Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday hit out at western
nations, accusing them of raking up the Ukraine issue during G20 meetings
and claiming that nobody "gave a damn" over the situation in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia in previous deliberations of the grouping.

Participating in the Raisina Dialogue, a combative Lavrov wondered why
everyone was asking Russia whether it was ready to negotiate to end the
war when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had signed a decree
making negotiations with Moscow under President Vladimir Putin a "criminal
offence".

https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/it-s-a-shame-only-ukraine-is-of-interest-to-g20-russia-s-sergey-lavrov-123030301373_1.html

Lavrov said US President Joe Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg had publicly stated that Russia must be defeated on the
battlefield.

"They say Russia must suffer a strategic defeat and this they say is
existentialist for the west in the context of global domination. This is a
blunt admission," he said.

Referring to the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting on Thursday, the Russian
minister said the western leaders had raised the Ukraine issue, but
wondered whether previous declarations of the grouping ever discussed the
situation in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan or Yugoslavia.

“Nobody was giving a damn about anything but finances and macroeconomic
policies which the G20 was formed for... when Russia has started to defend
itself, there is nothing except Ukraine that is of interest to the G20,”
he said. “It is a shame. If they say it is existentialist for them, it is
existentialist for us,” he said, adding that Moscow had been warning the
West for decades against the expansion of NATO and pushing arms into
Ukraine to prepare them for war against Russia.

Lavrov said the countries in Europe were not affected by what Russia was
doing in Ukraine, but by the reaction of the West on Moscow's actions in
the region after ample warnings.

### - in terms of what's actually happening with this war, all that we
(the public) have gotten/been-given so far, has been largely propaganda as
opposed to any actual information; particularly that of what's been behind
the war and/or the reasons for it...

obviously this has all been quite deliberate; war-time information being
severely restricted for good reason (loose lips sinks ships etc) + the
fact that public morale has to be kept-up, so it's very hard to discern
what's correct in the news or not...

just how western society has been developing over the past few decades can
be quite suggestive, however, in terms of some obvious historical
trends... particularly that of the race to world domination by 4 differing
groups all vying for security & control of the planet...

e.g., from the our pov: islam, russian & china being the last 3 obstacles
to be overcome by western culture... that with islam now having long since
been 'dis-united' right across the middle east, this last basically
leaving iran (the last bastion/core of islam) almost entirely isolated
with no unified support from other islamic nations (which used to be their
strength) and which basically means they're now outta the race
altogether...

plus, with islam now out of the frame, this leaves ONLY russia & china to
be left standing in the west's way to success, so that what we're 'really'
seeing now with this war in ukraine IS the west's first moves towards that
end: the disposing/disabling of russia and then china, in that order!

something have mentioned/discussed on here 'years' ago if am remembering
correctly, huh thang?

perforce that's NOT what we're being TOLD to think of it all via our
western media - which is all we've gots to depend on seeing as all the
'enemy' channels have now all been banned/excluded? (what a coincidence!
not!)

rest assured, however, that THAT'S what this war IS really all about huh....

and it's apparently because we don't WANNA share and DON'T see why we
should!?

iow: we're being completely selfish: it's gotta be OUR culture for
everyone or NO culture!

and that's just not reasonable! so is likely to fail...

i.e., "peace through strength" is bs!

peace through 'negotiation' is better/far-saner + much more reasonable ;)