The strongest argument they can make is one based on the hypocrisy of the west. (But there is a lot of truth there that's why it's strong and they use it)
It boils down to "they did it, so we should too".
It doesn't have any morality and say it's good or has any claim to noble acts. There's no positive arguments in support only negative against their enemies.
The west has the freedom mythos for people outside to believe in. Russia only had an internal facing fatherland idea. Russia does not appeal to freedom for all in its propaganda, indeed they will attack the idea of freedom as false through examples of western hypocrisy.
It's also defended, for example, by the claim that the entire world except Russia, is lying via media, corporations etc.
Wikipedia article: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...>
This may look like a made-up conspiracy theory, but everything was public, in the open on their official web site at the time (link at the bottom to copy on archive.org). (Oh boy, am I going to get downvoted for this ...)
Anyway, any German that is in favor of the Russian border moving closer to Germany is an idiot, and possibly too stupid and ignorant to be helped.
The USA got rid of a really bad dictator in Iraq. Ukraine's government was democratically elected and much better.
The USA did not annex Iraq (directly or by proxy), take Iraq's oil or establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Putin has explicitly said he sees Ukraine as part of a new Russian empire.
Also, you can't really compare Saddam to Zelenskyy.
There are probably nuanced arguments to be made about which is worse. You could maybe argue that attacking a NATO-aligned country is more dangerous for world peace than attacking Iraq was (at least from a western perspective). You could point to the fact that there's no reason to believe Putin will stop after Ukraine if that attack goes well; his "excuse" for invading Ukraine applies to most former Soviet countries. But you don't have to defend US invasions, you can accept that at least some US invasions are bad even if you generally prefer US hegemony to Russian or Chinese hegemony (which I also do, FWIW).
However, objectively, one cannot with the same breath claim and act as if there are no other world views and values and interests (China, Russia, Middle East, etc), which is dismissed apriori or even vilified.
I wonder whether my own leanings are not just a results of the easy life (materially) which is an end result of wealth extraction by US and EU from the poorer countries (assured by policies of economic or military). When I talk to friends from the Middle East or Africa who live or lived on the other side which is used to extract wealth for the west, have very different opinion/view. One might be surprised to learn what ME average person think about a westerner (as an abstraction).
In summary, living under hegemony in prosperity (and a future assurance of it) it is easy position to defend and take security in it (and its values). However, being or living on the other side of this equation one is confronted with different view.
Non-Western non-superpowers are no more excited about being kicked around by Russia and China than Western ones. Western hegemony hasn't been all good for them, but it beats the amoral free-for-all that self-loathing Westerners wish for.
Typical Putinist deflection. Watch some talk shows on Russian TV involving him from the past decade. Whenever people question or criticize his actions, he does not answer and instead start raving on about the US this and the west that. Even if the action has nothing to do with the US or the west. It's a simple tactic to try move focus from whatever he's doing to whatever evil he thinks the west has done. He's always doing everything to paint the west in bad light; he wants people to think the west is evil, and in doing so, he's supposed to get a free pass.
I used to watch (English) Russian propaganda channels on youtube. They're all full of this. Obviously a lot of people buy it.
The reality is that whether the war in Iraq was justified or not is a completely separate discussion, and the US going to war with Iraq (whether justified or not) is not a justification for Russia going to war with Ukraine.
You can draw parallels, but that is no justification. And vague "self-interests" is no justification. Anyone who thinks USA waged war for oil is probably also condemning that war.
For another example of self-interest, Finland (together with Nazi Germany) attacked the Soviets in Continuation War in order to regain lost territory and to annex East Karelia. You can argue that's self-interest but it does not justify invasion, and I think most people condemn that offensive.
This. If all we do is justify our current actions with the past, then every country can find some historic argument for invading another country. So yes, US in Iraq means nothing for Russia attacking Ukraine, it is a red herring by Putin propaganda. It is just hard or impossible to convince those who believe in it.
Morally speaking, it's not justified for humans to keep making war
Objectively speaking, it's justified from Russia's point of view
> If all we do is justify our current actions with the past, then every country can find some historic argument for invading another country
Unfortunately, history repeats itself because human nature is difficult to change, so that's likely to happen for centuries
That is such absurd wording. It almost sounds like you're trying to make an argument but you aren't really.
You can always put it like that. "I see Russia as a security concern. Objectively speaking from my point of view Russia is a threat and we should pre-emptively nuke Moscow. It's justified from my point of view."
You can ask how effective the US's invasion was; they spent two TRILLION in various wars in the middle east, I don't believe for a second the oil was worth it, and (from a distant armchair observation) the US had no lasting effects in their favor in the middle east; they've instead made a generation of people growing up under the Americans pissed off. To the point where I wouldn't be surprised if Russia makes a move south again.
Hussein was actually a dictator (zelensky is .. so far .. not)
US underlying reason was more access to oil than increasing territory, it stays at the economical layer.
US freedom narrative was easier to swallow than Putin's (less poisoning of opponents, less nuclear threats)
Russia feels more corrupted and dictatorial than US ? (a bit like the point above)We need a plan now.
Also some documentary makers went to interview the oppressed russian speaking 'freedom fighters' in Donbass and the main guy was a Russian coronel from Moscow who theoretically had quit the Moscow millitary before becoming a 'rebel' but seemed still pretty much loyal to and funded by Moscow.
I argued that both conflicts cannot be compared. USA was reactive (against the threat of 9-11), whereas Russia is proactive, invading an independent country with shallow arguments (Nato is a defense alliance that would never invade Russia, yet Putin calls Nato a threat).