Since we are mutually criticized that we are transatlantic and the „NATO war alliance“thugs and at the same time mouthpieces of Putin’s neo-imperialism in the form of one of Putin’s advisers Dr. Rahr have, a few more basic words about what Global Review stands for, also and especially in the Ukraine crisis. We’re going to take a battle break now and just wait and see. We have sufficiently documented and commented on the positions of both sides. It is now the time of the secret diplomats. We do not rule out a Russian invasion, although we do not believe that this would be the result of a Ukrainian offensive. Maybe something like that is the trigger, but for us, two (if not three, if you read the Chinese) imperialist great powers meet here much more fundamentally – the whole regional powers left out. The West or parts of it want to expand further and hide behind the label of freedom of alliance, Putin wants to change the entire European security architecture and world order and also expand, not only in Europe, the Chinese with him also a multipolar world order that will be fought out if no compromises can be made. The West’s claim that Ukraine’s NATO membership is not imminent and that Putin is therefore also the aggressor is partly correct, but ignores the fact that if the West declares its imperialist expansion for the future through freedom to choose alliances, then it is not towards any peace hope . Why not a neutral Ukraine and Belarus if you don’t want further enlargement? Why no status like Switzerland or post-war Austria or even a function of a bridge state for Ukraine and Belarus? Therefore, for us at Global Review, these are two or three imperialist points of view, with which we do not at all share common ground. A neutral Ukraine as a bridge state would be the starting point for international solutions as well, unless all the major powers involved want their own maximum expansion and a regime change for the other and there was no space for any compromise. As long as the West excludes the option of a neutral Ukraine and dogmatically prefers the imperialist itle of the right to choose alliances, one need not be surprisedabout an Russian invasion. Although we also see a desire among some forces in the West and the USA for polarization to occur via the West versus Russia-China axis to allow two separate financial circuits and other decoupling and polarization to be promoted by means of Swift sanctions, which Blackrock-Merz also warns against, also with regard to an associated economic and financial crisis, although this again seems exaggerated, since Russia’s financial transactions with the West and also the trade relations account for 5% at best. Does not matter. We could go on forever now. Because the Russian side will provide us with more Putin propaganda and the Western counterparts are just as committed to NATO’s further eastward expansion to include Ukraine as the West, we at Global Review are faced with the question of whether we should present both sides and narratives, also in the form of an interview from the transatlantists and the Russian side, or keep us out of it, or write our own article about it, or continue to serve unofficially as a discussion forum and possibly a small back channel without comment from either side. We cannot be more and less, nor do we want to be.