Western Media's Latest Episodes of Anti-Putin Spin

Putin is a thug and murderer and thus he's cut from the same cloth as many US leaders and their proxies. I'm not a fan of him or his policies and yet it's striking to me just how frequently Western media spins coverage of him, his statements, and his actions.

For example, recent reports have made much hay over his statements directed at Brussels wherein Putin suggested that if the EU was looking for a fight, then Russia was ready. This was played over and over again and in every case it was painted as aggression, an open threat and further justification for the argument that Putin has designs on Europe and that Ukraine is just a stepping stone.

Aside from the absurdity of this and the fact that Putin was not even able to make it to Kyiv, he is on the record as to why he chose to invade. He warned against NATO expansion back in 2007 at Munich - a series of arguments he has often repeated. Despite NATO's claims to the contrary, the alliance is not defensive and there is no other country that it can be directed toward other than Russia. This was true in 1949 and it was true in 2007 and 2022. It was abundantly clear when Russia was denied membership. And thus it was inevitable that he would eventually respond - the very thing NATO leaders wanted. Many of us didn't think it would be in the winter of 2022, but according to his calculus it was the moment to strike. NATO was looking rather robust again after Trump's exit and Putin was alarmed over talk of the Russian navy being expelled from Crimea and replaced by NATO ships as well as suggestions that Ukraine might once again seek a nuclear arsenal. Putin chose to intervene and his miscalculation has largely been a disaster and will forever paint him as the aggressor and the bearer of moral culpability. It's not true, but that's how the history will be written. One cannot help but be reminded of events in 1914 and the largely misguided blame that was placed on Berlin.

The context for Putin's defiant statement has nothing to do with designs on Europe, the reconstitution of the Warsaw Pact or the USSR. He's angry because Brussels continues to intervene (and sabotage) the peace talks. Contrary to Western media, Putin does want to end the war but he's already lost so much face, he's unwilling to back down without his basic concessions - a secure Crimea via the annexation of the Donbass, and a pledge that Ukraine will not join NATO. It is the best he can hope for at this point and while his battlefield strategies have failed, he's hoping to at least meet the basic geopolitical goals.
The EU is trying to thwart this (in part for its own reasons) and from Putin's standpoint the bloc (which has already been fighting a proxy war against him) seems to want the war to continue - despite the fact that Ukraine has no hope of victory and is rapidly waning in terms of its potency.

His statement contained a threat - but it was not the 'aggression' that has been presented. If anything, one might say Brussels actions to sabotage the peace talks represent a kind of aggression on the part of the EU (and thus tangentially NATO).

Further, Western reporters scoff at the notion Putin wants peace because he has intensified his air campaign, launching missiles and drones at Ukraine. This demonstrates (they argue) that he does not want peace but wants the war to continue.
These reporters are either being deceptive or they are truly ignorant of basic military history. It's a common tactic connected to negotiations to hit hard to gain a stronger standing when coming to the bargaining table.

If these reporters bothered to investigate a little history (unless they're just being deceitful), they would see the US did the same thing in connection with Vietnam. When another round of talks were scheduled in Paris, Nixon would launch ferocious aerial campaigns directed at North Vietnam that were meant to put them on the back foot. It's certainly a foul tactic that leads to a lot of death and destruction just to make what is tantamount to a chess move. But that's how governments and armies operate.

But Western reporters have no standing if they do not understand this or contextualize it. They have no interest in honestly reporting events and helping their audience to understand them. Rather they are involved in a propaganda campaign directed at Vladimir Putin - a long-standing attempt to demonize him. Having an evil enemy is quite useful and given the way events unfolded in Syria a year ago, it is certain there are those who still hold out hope that some kind of internal disturbance will grant an opportunity for outside powers to move against Moscow and take down Putin's regime - at which point the Russian Federation will be carved up. As previously stated, it's a variation of Hitler's plan in 1941, and Putin is well aware of this.

But the media will turn to the likes of Anne Applebaum, Timothy Snyder, and others to provide the 'proper' interpretation.