Hold on, Russia invaded Georgia without reasonable provocation. That seems pretty aggressive to me. All of the fighting was on GEORGIAN soil, none on Russian. Georgia never attacked Russia, yet Russia attacked Georgia. Seems pretty aggressive on Russia's part to me.2. Clearly any view that Russia is the aggressor for responding aggressively to the US anti-missile shield in eastern Europe is anti-Russian and bias for the US and the west.
Actually, Russia was referencing Kosovo more than Iraq. As for Iraq, there were several UN Security Council resolutions regarding it and there was legal authorization from the UNSC to invade Iraq - though some dispute that fact. There is no such resolution or authorization regarding Georgia.3. Not everyone understood that Russian unilateral intervention in Georgia was a warning to the west that it cannot do the same without giving Russia those rights, and referring to Iraq.
We should see good and constructive relations if and only if Russia shows it wants to respect international norms. Invasions of small neighbors like Georgia doesn't cut it. Threats toward Ukraine also don't cut it. Russia is beginning to behave like it did in the old days. There is no reason to develop constructive relations with The Bear until it shows it can live within the international rule of law.4. Not developing a closer relationship to Russia would be wrong of Europe, we should try to develop as good and as stable and influential a relationship with Russia as we can. Any statement against this is just anti-Russian and US bias.. Why in the world should we not seek good relations with Russia?
Russia manufactured the missile shield issue. It was clearly targeted toward rogue regimes in the Middle East. The small number of anti-missile bateries involved wouldn't even dent the Russian arsenal and is completely misplaces vis a vis possible Russian missile attacks on the US (which would follow the Great Circle route over the pole)5. The US stubbornness over the missile shield even when Russia threatens with nuclear war as retaliation is clearly a bad move from the US, not Russia.
I agree that I prefer a variety of sources - I read English, French, Chinese, Indonesian, and Japanese sources with varying degrees of regularity. However, the rules state OP links must be in English and I believe most users of DP are mono-lingual and ENglish is the only common language we all have, so we have to stick with that. Unless, MZ, you would like me to start making posts in Traditional Chinese?None of these things were reflected in the article, just the opposite, the usual pro western bias that every UK and American paper takes, rather than a rational approach.. Russian newspapers are the same way, but even worse, so I still prefer a basket of media from many different nations in different languages to get a proper overview of the situation in an unbiased light.