Over exaggerated Ukraine resistance a distorted reality as Putin runs an economy of force mission.

Watching my son play Club Soccer always gives me great pleasure, but it’s challenging when the weather makes the enjoyment less enjoyable.

Four weeks ago, I came to appreciate why being ill-informed remains a path to ignorance.

Before the game, two men were debating the Wagner Group and the US run narrative of what Washington labelled a coup to overthrow Russian President, Vladimir Putin, even though it never was.

One asked if he’d heard. The other described Putin as a coward. He spoke as if he knew Putin well.

COVID showed how the media worked with Governments to pedal lies based on control and power - and the world believed.

And since February 2022, when Putin marched into Ukraine, there’s been a similar narrative to the conflict – one that’s ignored history, truth, or Putin’s reasons for taking the action he did.

Distorted commentary from a complicit media is responsible for pedaling Washington’s false reality of truth and fact.

History has taught us many things, one being the frequency of the US to overthrow foreign governments to suit its political and economic agenda.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and others, and now Ukraine, are victims to the secret hand of US hegemony.

What’s concerning are the arm-chair experts who proselytize about Putin’s motivation(s) and how he’s losing the war – regurgitating Washington’s spin and ignoring reality without consideration for the truth.

Geopolitical ignorance and refusal to acknowledge Washington’s duplicity, makes them lamentable, and why they should be ignored.

Putin’s wants are simple – to ensure Russia’s security and have NATO honor the MINSK ACCORDS.

Ukraine, Putin argues, must remain a demilitarised neutral State - not a platform for the threat of attack.

Portraying Putin as an evil dictator is incongruous to the truth – evidenced by how Russia moved into the Ukraine, and what Washington would have everyone believe was a failed invasion.

How Putin’s moved into the Ukraine was unexpected - especially with orders to avoid collateral damage and loss of life at all costs.

Putin has always opposed NATO’s presence on Russia’s borders - a reinforcement of why he moved into Crimea in 2014.

The move was an assessment based on anticipation of Crimea becoming a US naval base - something Putin couldn’t let happen.

Then came the coup, where the US installed a Ukraine government prepared to do Washington’s bidding.

Seeking to engineer Putin’s demise didn’t stop there. Billions were poured into building a Ukrainian military that was designed to attack Russia.

Had Putin not acted, NATO would now be perched on Russia’s border – it was Cuba, 1962, in reverse.

As considered as Putin’s move was, it came with an assumption he’d have someone to negotiate with – which explains why only 90,000 troops were committed to move into a region largely Russian.

Demilitarising Ukraine has always been Putin’s objective – destroying it would ruin the lives of Russia’s Slavic cousins, brothers, and sisters.

Instead, Washington has other plans – it bizarrely thinks it has an opportunity to bleed it, bring regime change, and strip it of its resources.

With Ukraine’s resistance over-exaggerated, and Russia not taking the heavy casualties the media and Washington says it has, and Putin’s failure to negotiate peace – had him soon discover the West had no desire for it.

It was Putin’s horror story – later conceding he was wrong to think peace could be brokered.

At a meeting following the breakdown of peace talks, Putin’s senior officers told him, they wanted to go in hard - “you said go in soft, we wanted more troops, you said no. Now we're in the middle of something and we're not going to end this unless we build a larger more decisive force with the right capabilities.”

Following that meeting, Russia’s strategy changed – it moved to consolidate control of 20 to 22% of territory where most Russians lived and resources were - allowing it to run an economy of force mission.

The strategy was designed to build an unbreakable fort, and have Ukraine expend itself against it, and now it has nothing left, except for soldiers dead or wounded with figures ranging from 250,000 to 350,000.

But the number of civilians killed remain unclear - any figures the US provides are always suspect.

No matter how the media portray’s Ukraine’s failed effort, it’s now at a point where it has expended virtually everything it has.

On the ropes, discussions are focussed on whether Putin moves to end the conflict decisively, or let the Ukrainians expend more time and effort?

Putin’s reluctance to take decisive action and end the war stems from his fear it may cause the US to intervene - a worry he’s held from the beginning where once the Ukrainian position became hopeless, pressure would mount in Washington to rescue what's left.

With Russia at the crossroads with its next decision, Senior officers at the Pentagon are adamant the US is in no position to wage a conventional war against Russia.

And yet a willingness remains by the US senate to continue greenlighting billions for Ukraine to defeat Russia in a fight it will never win.

As much as Putin looked weak, that’s changed – he now has 750,000 troops focused on the western military district in Russia, 350,000 in the south and a further 400,000 tied up in logistical support infrastructure and in missile and rocket artillery batteries.

Regardless of how successful Washington has been getting the world to believe Ukraine is winning, it isn’t.

Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister, only recently said Ukraine has no chance of victory.

And should Washington continue to insist Ukraine become part of NATO, 100,000’s of Russian troops will roll across Ukraine until they hit the Polish and Romanian borders, which is not what Putin wants.

Unless someone in Europe wakes up, which could be the Germans where Putin has someone he could talk to, it could be Berlin who leads the world out of a dead-end road.