THE LOGIC OF WAR AND SOME QUESTION: 

In this thread I see how the logic of war works:

1) There is the MAD MAN, the new Hitler, the one who has only faults and no reason. The BAD you see in American movies. In this case, Putin.

2) We must take sides, support GOOD ONES, those who are right (the Ukrainian government, Zelenskyj) and support everything they ask for (weapons, entry into the EU and NATO), and despise the madman , which must be stopped, and possibly ousted from his throne

3) Anyone who wants to do analysis (me), who does not see all the faults only on one side is automatically a supporter of the madman (Putin). Although, first of all, he said that the invasion of Ukraine is wrong and must be condemned. Tertium non datur, the Latins said.

4) So you have to shut up (Dark Elf: "Stop", Steve G. "What is wrong with you"), censor those who don't cheer the madman, those who don't blame Putin, those looking for a solution to the war different from shipping weapons to Ukrainians, from sanctioning, from censoring Russian news sites in the West like Sputnik and Russia Today.

So I ask everyone here these questions:

1) Why do you think I keep reporting the analyzes of those who said that the enlargement of NATO to the East would probably lead to a war? Am I an anti-American? Am I a Putin supporter? Do I want to blame the US for the invasion? Why do I do it?

2) Are you sure that sending weapons to Ukrainians from EU countries will help them? Are you sure? Are you sure this will not lead to the complete distruction of Ukraine and World War III? Or can doubts be expressed in this regard?

4) Are you sure that Biden's invitation to Finland and Sweden to attend a NATO meeting was a peace move? Are you sure it only served to defend them? Are you sure that the good of Ukraine is to join NATO? Or can doubts be expressed in this regard?

5) Are you sure that Putin is crazy? And if so, were Clinton and Busj Jr. also crazy who bombed and then invaded Iraq? Are you sure that Ukraine Russia will invade other nations afterwards? Are you sure that by ousting Putin from his throne, a better one will come? What has history taught us about it? Can any doubts be expressed in this regard?

6) The sanctions on Russia: are you sure they will make Putin desist from the invasion? Are you sure they will not backfire on the Russian people? And if Russia annexes Ukraine, are you sure that the sanctions will not backfire on the Ukrainian people and on the Europeans themselves?

Reading some analysts, I have my own position on these questions, but I do not pretend that my ideas are recognized as right, becasu, first of all, I have many diubts on some matter. I just would like to discuss about these questions, about hat is good and what is wrong, and about the possible solutions of this war. 

@Lorenzo: As far as I'm concerned, the "psychological issue" (is Putin a madman?) isn't that relevant. Putin is a man in an extremely exposed position that implies an extreme lifestyle and behaviour, with a certain history, and surrounded by an environment that will tend to confirm his views. Perfectly normal people tend to perceive and believe what fits their prior convictions, and may behave erratically when they start to feel that things are going wrong. I don't think that any particular psychological diagnosis is required to explain Putin's actions, and many things that can happen (including nasty ones) are compatible with the absence of such a diagnosis.

I do think that discussing to what extent NATO's enlargement has contributed to the current situation makes some sense, although using terms such as "original sin" is rather inappropriate (and for sure doesn't look as if you "have many doubts and just want to discuss"). One problem with the idea that without NATO enlargement we wouldn't have this war is this: If you assume that the main reason for NATO enlargement was that NATO wanted to extend their powers, and as such it was something of an attack, and if you don't think that Americans or NATO people are particularly evil, you'd need to assume that enlargening the area of influence is a natural and common political motive and powers will generally tend to do that if they have the chance. But if this is so, you should well expect that also Russia, at a certain point after 1990, would have wanted and tried to do that, and the lack of extension of NATO would have given her a chance to get away with it on a larger scale. You'd basically need to assume that Putin is nicer and less offensive-minded than the Americans to think that the Russians wouldn't have done, at some point between 1990 and now, what the Americans have done, in your view, in the 1990s and early 2000s  Otherwise, NATO-membership of the Eastern European countries is perfectly justified (which is how I see things), given that they chose democratically to take part and nobody threatened them with war to get in.

Another thing that I wonder is what you think follows from your backward-looking analysis about who's at fault? What should be done now?

tszirmay wrote: the Cold War had basic rules that were set in the sand, and the belligerents played within those rules. Unfortunately, the current conflict has no CLEAR rules

very well stated sir... much better than I could have. One can easily say that the lack of such rules make this present situation far more dangerous than 1962 and perhaps more so than at any point during ...  well.. that we have ever seen.

micky wrote: which is why all this intellectual masturbating some are tossing offf here is laughable.  This isn't an classroom ideological discussion...  people are dying by the hundreds...  one misstep.. and we are talking tens or hundreds of millions.

Not sure whom you mean, but this is a prog rock forum, meaning that whatever is written here on the matter will ultimately not make a practical difference anyway, and nothing is less laughable in this respect than anything else.

^ Whew !   I know how much work it takes to properly call a person(s) out, and to carefully lay-out what seems obvious:  unjustifiable & unnecessary incursion causing indescribable suffering not seen since Vietnam, maybe WW 2.