Those critical of Vladimir Putin’s restrained approach in the face of continuous belligerence and escalation from the West, might consider being mindful of the fact that the United States and Russia, are both major nuclear powers.
Each have sufficient nuclear arsenals to destroy the world many times over.
So perhaps some restraint is justified, given this predicament.
A petulant ego reaction may provide some satisfaction in the short term, but that sensation is likely to sour very quickly.
Actions taken in anger,
Alexander Mercouris
are repented at leisure.
This quote from Alexander Mercouris, is advice well worth considering in such circumstances. Particularly with the possibility of no leisure being available to repent those actions.
The obsession of the West to oust Vladimir Putin as President of the Russian Federation, could be the result of a desire to see a more hard-line president take over. Thus, giving the West the opportunity to demonise Russia even further.
Remember, if the West is to fight a war with Russia, then it needs to convince its populations to do the fighting. Because it is certain that the Western political establishment, are never themselves going to fight that war.
The option to take a harder line is always available, but once this river is crossed, the way back, might not be so easy, or even possible.
Commentators, and the Western public in general, should be the first to take an aggressive stance toward the Western political establishment, not the president of a major nuclear power.
Those in the West, critical of Vladimir Putin’s restrained approach, are too eager to abdicate their own Responsibility as Sovereign Individuals.
As has been pointed out in the subsection, Sovereign Right, Sovereign Responsibility, to the post, The Essence Of Satanism, One cannot abdicate Sovereign Responsibility.
The tyranny in the West is not Vladimir Putin’s Responsibility. But it could become Vladimir Putin’s and the peoples of Russia’s Right to Resolve, should the peoples of the West, refuse to accept their Responsibility.
Valid Questions
Putin Challenged On Trump Tomahawk Deployment
Failed Investment
Putin-Trump Summit.
Orban Outsmarts Warhawks
These criticisms by commentators that Vladimir Putin was over-invested in Donald Trump, prior to Trump taking office, seem to forget that they themselves were heavily invested in Donald Trump, prior to Trump taking office.
It was not so long ago that these same commentators were still cheer-leading for Trump.
Now that Donald Trump has definitively shown himself to be an absolute disaster as president, some commentators have conveniently forgotten their own past sycophancy for Donald Trump.
Criticisms of Vladimir Putin for being too accommodating to the Western political establishment may be valid. However, Self-Reflection of One’s own part should not be neglected.
Many people were overly invested in Donald Trump as president, and some continue to be.
“Hope and Change”, strikes again.
Donald Trump’s disastrous failure, is based upon the immense opportunity he was gifted for real change, but categorically squandered, due to his cowardice, hubris and ego.
It is also important to recognise, that had Vladimir Putin not been so accommodating to the West, the West would not have taken the opportunity to reveal themselves to be duplicitous dirt-bags.
This accommodation has led to the West’s exposure around the World.
Whether deliberate or incidental, Vladimir Putin’s accommodation of the West has induced a major benefit.
Give them rope to hang themselves with.
Errors In Time
Poseidon And Trump Nuclear Testing
“…the restraint that was shown last November, in anticipation of Trump coming in
and reversing the policy and conducting negotiations to end the war,
that that restraint was a serious mistake and they’re not going to do that again.”
Just a response to the above comment made by Alexander Mercouris at the end of the video.
To act with restraint was not necessarily a mistake last November, but it would most likely be a mistake now.
Context is an important factor in judging an action to be a mistake, or not.
Academic Thought Or Propaganda Peddling?
Vladimir Putin may well have his critics in Russia that disagree with some of his policies.
But does this then automatically correlate to all these people seeking to oust Vladimir Putin as president of Russia?
Maybe, these people just have a difference of opinion.
If you happen to disagree with your work colleague, does that then mean you would like your work colleague to lose their job?
Is this the level of simplistic analysis, that passes for academic thought in the West nowadays?
