Please read this careful Dejan, this is going to be a long one.
What view? That Russia is not as bad as the news makes it seem? That the US and the west is to blame for the situation in Ukraine? You need to be specific when you define an alternative view. As for facts, you provide none. In your daily dose of propaganda some things are made to look so obvious, they cannot be anything but facts. When you examine these obvious things a bit closer, you will quickly see that they are much more subjective and interpretable then they make out to be. That is why people disagree. You need to look closely at the assumptions you are making and separate fact from opinion, something you have proven to be poor at.
So let’s take a look at these fella’s. All of them are essentially Russophiles. The first, John Maersheimer does indeed make compelling arguments and paints a detailed picture of the battle of ideologies that has taken place in Ukraine. I expect someone that appreciates alternative views so much to have looked into the criticism as well. If you do, you will see that you need to make some very important distinctions in Mearseimer’s reasoning. Maersheimer explains very well what western actions triggered Putin to behave in a certain way with regards to Ukraine, but glosses over the difference between predictable reaction and justification. When interviewed on America turning Ukraine into a liberal democracy he stated the following:
You keep saying “turning Ukraine into a liberal democracy,” and it seems like that’s an issue for the Ukrainians to decide. nato can decide whom it admits, but we saw in 2014 that it appeared as if many Ukrainians wanted to be considered part of Europe. It would seem like almost some sort of imperialism to tell them that they can’t be a liberal democracy.
It’s not imperialism; this is great-power politics. When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate.
Sure, it’s not like America (or other western countries) haven’t behaved in this way, but let’s just focus on this bit here, OK? You see, if you’re a minor nation in the vicinity of a great power, then you essentially have no power over your own domestic policy regarding your preferred political system, because it may provoke a reaction from the great power nextdoor. When pressed on whether this should even be the case, Maersheimer simply responded: “That’s the way the world works.” I hope you see the inherent flaw in this argument, because it is incredibly subjective. I would argue that because it is the way the world works is not the reason that it should work. He completely abandons the justification part here. Just because a great power is capable in acting in a certain way, means not that it is justified for doing so. For someone who rages out about the ‘unjustified’ intervention in Kosovo, you should really question if this is the line of reasoning that you want to follow.
As for Vladimir Pozner, I think there’s some good reasoning for the situation in the post collapse Soviet Union that was taken advantage of by western capitalists, leading to a situation favourable for the rise to power of Vladimir Putin. Just because that happened though doesn’t mean it is the leader Russia deserves. Western capatalists can definitely be blamed for robbing Russia, but so can the Russian oligarchs. It does not mean they are justified in robbing Russia just because the west did it first.
As for the “Ukraine on Fire” documentary, may I recommend “Winter on fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom”. Great alternative view on the events of the Maidan Revolution. You can find it on Netflix.
As for Scott Ritter: We start of with quite a loaded question from the interviewer, but I’ll allow it:
“Why is it that the US and UK are more interested in the situation on the Ukrainian border than the one on our own domestic borders?”
The answer: “It’s not uncommon for leaders to distract from domestic issues with foreign ones. Ukraine is the ideal external distraction, because you can create a narrative. It’s a narrative of the heroic Ukrainian resistance against the evil Russian bear, but not just the Russian bear, Vladimir Putin in person.” He then makes a bunch of comments on the evil of Vladimir Putin. “And this is how unfortunately in the UK and the US, stories are sold to the public. They are sold by a narrative built around perception, not reality.”
So let’s break this down. The main storyline, is that it’s favorable for western leaders to focus on news that’s outside of their control in order to keep the public from complaining too much about domestic affairs, the really pressing issue apparently being the ‘immigrant crisis’ at the national border. This is generally a true effect, but it’s not limited to democratically elected leaders. Putin’s approval ratings were at one of its lowest points ever just before the Maidan revolution in 2014. They then skyrocketed following his annexation of Crimea. Other context, same effect. How do we deal with this? A free press that’s keen on pressing on and addressing domestic issues even in time of foreign crises would help, wouldn’t it? Keeping our leaders accountable even when tragedies happen abroad, that sort of thing.
The much more insidous suggestion here is that the widespread coverage of the wat in Ukraine is created only because the western leaders need a distraction from their domestic politics. It’s not said out loud, but lines such as “They are sold a narrative built around perception not reality” do seem strongly suggestive. Just because something can be convenient doesn’t mean that there’s a causality. If you are in the Drivethru and you want to order some chicken wings, then when you ask for it, the previous customer apparantly didn’t take his home, so you get them for free is a very convenient course of events, but the two are not necessarily related. I also wonder what they then believe is reality if the coverage of the war in Ukraine is somehow false, but that question is not answered in this video. Suggest something is the case to somebody already in your line of thought and now they believe that thing is indeed the case. You can see how the interviewee is introduced with his ‘brilliant’ previous remarks on police brutality and the debacle in Afghanistan. From the way it sounds, he probably had some great insights in this, some I will probably even agree with, but that does not mean the next thing coming out of his mouth can’t be a piece of shit. This is just an example of gaslighting and the power of suggestion. It’s hard to call people out on it, because it is only a suggestion, but it’s dirty propaganda in the end.
Few simple facts exist in human history and certainly not a generalization as broad as this one. You assume these are obvious, but I honestly wonder what you’re referring to when you say “devastation done by the collective west” What devastation exactly? What collective west? Is that even a collective or a broad garbage bin of everything bad that’s ever happened?
Some more deflecting on “the west is so bad, boohoo. Now Soviet Union must be good, because west bad, boohoo” Sorry, but I am sick and tired of hearing it. I know you’re referring to operation Unthinkable, and you probably know just as well as I do how poor that is as a counterargument.
As a final note:
I think Maersheimer already explained perfectly well that Russia has clear interests outside of their own borders and that they are clearly willing to pursue those, but perhaps you already consider Ukraine part of Russia’s territory or is that not what you are suggesting here.
bitches with mushroom 
farms can develop into a real nuisance. 
oh and that others in the past did it too doesn’t make it OK.
We’ll nuke you! 