Butschi

I meant to comment on this a few days ago... it is really hard to stay up-to-date with this thread. 😉
I'm no historian, just generally interested in this topic. I think you or the OpEd somewhat overestimate the impact the Nuremberg trials had on the general German population. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the trials. They were important in for the first time actually making the ruler of a country accountable for the crimes they commited. That was a powerful message to other rulers. They also made the crimes visible. However, they also allowed the common people to somewhat detach from all this. The top Nazis were convicted, the common people were rather superficially de-nazified and so the blame could be put on Hitler and his cronies who somehow demonically managed to seduce the people (which is still a theme that often repeated in many documentaries).
What's more, during the first few years, the Germans were much more busy generally surviving than facing their crimes. Afterwards, when the (West) German "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) kicked in, people didn't want to be bothered with the past and generally just didn't talk about the 3rd Reich. The reckoning came later when the following generation started asking what their parents had done.
Also, the indeed relatively thorough historical investigation of what happend during 1933-1945 alone did not make the Germans good democrats by itself. Apart from the fact that of course, the Allies did not actually give West Germany a choice, what really helped was that the people profited economically from being on this side of the Iron Curtain. They were actually better off after getting rid of the Nazis. The famous Marshall Plan, for instance, although by itself it had little real economic impact, the mere seeing everywhere "this was built with the help of the Marshall Plan" did a lot.
So, to get back on topic: I don't really think something akin to the Nuremberg trials would have changed that much after the fall of the Soviet Union. I guess that most Russians actually know the Soviet rulers weren't really nice guys. But in the end democracy and capitalism did not improve the lives of the common people. Putin did - whether by correlation or causation or just merely perception doesn't matter.

Maybe, as an afterthought: If we want to draw historical parallels... Maybe the more relevant part is how the Nazis came to power instead of how they ended. Democracy was weak during that time and politians cared more about there little power games than about the people. Then came the Great Depression which hit Germany extremely hard. Enter Hitler who blamed democracy and not only promissed improving the economic situation but actually did so after 1933 (again, it doesn't matter that he used plans drawn up by the previous administration and that Hitler could claim the effects the general recovery of the global economy had for himself).

I meant to comment on this a few days ago... it is really hard to stay up-to-date with this thread. 😉
I'm no historian, just generally interested in this topic. I think you or the OpEd somewhat overestimate the impact the Nuremberg trials had on the general German population. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the trials. They were important in for the first time actually making the ruler of a country accountable for the crimes they commited. That was a powerful message to other rulers. They also made the crimes visible. However, they also allowed the common people to somewhat detach from all this. The top Nazis were convicted, the common people were rather superficially de-nazified and so the blame could be put on Hitler and his cronies who somehow demonically managed to seduce the people (which is still a theme that often repeated in many documentaries).
What's more, during the first few years, the Germans were much more busy generally surviving than facing their crimes. Afterwards, when the (West) German "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) kicked in, people didn't want to be bothered with the past and generally just didn't talk about the 3rd Reich. The reckoning came later when the following generation started asking what their parents had done.
Also, the indeed relatively thorough historical investigation of what happend during 1933-1945 alone did not make the Germans good democrats by itself. Apart from the fact that of course, the Allies did not actually give West Germany a choice, what really helped was that the people profited economically from being on this side of the Iron Curtain. They were actually better off after getting rid of the Nazis. The famous Marshall Plan, for instance, although by itself it had little real economic impact, the mere seeing everywhere "this was built with the help of the Marshall Plan" did a lot.
So, to get back on topic: I don't really think something akin to the Nuremberg trials would have changed that much after the fall of the Soviet Union. I guess that most Russians actually know the Soviet rulers weren't really nice guys. But in the end democracy and capitalism did not improve the lives of the common people. Putin did - whether by correlation or causation or just merely perception doesn't matter.

Maybe, as an afterthought: If we want to draw historical parallels... Maybe the more relevant part is how the Nazis came to power instead of how they ended. Democracy was weak during that time and politians cared more about there little power games than about the people. Then came the Great Depression which hit Germany extremely hard. Enter Hitler who blamed democracy and not only promissed improving the economic situation but actually did so after 1933 (again, it doesn't matter that he used plans drawn up by the previous administration and that Hitler could claim the effects the general recovery of the global economy had for himself).

I meant to comment on this a few days ago... it is really hard to stay up-to-date with this thread. 😉
I'm no historian, just generally interested in this topic. I think you or the OpEd somewhat overestimate the impact the Nuremberg trials had on the general German population. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the trials. They were important in for the first time actually making the ruler of a country accountable for the crimes they commited. That was a powerful message to other rulers. They also made the crimes visible. However, they also allowed the common people to somewhat detach from all this. The top Nazis were convicted, the common people were rather superficially de-nazified and so the blame could be put on Hitler and his cronies who somehow demonically managed to seduce the people (which is still a theme that often repeated in many documentaries).
What's more, during the first few years, the Germans were much more busy generally surviving than facing their crimes. Afterwards, when the (West) German "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) kicked in, people didn't want to be bothered with the past and generally just didn't talk about the 3rd Reich. The reckoning came later when the following generation started asking what their parents had done.
Also, the indeed relatively thorough historical investigation of what happend during 1933-1945 alone did not make the Germans good democrats by itself. Apart from the fact that of course, the Allies did not actually give West Germany a choice, what really helped was that the people profited economically from being on this side of the Iron Curtain. They were actually better off after getting rid of the Nazis. The famous Marshall Plan, for instance, although by itself it had little real economic impact, the mere seeing everywhere "this was built with the help of the Marshall Plan" did a lot.
So, to get back on topic: I don't really think something akin to the Nuremberg trials would have changed that much after the fall of the Soviet Union. I guess that most Russians actually know the Soviet rulers weren't really nice guys. But in the end democracy and capitalism did not improve the lives of the common people. Putin did - whether by correlation or causation or just merely perception doesn't matter.

Maybe, as an afterthought: If we want to draw historical parallels... Maybe the more relevant part is how the Nazis came to power instead of how they ended. Democracy was weak during that time and politians cared more about there little power games than about the people. Then came the Great Depression which hit Germany extremely hard. Enter Hitler who blamed democracy and not only promissed improving the economic situation but actually did so after 1933 (again, it doesn't matter that he used plans drawn up by the previous administration and that Hitler could claim the effects the general recovery of the global economy had for himself).

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

You missed the point.  A coup represents Ukraine not being a successful democracy.  Democracies don't settle political discussions with military coups.  For Russia the failure of democracy is EXACTLY what they want in Ukraine.

This has been the narrative so far, and Zelensky has been in control of it. But it could quickly change to "the Ukrainian people keep suffering because their president is too stubborn to agree on peace terms... come on, just agree that the Russians withdraw and we go back to how it was before the war and people don't have to die".
I think that's the kind of pressure the Russians are hoping will save their day. Their best case scenario right now is probably to declare a kind of mulligan and that this whole war doesn't count. Then go back and re-arm.
And Putin saves face because he always said this wasn't a war anyway, just a special operation to prevent Ukraine from entering Nato.

That is because we have largely been focusing on the military picture.  Nationally, Ukraine has had serious hurt put upon it.  Its national and economic infrastructure has been severely damaged, it now has to try and get those refugees back or it faces a human capital problem.  It has thousands of civilians still at serious risk and Russia could simply do more and more damage.  It is very likely that a tidal wave of aid will flow in from the West, further pulling UKR away from Russia but any good politicians calculus has to be how to get out of this and still be able to rebuild.  
I am not sure what people thought winning looks like in this situation but it was always going to be "the best bad".

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

In Denmark, there's even a "New Newtown" which is located close to "Old Newtown"

The irony of China doing to Russia what Tsarist Russia did to China is not lost on me ...
Still, all this talk of regime change is just total fantasy. Even now we've no real idea of how the current "special military operation" will pan out.
Before you all get all giddly and "BUT RUAF IS LOLZ!",  I mean we definitely see trends, Russia has definitely been punched in the face (most notably by itself, repeatedly) and UKR seem to be regaining the operational initiative, buuuuuuuuuut it ain't over until the babushka sings. Or Putler's defenestered by the FSB.
Ukraine is NOT out of the woods yet, not by a long shot.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

I don't see how this is going to work. While it looks like you are right and many Russians do want to have a "strong man" at the top who somehow restores Russia to its former glory, how can you force them to change their mind? There is no historical evidence that punishing a people for their government ever worked (correct me if I missed something). There are a bunch of countries which had sanctions imposed on them for decades like Cuba, Iran, North Korea. Did they overthrow their government? No, on the contrary isolation help the respective regime to tighten its grip.
As a German I'd say let's look at what we can learn from history: As Steve pointed out, after WW1, Germany was isolated and severly punished. What good did it do? It only served to give the Germans a deep feeling of humiliation combined with growing resentment towards democracy. The latter because a) they actually stuck to the Versaille Treaty and paid the reparations and b) since democracy really has to be learned, the democratic parties grew quite detached from the people and often only served their own needs. Added to all that came worldwide economic crisis of 1929 which struck (as far as memory serves) Germany the hardest in all of europe. Enter Hitler, the "strong man" who gave the people a feeling of "being someone again", improved the economic situation (doesn't matter that hald of it was based on plans of the previous government and the other half was indebting the country like there's no tomorrow, what counts is perception). By contrast, after WW2, the (western) Allies helped Germany and after a relatively short time Western Germany was welcomed back to international community (again, doesn't matter that this in large parts wasn't kindness but needing the Germans agains the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan helped the US at least as much as it helped Germany, again, what counts is perception).
So, now there is Russia. After the fall of communism what happend? In Russian perception democracy just meant a weak and always drunk Boris Jelzin who stood by and watched while corrupt oligarchs together with "Western" capitalist companies plundered Russia. This in combination with seeing how the once mighty Soviet Union was now, as Russia, only called a "regional power" by western politicians that could do nothing to prevent the former enemy (USA = NATO = EU (perception...)) from encroaching on their borders. Enter Putin. And I fail to see how this would change with further isolating Russia after a hypothetical regime change.
That said, I'm no Russia-Apologist, it doesn't justify attacking another country. Still it would be a grave mistake not to see that pattern and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.

Isn't there at least one Moscow in the States ?
That could make for some tense double-checking of your targeting co-ordinates !

Imo the best way to try to resist the 'confirmation bias' as well as enemy 'mirror imaging' is to try and give the Russians some logical credibility (IE, why would a commander do that. Because they probably arnt actively trying to sabotage the campaign. Why would they when passive measures have already worked so well.) And also we ought to keep in mind that the Russians may still win this thing in a short term and examine new information with that in mind. Sure you see columns of armored vehicles getting blown to hell, tanks knocked out in twos and threes, but its possible that the losses are not yet significant. I'm hearing ~6-7% casualties for the total attacking force so far, assuming even our estimates are correct? (Hint, probably not) Ukraine probably has to double or even triple that before the Russians start to become operationally combat ineffective. Inflicting major losses on even a single BTG isn't as significant because another fresh one can always take its place. And of course we dont know how many losses Ukraine is taking really either. My own reading of history has given me an impression that in modern war the defender typically takes 1:1 or slightly shy casualties as the attacker. The UA may itself be well on the way to collapse, especially in threatened areas like around Mariupol or in the East. 
That being said, tbh I dont think that this thread has really strayed too far off course. We only get a fraction of a picture, but from the picture we have now I dont think anyone is really off base. Who knows what we dont know, right? But there is a difference between anti-Russian bias and 'Russia is objectively losing.' And I agree with @The_Capt that, from a long term and strategic perspective, Russia has basically already lost this war. I conclude this based on the facts of what I'm seeing in this thread. Maybe Russia will do something to save itself last minute, a 'Miracle of the house of Putin.' But assuming not, I have a hard time seeing a real strategic offramp for them. And if that sounds like anti-Russia bias, suggest otherwise. Whats the best case for Russia at this point, backed up by evidence you've seen? 

I think the only danger we have of being misled in an echo chamber style is if the data that the thread is receiving is inaccurate because it's one-sided. I'm fairly sure that most of the "misattributed" imagery is being filtered out before it hits the thread, or flagged shortly thereafter. I don't think I'm alone in being keen to see the facts from both sides, and being disappointed that Russia is so blatantly publishing only lies. But it is something to be careful of, going forward. We don't want to accidentally drink any Kool Aid...

Admittedly it's hard not to feel disgusted by such statements. Really, I don't mean this to be inflamatory and I admit it's easy to say while sitting in my warm home far away from war. Still, the others are humans, too, even if you have good reasons to hate them.
True, but not everyone is a saint and willingly dies for disobeying orders. Orders to shoot at enemies about which propaganda told them for years that they are all a bunch of Nazis and a puppet of NATO.

Indeed, I'd be happy if Ukraine successfully manages to defend itself against this war of aggression. But I'm not cheering for a larger war ;-).

No, he means that we shouldn't become war-cheerleaders.

Above was about the MIGs, not the no fly zone.  No fly zone IS a massive escalation.