A clear case of double standards.

If your house is a republic this is exactly how it works.

You should mention why the people of the southeast were upset with the regime change by the West in 2014 and why the regular people (and not the military) were regularly and systematically attacked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx2O4SZnNIU

Furthermore, you should answer the question why Zelenskyy proclaimed in 2020 or 2021 to attack the southeast/Crimea and why the attacks on the southeastern region intensified from the beginning to mid February before(!) Russia intervened.

Last but not least, there remains the question of what alternative options Putin has for action - after 8 years of fruitless agreements and non-compliance with the Minsk agreement by Ukraine and ultimately its escalation of military attacks. Wait and see and drink tea?

Which changed when Donetsk and Lugansk have declared themselves autonomous and asked Russia for assistance against Ukraine's attacks.

Under international law, Russia is not the aggressor as the "right of self-determination of peoples" is usually held in such high esteem. In my view, the attack came from Ukraine and the 2 republics have taken "assistance" against a genocide that has been going on for 8 years and intensified in 2022. There is no right of a state to wage war on parts of the former state entity, to murder them and to raze their dwellings to the ground. I assume that exactly at this point the "international law" was massively broken on the part of Ukraine, only... nobody in the West was disturbed. Pathetic! One can only say.

Ah, that's why /2022/05/13/politics/austin-shoigu-call/index.html]the US are begging for an immediate ceasefire. This certainly has nothing to do with the Western military advisers who have now crawled out of Mariupol's steelworks, at all 

Indeed, so - as already explained by others - Ukrainians are the Russian brothers and therefore it is comprehensible why the Russians did not attack infrastructure which is essential for the Ukranians like power plants or communication systems. In fact, they directly attacked the cities when the Ukrainians retreated within those (and therefore, at least partly, provoked civile casualties - especially when hiding in hospitals and schools) and one could argue that this guerilla tactic was the only defence option left for the Ukrainians. For Kiev it was to bind Ukrainian troops from defending the southeastern region. It was never about conquering Kiev.

For those who wonder why there seem so many vehicles lost by the Russians - they have a completely different tank strategy: the Western strategy relies on high-tech as-long-as-possible-operationable tanks while the Eastern strategy relies on the whole formation where a the single tank is not essential and losses (vehicles and soldiers) are part of the strategy of mass formation attacks with cheap equipment in order to be able to make huge breakthroughs with it (background: formidable battle formations against NATO). In contrast, they are not suitable for operations with guerrilla tactics.

A more detailed background:

https://labourheartlands.com/jacques-baud-the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine-update/

You are not talking about Peter the Great, for sure.

If you already making such a fuss, you could ask American Natives, (East) Germans, (West) Japanese, Vietnamese, Syrians, Afghans, ... - I even don't know where to stop - about their satisfaction about US politics.

Because Russians are not Americans.

Casualties:
- Russia in Ukraine: ~ 2300
- USA in Iraq: the numbers range from 151,000 to over 1,000,000

Enough said.

Karl Polanyi's student George Dalton (1926-1991) demonstrated in 1982 that barter did not play a role in the beginnings of market society.

Furthermore, barter itself is an instant transaction while buying/selling is a debt contract with a scheduled pay date.

Remember: the foundation of capitalism as well as any other economy is enforced levy (internal: tax, external: tribute) which is sanctionized on the due date. It is the birth of state structures, surplus production (= economy), property, interest, "money", markets ... the birth of the civilian. This is the contrary of human nature where one lives in communities with solidaric substinence but no individualism.

The motivation for innovation is driven by the individual participation of wealth. The primary driver is - this may sound amazing to some - asset preservation and the secondary driver is asset growth (accumulation).

Within socialist societies and, by the way, also communities like the Kibbutz, general individual wealth is not sought at all, and in extreme cases (communism) it is even abolished (except for the ruling class... what a miracle). Therefore, the motivation to be innovative and therefore more competitive is far less present than in capitalistic or economic liberal societies. This leads, e.g. also in the kibbutz, to the fact that the individuals contribute less to the general work effort, since one has nothing from it. On the contrary, so-called "heroes of labor" were generally hated in the former GDR.

In fact, you are way underthinking it.

Crypto is not "money". "Money" is not crypto. "Money" is not "a medium of exchange" and "money" itself basically did not evolve since it has been established.

Nevertheless, up to this day, many economicians still do not recognize the findings of ethnologists made around 100 years ago and still think about "money" as a thing instead of acknowledging that it lies in the legal sphere.

In order to create a "money"-equivalent crypto at all, it needs - as with "money" - creditors and debtors, which clearly runs counter to the premise of decentralized verification and anonymity, since it involves contractual modalities with mutually liable parties who must of course know each other in order to ultimately be able to legally enforce their contractual claims, which only these two parties mutually negotiate and determine and not tens of millions of anonymized users who are legally intangible.

"Money" is (a creditors) claim and (a debitors) obligation - it resides completely in the legal sphere. There is nothing "good" or "evil" about it.

The "evil" part comes from its foundation: legislation enforced by force and the accompanying compulsory levy which by definition establish redistribution.