I had put this article over here which outlines Putin's support to the US after 9/11.
U.S.-Russia Relations After September 11, 2001
An interesting article.
But the support described struck me as showy but substanceless.
The US invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence on wmd which was found to be false.
You should note that we finally pulled out of Iraq.
The more significant difference is that despite
having gone to war there twice, we didn't annex
any territory. Putin is trying to expand Russia
by violent thievery of another country's land.
U.S-Nato was recently defeated in Afghanistan after two decades of war which cost a lot of casualties and trillions of taxpayer money ( which made a lot of defense contractors and companies rich.)
Same situation as Iraq.
Although, we should note that Russia pulled
the same attempt to "fix" Afghanistan. And
they too left without success.
In order to paint USA & Russia as being
2 peas in a pod, I pose a question...
Whom are we currently
to take their land by violent conquest?
That is similar to the bully who fights against an another bully accusing the latter of bullying.
To call both "bullies" in light of Russia's
invasion of Ukraine is to ignore what
Putin is doing to Ukraine.
Ya can't justify Russia's wrongs by
pointing at Ameristan's, & hinting at
Russia's security concerns are legitimate. No sovereign country would want a hostile force on its borders.
Ukraine & Finland feel this way about
Russia, which has invaded both.
It is actually a failure of the UN and due to lack of impartial global leadership.
American intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Douglas MacGregor and many others have also criticized NATO expansion which has put their country at risk of nuclear annihilation as well.
While politicking with Putin could've been handled
better, NATO has never invaded Russia, or shown
signs of any conquest.
It appears that the real threat NATO poses is to
Putin's plans to re-integrate the Soviet empire.
Ideally, the media should be unbiased and impartial.
It isn't possible to eliminate bias of whoever controls
a media platform. The only issue is how to structure
media ownership. If the private sector owns the
various media, & there is competition, this has proven
to be the most open & diverse. Contrast that with
giving government control, eg, Russia, Cuba, N Korea,
China, Iran, Saudi Arabia.
However if it lacks independence and is owned by major corporate companies with an agenda, it will obviously be biased in its coverage and reporting. Truth ends up as a casualty with propagation of falsehood which brings a lot of problems in its wake.
How does the reality of Russian invasion of Ukraine
differ from what's presented in western media?