In February, when the Ukraine/Russia conflict had just begun, I wrote an article that saw me accused of flacking for Putin — as in being his propagandist.  I thought it odd because the point of the article was to look at our press, whose members were so used to having Democrats dictate their marching orders that they seemed tentative and afraid without approved talking points to blather at us.  My accuser had already intuited what the approved stance would eventually be, and so, indeed, it came to pass.  Russia and Putin are bad and evil.  Ukraine, good and blameless.  Zelensky, with a halo around his head, can do or say no wrong, despite his resounding unpopularity prior to the war.

It wasn't always this way.  A few items from history point this up:

Remember Hillary Clinton (2009) and her "reset button" moment with Russia when she was secretary of state?  Beyond her embarrassing histrionics and linguistic faux pas, the stance — that we were no longer the direct enemy of Russia — made some sense to me.  Despite being a nuclear power, Russia posed no immediate threat to our country.  Diplomacy, rather than blanket antagonism, seemed reasonable.

Remember (2016) when then–vice president Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine, effectively shutting down an investigation into high-level corruption?  Does the name Burisma mean anything to you?  You'll be reminded about all this as Hunter's laptop brings him down and, possibly, his father along with him.  This was only one of the machinations we perpetrated in that country, known for its corruption and oligarchy.  We also influenced elections there, working blatantly to oust the pro-Russian government (also quite corrupt) during the Obama administration.

Remember, too, how Putin and Russia were the primary tools employed to bring down Trump?  To destroy him, the left had to make Putin the number-one enemy again.  No matter what reality was, it was their play and still is.  All was orchestrated by the reset button–pusher herself.

Remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco (1961–1962)?  Why is it significant?  Here's the deal in a sentence: Russia wanted to put missiles there (Cuba), we were threatened by their proximity to our shores and the rise of Castro, and so we ineptly tried to do something to stop Castro and his communist regime.  It was a dangerous period because we didn't want our geopolitical foes on our doorstep.

Do you know what the geography of eastern Europe looks like?  Ukraine is right next to Russia, and a good portion of the country is pro-Russian — nearly 30% of Ukrainians are native Russian-speakers.  It's not a simple country with a united populace.  If NATO invites Ukraine to join, that could easily put missiles right on Russia's border, in a reverse Bay of Pigs situation.

Image: Hillary and the Russian reset button (edited).  YouTube screen grab.

You can see why Putin would be upset by that possibility.  Starting in the 1990s, Putin has certainly made it clear that this is a non-negotiable red line for him.  I'm not condoning Putin's barbaric war, but I can't ignore the why of it.

Now let's examine the domestic problems that the Biden administration is blaming on Putin: inflation and energy problems (despite Biden having created both).  The administration's disastrous handling of COVID required a subject change because we were starting to notice how inept the government is.  A war fit the bill.  The same was true for our disastrous monetary policy and our supply chain issues.  The war will be blamed for all of it.

Instead of telling us all for weeks before the first shot that Putin "was going to" invade Ukraine, why didn't Biden try to stop the war before it started?  Could he have exercised diplomacy?  Could we have provided some leadership, including calling for a summit with the two countries?  Could our president, if we had a real one, have sat the leaders down and hashed out the problems?  They're not ephemeral issues after all; just practical realities.

This whole stupid war could have been averted if we had acted as leaders in the world.  But that could have occurred only if we didn't have ulterior motives to promote, rather than stop, the war.

It's a war brought about, in large part, because of a lack of the kind of leadership the world heretofore relied on America to supply.  Now we have the gung-ho desk jockeys angling to get our own military involved, desperate to start WW3.  How many retired generals might it take to push us into a shooting war?  They won't have to fight it themselves, after all.

To understand what's going on, you must look back.  The whole thing is a consequence of actions taken over the last decades, here and in Europe.  Our future may just depend on whether the war escalates.  We'll find out, up close and personal, as our now weak country reacts to energy shortages, food shortages, supply chain issues, and monetary issues, some of which, going forward, will be caused in part by the conflagration.  We are all interconnected around the world, and the war is a perfect scapegoat for the ineptitude of our current regime.  Once again, "elections" have consequences.