If you think Putin's speech was in bad faith and unhinged, then perhaps offer a counter narrative of similar scope, at least going back to WW2. Make sure you talk about Nazis. That's a key talking point going forward. Operation Paperclip and all that.

The propaganda I've seen coming from NATO has been very thin on historical perspectives. Germany's reluctance to pump yet more weaponry into that situation is a wise one, given the past. What past? You should tell us, if you know better than Lavrov.

From my point of view, the Kremlin offered clear logic: Ukraine disputes Russia's take-back of Crimea following the coup (I know, we're supposed to accept that was a bold uprising, while the referendum in Crimea, peaceful, is something to be cynical about) and is technically at war with Russia over this serious territorial dispute.

The moment Ukraine joins NATO, thanks to Article Five, the allies (so-called) are obligated to join in this war against Russia. Telling the Kremlin "yes, but it's up to us to decide when to pull the trigger, and let Ukraine join" was not satisfactory.

Keeping Ukraine permanently out of an expansionist military alliance (now including Columbia) with a track record of bombing Europe (cluster bombs in Belgrade), Libya, Afghanistan, was not a silly objective for Russian diplomats to pursue. They gave it their best shot.

The so-called "West" (mostly Eurasians and DC based oligarchs like the Bindens) said Ukraine's option to join NATO would stay on the table. That was the choice point.

Too bad NATO can't reign itself in autonomously. But as a puppet of the New American Century minded, it couldn't overcome analysis paralysis.