It's a pretty obvious case in Ukraine. Zelenskyy ran on a program of peace, but was perfectly happy to allow a gigantic army to be formed in his country, obviously to threaten Russia, and for NATO missiles to be planned for installation in Ukraine, similar to the ones installed in Romania and Poland which happen to be pointed at Moscow. Although originally fitted with conventional explosives it is possible to fit them with nuclear missiles and Russia is not permitted to inspect them. And Zelenskyy has been very open about his desire to join NATO against clear repeated warnings from Russia. So how would a democracy cope with a leadership elected to do one thing, but then does the exact opposite of it's mandate?
The intent of the missiles is not to nuke Russia, obviously, but to threaten. The idea is to threaten the public into capitulation, allowing the Russian Federation to break up into 18 smaller republics which can be more easily controlled by US petroleum companies or other asset buying groups. It's to repeat the break up of the USSR again, digesting the largest remaining block.
A pretty obvious case in the US. Most of the population don't want another war but we keep getting one. Quit one war and there's another one right behind it. The war makers (defense (sic) contractors) have a lot of power in Washington and without wars of fear of war would make a lot less money.
