Let’s think back to 1990. Back then, as the old Cold war ended, progressives quite rightly enthused about the so-called ‘peace dividend’. Taxpayer money wasted on weapons could now be spent on more worthwhile things such as hospitals, health CARE, schools, infrasrtucture, etc. But NATO - unlike the Warsaw Pact - didn’t disband, on the contrary, it expanded to Russia’s borders.

Countries that didn’t want to join the NATO club were targeted with sanctions (Belarus) - or sanctions and bombing (Yugoslavia). In 1999, NATO - established as a defensive military alliance in 1949 - not only broke international law when it attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but also contravened Article One of its own constitution which states: “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

What was that line in the USEUCOM report about violating numerous agreements and international law?

Russia was fine as long as it was acquiescing in all of this, but as soon as it began to stand up for itself and try and defend its own legitimate interests, the Cold War was quickly "rekindled" by the US and its NATO allies. As OpEder John Wight put it in a 2016 article on the demonization of Putin: “All this baloney about Putin having expansionist aims is an attempt to throw a smokescreen over the West’s own expansionist agenda in Eastern Europe with the goal of throwing a cordon sanitaire around Russia in pursuit of a cold war agenda.”

When the staunchly pro-US government in Georgia pounded South Ossetia in August 2008 and Russia responded to protect ethnic Russian citizens, it was Russia who was portrayed as the aggressor in the neocon media.

Likewise in Ukraine in 2014/15 when a State Department/EU “regime change” operation to topple a democratically elected pro-Russian government and replace it with a staunchly pro-US, pro-EU, anti-Russian one, took place.

What happened in eastern Ukraine and Crimea after the regime change in Kiev was not Russian aggression but the response to US/EU aggression against Russia.

Let’s think back to 1990. Back then, as the old Cold war ended, progressives quite rightly enthused about the so-called ‘peace dividend’. Taxpayer money wasted on weapons could now be spent on more worthwhile things such as hospitals, health CARE, schools, infrasrtucture, etc. But NATO - unlike the Warsaw Pact - didn’t disband, on the contrary, it expanded to Russia’s borders.

Countries that didn’t want to join the NATO club were targeted with sanctions (Belarus) - or sanctions and bombing (Yugoslavia). In 1999, NATO - established as a defensive military alliance in 1949 - not only broke international law when it attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but also contravened Article One of its own constitution which states: “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

What was that line in the USEUCOM report about violating numerous agreements and international law?

Russia was fine as long as it was acquiescing in all of this, but as soon as it began to stand up for itself and try and defend its own legitimate interests, the Cold War was quickly "rekindled" by the US and its NATO allies. As OpEder John Wight put it in a 2016 article on the demonization of Putin: “All this baloney about Putin having expansionist aims is an attempt to throw a smokescreen over the West’s own expansionist agenda in Eastern Europe with the goal of throwing a cordon sanitaire around Russia in pursuit of a cold war agenda.”

When the staunchly pro-US government in Georgia pounded South Ossetia in August 2008 and Russia responded to protect ethnic Russian citizens, it was Russia who was portrayed as the aggressor in the neocon media.

Likewise in Ukraine in 2014/15 when a State Department/EU “regime change” operation to topple a democratically elected pro-Russian government and replace it with a staunchly pro-US, pro-EU, anti-Russian one, took place.

What happened in eastern Ukraine and Crimea after the regime change in Kiev was not Russian aggression but the response to US/EU aggression against Russia.

How, exactly has it escalated? Perhaps in response to the leftists taking over of our world here in the US. That would scare me if I were Putin.

I find it interesting how the leftist anti-Trump democrats all declare failure when speaking of N Korea in that Trump hasn't gotten N Korea to INSTANTLY become our docile friend with naught but a bow and arrow at hand. When asked for input, virtually all countries, including S Korea, say the changes need to be implemented incrementally and gradually; no radial shifts. But look at the criticism aimed at Trump by the leftist idiots in the states. They are the same ones who continually bad mouth Putin and Russia.