Another propaganda which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations (the Minsk agreements) to delay the war they knew would eventually happen if Ukraine didn't address Russian security concerns. This period was used to train Ukraine's military by NATO members.
> Merkel: ... Thinking back to 2014, and the beginning of 2015, when Minsk II was negotiated: If we had done nothing, Putin could have caused tremendous damage to Ukraine, and those 7 years were crucial for the evolution of Ukraine. In spite of that, this terrible situation still came to occur. But back in 2008, when the NATO membership action plan discussed, my opinion (which you don't have to share, but it is my opinion) is that it would have happened even more rapidly. Back then, Ukraine was even further from being able to offer the degree of resistance it can offer today .... Secondly, I was certain that Putin would not allow this to happen. From his perspective, this would have been a declaration of war. (https://youtu.be/hiwnD00kV0w?t=2144 )
> The Kyiv Independent: Do you also believe that the negotiations in Minsk were intended to delay Russian advances in Ukraine? ... French President François Hollande: Yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point. The Minsk agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while ... Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity. ( https://kyivindependent.com/national/hollande-there-will-onl... )
> Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: ... what is the result of the Minsk agreement? We win 8 years to create the army. We win 8 years to restore the economy. We win 8 years to continue the reforms and move to the European Union ... ( https://youtu.be/YgpZ9mQ8p18?t=426 )
As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them. And one of the terms of the negotiations was to stop their military advance. Russia, in its arrogance, was fooled to believe that they had achieved political success and asked its army to stop advancing, and even retreat in some places in the frontline to defensive positions. This period was then used to provide intelligence to Ukraine on Russian positions and plan a counter attack on Russia, which was successful because the Russians were unprepared for the deception and the newly trained armed forces of Ukraine.
Once they recovered from it, they revised their plan and decided to retreat and create defensive stronghold on all the areas of Eastern Ukraine they planned to annex and execute all their other objectives militarily. (Western propaganda of course prematurely touted this tactical retreat by the Russians as Ukraine wining the war).
- ... it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
Only those who buy NATO propaganda believe that because they are ignorant of Russia's military objectives in Ukraine. NATO propaganda paints it as simple "land grab" (which you seem to believe too), when it was never about that. It is about securing Russian security interests in both Ukraine and with Europe / NATO. From that perspective, Ukraine is losing the war and Russians are quite close to achieving all their political goals militarily.
- Sure. That's why we need to go beyond claims and investigate facts.
Yes. And to do that, you need to analyse the propaganda from both sides. This is what the Russian media recently claimed - https://rt-english.com/russia/647584-whats-on-russias-target...
> The Ukrainian propaganda widely published by liberal media outlets portrays Russian attacks as indiscriminate and aimed at civilians. In this article, we strive to demonstrate that this is not the case ... In the early years of the military operation, Russia targeted Ukraine’s defense industry facilities ... In response, Ukraine began relocating and dispersing production to any available industrial facilities or even warehouses. This strategy was openly discussed in Ukrainian propaganda as a crucial element of resilience against Russian assaults. As Russia increased its striking capabilities, it adopted a broader approach, targeting all industrial facilities based on a straightforward principle: if a facility can be used for drone assembly, it qualifies as a legitimate military target ... In order protect ammunition from airstrikes, it is moved out of the isolated weapons depots and hidden in any available facilities. Western missiles are transported from Poland to these locations as well. The consequences of this approach are dire: an attack leads to the detonation of ammunition, gravely endangering the surrounding residential areas. On August 29, 2026, a strike on a warehouse operated by Fire Point in the village of Milaya resulted in the death of 38 civilians ... Electricity forms the backbone of any support system. Without it, production halts, communication falters, and supplying the army becomes increasingly difficult. Based on this logic, since 2022, the Russian military has systematically targeted Ukraine’s electricity generation, reducing its capacity from 50-55 GW before the war to just 12-15 GW during the winter of 2025-26 ... Attacks on Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants – which generate both electricity and heat – continue as well. The goal isn’t to freeze the residents of Kiev, but to dismantle Ukraine’s unified energy system, breaking it into isolated segments that can be dealt with individually ... Russia specifically targeted gas stations in both frontline areas and Kiev. The goal was to disrupt military logistics. Reports estimate that over 200 gas stations were destroyed nationwide during the summer months ... The AFU takes pride in how they’ve adapted civilian trucks for launching long-range drones. However, this makes any cargo truck a legitimate military target for Russia and has led to the destruction of dozens of such launch platforms, which are tracked through intelligence efforts.
- Morocco provided tanks, Cambodia sent military specialists to teach demining, Sudan provided mortar ammunition, etc.
Countries that have allied with the west, and were bullied by them to support Ukraine, have done reluctantly. Cambodia, however, helped Ukraine out of human rights concerns, and not because it sides with it:
> Cambodia rejects the use or threats of force and does not side with any of the parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Prime Minister Hun Sen has declared. The premier stated that support for any party in what he believed had evolved into a proxy battle between the former USSR and US-led NATO countries would violate the Kingdom’s own policy of non-alignment with military blocs. ( https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40012970 )
> The "South-vs-North" dichotomy is artificial and mainly lives as yet another Russian propaganda trope.
No, it isn't as the Global South also doesn't support Russia in this war. Most of them are in the Non-Aligned Movement who deliberately avoid taking sides with superpowers. Ofcourse, the west doesn't like that because they think in black and white terms - "if you are not with us, you are against us".
> In the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939, ...
And when you mention that it is only prudent to also mention that Soviet Russia made that pact only because the French and British refused to make a pact with USSR, against Hitler, in the first place. Rest all is one-sided western revisionist history bullshit because you now want to demonise Russia - the USSR didn't do anything different to what western superpowers did to other smaller countries when they felt threatened. USSR was preparing for another World War that it knew was inevitable. It did pre-emptively use the military against many of them when their governments refused to cooperate with it because, again, it knew it was going to be dragged into another World War - all the western superpowers knew about Hitler's ambitions but still ignored USSR's overture to form an alliance against Hitler (because they considered Germany a "natural" western ally and didn't want to alienate it).
(Frankly, I am glad that the US keeps most of Europe's military "neutered" and in check, because they are crazy enough to start another world war. We may yet see that with the Ukraine conflict if Europe is allowed to have its way ...).
> Finland was the only one that refused the demands and took up arms ...
Finland, like Ukraine today, was again propped up by western superpowers to be used in a proxy war with Russia. Luckily, the Finnish leaders understood that the west was only using them (like it is using Ukraine today) and pragmatically settled with the Russians. And they benefited from it till date, because USSR never desired to conquer Finland, just as it doesn't wish to conquer Ukraine today.
> This is why Russian "security concerns" is not a phrase anyone can take seriously
Western superpowers would obviously like to peddle that narrative because they want to conquer and breakup the country (because without Russia, they cannot fight China). Only a moron would believe that Russia has no right to be considered about its "security", or sphere of influence, and thus it is ok to ignore it. That's on track with western political arrogance - the west only remembers "Democracy" and "sovereignty" only when it is convenient for them.