Reading about the 1999 Kosovo crisis, and Russia's position on NATO airstrikes. Absolutely fascinating stuff. Here, for instance, we have a statement by @Respublicanez, a leading critic of Putin's regime. Back then Vladimir Ryzhkov was a Russian MP.

He argues that NATO's decisions contravene international law. Says that without UN backing, NATO intervention in Serbia would be unlawful. That's not, Ryzhkov explains, because Russia is fond of Milosevic - it's not. It's because NATO action could create a dangerous precedent.

He says this is dangerous because there are plenty of hot spots in the world, and that violation of international law in one case could quickly lead to other violations. Points to the experience of the 1930s in Europe.

In response to criticism that Milosevic was violating human rights, Ryzhkov says that human rights are violated in many places around the world, and yet punitive action is only being taken against those violators who find themselves in opposition to the US.

In general, much insightful commentary here from Ryzhkov, and I'd just like to reiterate that this commentary comes not from some former KGB, or some Communist renegade; it comes from a liberal MP and (even today) a fierce critic of Putin and Putinism.

The reason we need to understand this is that it's wrong to assume that one's position vis-a-vis Putin necessarily determines one's position vis-a-vis US global hegemony. You can be in deep opposition to Putin and find yourself in serious disagreement with US foreign policy.