."OMG! NOW I see what you're getting at!" Sadly, the first group greatly outnumbers the second.
very realistic-reflecting points - that fx. also John Mearsheimer points to!
Norman Finkelstein and all others, supporting that "all nations & people should naturalli /of course be equal" - are also putting forward arguments like this.
Actually this is a trend.
And, more "ingredients" goes into the "dish" ...
- white/western hegenomy,
- imperialism,
- etno-centricism,
- security-policy,
But, the fast is - that they all exists and also have been exposed, since october 7. 2023.
And - as it was important to get white-supremacy exposed, after George Floyd, by Black Lifes Matter etc - then it is now important to continue digging - and to keep collecting and connecting the dots!
and, it is important, NOT to end in a "we do not agree".
We need to "leave space for each other" - and "respect each other & our arguments"!
We need to build - and not be stubborn.
Stubborn, is another word for, what now can cause a 3. World War or middle-east Regional Big War!
Merging and Respecting - and Accepting, that the other party/part, has the same borders, concerns & feelings, as we have!
we are all people, humans - and we all have family, children, and we all want to live!
Excellent article, Glenn.
This is a great article. It discusses the morality or lack thereof of political reality, versus idealistic delusions of the western Rules Based Order. By analyzing it this way, Diesen has inadvertently provided a good example of the woke leftist descent into idealistic delusions of FREEDOM! and EQUALITY! as the goals of their reality-free morality.
It should be obvious by now that western governments are infected by the secular Church of Woke Leftism. Wok(/loc)usts rush to destruction in the name of FREEDOM! and EQUALITY! These are pristine, absolute concepts of the mind, that depend on being universally applied. Absolute freedom from self-responsibility, freedom to foist off your insanity on all of society without consequences. Absolute freedom from reality itself, including your DNA. Absolute equality in all things, requiring ceaseless revolution to double-down and destroy all boundaries and limits, to equalize with equity, even though such results are impossible to implement in the real world which exists only because of boundaries and limits.
Does any of that constitute morality? No, it's a fake morality that wokusts, in the throes of their mindless narratives and purity spirals, have forced down the throat of Western Civilization, as they drag it down into destruction.
There are a lot of manipulations. You didn't pass the chatGPT check.
1. Moral Framing and Loaded Language
Example: "The most appealing and dangerous idealist argument that destroyed Ukraine is that it has the right to join any military alliance it desires."
Manipulation: By framing the principle of Ukraine's sovereignty as "dangerous" and a cause of destruction, the argument shifts blame from Russia's invasion to Ukraine's aspirations. It uses emotionally charged language ("destroyed Ukraine") to dismiss a legitimate international principle.
Subtle tactic: It presents idealism as naïve and moral compromise with aggressors as "realistic" and "peaceful," creating a false dichotomy.
2. Selective Historical Interpretation
Example: "It did not use to be controversial to argue that Russian security interests must be taken into account when operating on its borders."
Manipulation: This statement omits key historical context where Russian actions, such as the invasion of Georgia (2008) and annexation of Crimea (2014), escalated tensions. It frames NATO expansion as unilateral provocation without acknowledging the sovereign rights of states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries to seek alliances for self-defense.
3. Appeal to False Equivalence
Example: "Mexico has plenty of freedoms in the international system, but it does not have the freedom to join a Chinese-led military alliance."
Manipulation: The analogy between Ukraine-NATO and Mexico-China is oversimplified. The comparison ignores differences in historical, geopolitical, and regional dynamics. Unlike Mexico, Ukraine faced a clear existential threat from Russia, which justified its NATO aspirations.
4. Cherry-Picking Evidence
Example: Citing polls before 2014 where NATO membership had low support in Ukraine.
Manipulation: The text ignores the drastic shift in Ukrainian public opinion after Russia’s invasion of Crimea and support for separatists in Donbas. By focusing on outdated data, the argument misrepresents current attitudes toward NATO membership.
5. Misrepresentation of Events
Example: "The solution was to push for a 'democratic revolution' in 2014 that toppled the democratically elected government of Ukraine."
Manipulation: This simplifies and distorts the Euromaidan protests as a Western-instigated coup, ignoring the widespread domestic protests against corruption and President Yanukovych's decision to abandon an EU association agreement under pressure from Russia.
Omitted context: The claim neglects the democratic legitimacy of post-2014 elections in Ukraine and frames Ukraine’s agency as entirely controlled by the West.
6. Blame-Shifting
Example: "NATO shifted the pressure to Ukraine, and the NATO-Russia conflict became a Russia-Ukraine conflict."
Manipulation: This absolves Russia of its decision to invade by portraying its actions as an inevitable response to NATO expansion. It downplays Russia's role as an aggressor and ignores that Ukraine was not close to joining NATO when Russia invaded in 2014 or 2022.
7. False Dichotomy
Example: "The only thing that can bring peace to Ukraine and end the carnage is to restore its neutrality."
Manipulation: This presents neutrality as the sole path to peace while dismissing Ukraine's right to self-determination. It ignores that neutrality did not prevent Russian aggression in 2014 or the build-up to the 2022 invasion.
8. Selective Use of Authorities
Example: Quotes from Roderic Lyne, Angela Merkel, and William Burns warning against NATO expansion.
Manipulation: The text uses these quotes to argue that NATO expansion caused the war, but it omits their broader context. None of these figures justified Russia’s invasion or argued against Ukraine’s sovereignty. Their warnings were about managing risks, not denying Ukraine's rights.
9. Imbalanced Attribution of Morality
Example: "Why do the idealists get to present themselves as moral and 'pro-Ukrainian'? Why are the realists...immoral and 'anti-Ukrainian'?"
Manipulation: This rhetorical question frames the debate as a moral superiority contest, sidestepping the fact that "realist" policies often involve compromises that disregard smaller states' rights.
10. Conflation of Neutrality with Peace
Example: "The only thing that can bring peace to Ukraine and end the carnage is to restore its neutrality."
Manipulation: This assumes that neutrality guarantees peace, ignoring that Ukraine’s non-alignment did not prevent Russian aggression in the past. It also fails to consider that neutrality may leave Ukraine vulnerable to further coercion.
Sorry, but your post contains many errors of its own. Such as #6, in which you completely ignore that it was the United States that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and began the whole thing based on a lie. Your position is quite sickening.
POLITICAL HAPPINESS
The aim for eudemonia or happiness is a never-ending search throughout history. More specifically, philosophers and scientists have grappled with the question of defining the content (components, composition, conscription) of this term within its social (economic, political, cultural) context. Here, we will only consider a small aspect of this large subject by focusing on the political quality of happiness.
If we simply define “happiness” as a psychological feeling of optimal equilibrium and “political” as a sociological process of conflict resolution by dialectical means, then “political happiness” would be a condition fulfilling individual satisfaction of peaceful problem-solving procedures: a situation when most people are content to resolve public issues legitimately and agreeably by mutual compromises.
Since politics is a particular social activity of conflict resolution to determine the acceptable distribution of common values or assets, it should satisfy most people who participate in this liberal democratic activity. Thus, this type of decision-making, i.e. choosing who gets what, when and how, combines and balances social justice with personal pleasure or collective and individual happiness.
The highest virtue of politics over other kinds of conflict resolution, such as command or violence, is its peaceful and conciliatory process ending in mutually negotiated agreement. This unique quality of politics makes it the best way to create and maintain a happy constituency, both individually and collectively, and thus should be preferable to all other methods promoting common happiness.
Of course, political happiness does not necessarily result in general happiness, either for individuals or societies. Economic happiness, for example, would require other conditions of necessary provisions for life. Similarly, other kinds of happiness need different quantities or qualities to fulfill their requirements.
Although some people may be economically happier under different fascist, communist or capitalist regimes, or culturally happier in nationalist and isolationist conditions, socio-liberal democratic politics is a most civilized and utilitarian ideal of providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
All things considered, political happiness optimizes freedom of choice and offers a variety of options for it. It is thus, the most creative way to search for “liberty, equality and fraternity,” leading to social development and human advancement.
"The Moral Bankruptcy of the West
John J. Mearsheimer Dec 24, 2024"
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-moral-bankruptcy-of-the-west
John lists various judgements against the genocide of Palestinians. I copied the rest of his post.
"Given the West’s presumed commitment to human rights and especially to preventing genocide, one would have expected countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany, to have stopped the Israeli genocide in its tracks.
Instead, the governments in those three countries, especially the United States, have supported Israel’s unimaginable behavior in Gaza at every turn. Indeed, those three countries are complicit in this genocide.
Moreover, almost all of the many human rights advocates in those countries, and in the West more generally, have stayed silent while Israel executed its genocide. The mainstream media has made hardly any effort to expose and challenge what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Indeed some key outlets have staunchly supported Israel’s actions.
One wonders what people in the West who have either supported Israel’s genocide or remained silent tell themselves to justify their behavior and sleep at night.
History will not treat them kindly."
A column of katsaps was broken in the Kursk region
Kozakevich ✅ Subscribe to the channel
Russian refugees from the Kursk region are pleading for help, saying, "Our men defended Donbas and we supported the special military operation, Vladimir Vladimirovich, help us reclaim our land." They seem to be experiencing the consequences of their actions.
WTF? "The consequences of their actions"? The U.S. started this, not Russia.
Video taken near a military airfield in Lipetsk (Russia) burning and detonating after a UAV attack
Local authorities have declared a state of emergency, residents of 4 settlements located near the airfield are being evacuated. Public transport in the city is not running.
Why dont Russia protect its border?
Russian column hit near Oktyabrskii, Rylsky District in the Kursk region
Mexico's GDP is comparable to Russia's. Does Mexico get to have a sphere of interests? What metric are you using to determine which countries have spheres of interests? Why doesn't Ukraine enjoy a sphere of interests and get to decide what alliances Russia enters into?
Glenn Diesen on 29 January 2022 wrote an article in a Norwegian newspaper https://klassekampen.no/artikkel/2022-01-29/debatt-hvem-vil-ha-krig and asked whom want war?
The answer was Vladimir Putin and Russia. You can ask Glenn Diesen if he thought Russia would attack? USA said they were totally sure. Putin and Lavrov denied it and they obviously lied.
Are you sure they lied, they still may not want the war but realism sometimes dictates that you do that which you may not want to do. Besides, we do know that many in the West lied, repeatedly.
That article was a month before the SMO Russia was hoping to avoid. This from Sept. 2022,
Address by Vladimir Putin Authorizing Partial Mobilization of Russian Armed Forces - ENG Subtitles
https://youtu.be/J7QqSYBUhmY?feature=shared