Sorry, but this is nonsense analogy. The correct one would be: China attacks Mexico against its will.

If Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia, they would do so via a referendum, just like UK left EU. The referendum would have high turnout and at least 50%+ of population would vote YES, we want to integrate with Russia. That's how things are done when there is a legitimate reason to believe that some country and its residents want such geopolitical change.

"I fail to see why it's a bigger deal than lives lost in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Tigray, Palestine, or any of the other places in recent history where there have been scores of human rights violations"

In terms of tragedy of individuals, it's not "a bigger deal". It's a bigger deal in terms of global security of the western nations and their values. And spare me condescending tone about those values not being ideal or ideally followed - if you have doubts about them then try to change them or relocate to better places - I don't know, maybe to Moscow?

" But if we're really concerned about war with a nuclear power above all else, we shouldn't be poking the bear in its backyard at all "

The bear has entered your backyard.

I agree that the bear shouldn't have been poked for everyone's sake, the Ukrainians most of all. But now that it has, capitulation is not an option for Europe, no more than it was for America wrt Cuba's alignment in the 60s.

There's a school of thought that says capitulation emboldens the attacker. Say Crimea and the whole of Ukraine had been handed over to Russia with no resistance, why would they stop there? Diplomacy fails when the other side misreads your intentions; a seemingly somnulent NATO may wake up to a reconstituted USSR invasion of Poland because Russia is confident fear of nuclear conflict will deter any action. No one wants that.

That is not our choice to make (assuming neither of us is Ukrainian). Our choice is only to cut off support and let Ukraine fight truly alone.

FWIW I don’t think your post should be flagged dead, it is a contrarian opinion but doesn’t break any rules.

This is a complete red herring. They don't want Ukraine to "stay in their orbit," they are colonizers that are fighting against Ukraine's independence. Putin said he doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO. Nobody in NATO is eager to accept Ukraine. Ukraine said they'd stay independent. Now, Putin is saying that Ukraine is essentially Russian, and he's bringing up fake news about genocide and neonazi government.

If you think that Putin will stop at Ukraine, you're sorely mistaken. It's Ukraine now, Georgia right after, and then we shall see.

You do not negotiate with terrorists. We've tried. Ever since Crimea in 2014, the west has been in one large negotiation with Russia, and obviously, nothing worked. At this point, it's all-out everything except actual troops on ground, because it's obvious Putin won't stop unless he's stopped in some way.

He explains exactly how nato has made moves to expand, the puts Russia in a position to respond;

>"I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the nato Summit in Bucharest, where afterward nato issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of nato. The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat, and they drew a line in the sand. Nevertheless, what has happened with the passage of time is that we have moved forward to include Ukraine in the West to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. Of course, this includes more than just nato expansion. nato expansion is the heart of the strategy, but it includes E.U. expansion as well, and it includes turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy, and, from a Russian perspective, this is an existential threat"

You say I don't know why Putin is acting, and then baselessly go on to claim a reason with no support. The idea that all it takes is some strong action, without taking into account the valid objections actual experts have, is ridiculous. This isn't propaganda it's valid foreign policy discussion that many others agree with.

Colonizers? That's a new one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

But even if they did want to "colonize" something they had ancient roots in, they don't have the birthrate to justify it. A total non sequitur.

Georgia right after

Oh, no. Anything but that.

and then we shall see

True. As they say at Davos, "As goes Georgia, so goes Azerbaijan". And then they (at Davos) add a little ominous aside, "...and then we shall see".

troops on ground

You first.

Putin won't stop unless he's stopped in some way

That's true of everything. A falling object also won't stop unless it's stopped in some way. Maybe barring Russian Blues from cat competitions will do the trick. Or maybe starving the poor people of Egypt will wake him up.

Ukraine is not a Russian region that wants to separate, it is a independent democratic country and Putin pretends is part of Russia.

I can also see why Putin wants Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia(he said he wants to restore URSS) but why should we say "bad luck, let him have them and let's buy more gas"

The whole point of my post was responding to the idea that "we must oppose Russia to prevent nuclear war". If that's the real objective, then yes it makes sense to say "well too bad" and but intervene like we do in Tigray and most of the conflicts around the world. I don't see why this particular human rights violation is inexcusable when there are children dying in areas that we are more directly responsible for(ie Iraq or Afghanistan)