So the West is to blame for Putin’s irrationality now? What kind of a double-standard is that? How can we possibly negotiate rationally with a madman? Should we have just given him anything he said he wanted? Of course not.

It was never about NATO, that was just a fig leaf to people with terminal “both sides” mentality. This has always been sold to Russia has returning to its rightful place as a glorious empire. That’s Putin’s personal motivations as well and he was damn clear about it in his invasion-eve speech.

This is about liberal democracy versus ruthless authoritarianism, and if you repeat Kremlin talking points, you’ve chosen the side of ruthless authoritarianism. Russia faked evidence and used it as pretext for their invasion. This is a war of aggression based on misinformation.

Putin seems quite rational in the interviews I've seen. A much more rational clear-thinker in fact than the last couple US presidents. I think it is fair to call him a power-hungry, aggressive, ruthless authoritarian.

Even if NATO is just a fig leaf, why give it to him? Why give him the chess piece that makes it easier to justify this war?

One of the great things about a liberal democracy is that we can openly criticize the strategic choices our government has made. I sure hope that we can continue to do that without labeling those dissenters as supporting ruthless authoritarianism.

There’s nothing rational about his Ukraine invasion. Russian gains absolutely bubkis from this, and NATO has become stronger than ever. From what perspective was the invasion rational? Elites in Russia are in absolute disbelief. Putin lost all his cards the minute he actually invaded. So much for being a rational player.

It’s great to be skeptical of our government. It’s not so great to repeat kremlin talking points nearly verbatim.

Was the Bay of Pigs invasion rational?

Are invasions and overthrow of governments somehow okay when they install a pro-democratic and/or US-friendly leader? What if it fails and that leader turns out to be worse than the previous one?

Keep in mind that the US/NATO has been closely involved in many of these overthrows: Libya, Yemeni, Syria, Iraq, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada. Pretty much all of these involved lots of civilian death and collateral damage.

These aren't kremlin talking points, this is history. It's important to try to break out of the filter bubble and consider alternative viewpoints. At least consider the possibility that NATO is abusing its power and taking actions that are far beyond its original charter/purpose.

I am not following your logic. Are you saying that the USA has done bad things in the past, therefore Russia should be allowed to indiscriminately murder Ukrainians? In my lifetime, I have never seen the USA do anything as evil as what Russia is doing right now.

I'm just saying it's quite rational to be concerned when a foreign nuclear missile alliance sets up shop on your doorstep. Putin has had many interviews where he has stated this is his primary concern and that the west isn't listening.

The US almost started WW3 over exactly that same thing in the not so distance past during the cuban missile crisis.

We get mad when Russia interferes with US-elections with a few online bots but the US directly funded and participated in the overthrow of the pro-Russia Ukrainian government in 2014. There was violence involved, why is it okay when the US murders Ukrainians to install a sympathetic government but not when Russia does it? It's hypocritical.

If it were up to me, I'd disband NATO entirely (too much polarizing history) and replace it with a new organization with a very similar charter, but open membership to Russia and China. The purpose of this organization should be to prevent world wars, not to decide local elections, especially when those elections/conflicts involve non-member countries.

If it were up to me, I’d disband Russia entirely (too much polarizing history). I’d charter it as a constitutional democracy but remove its right to a standing army. The purpose of Russia should be to increase the happiness of its citizens and protect their welfare, not keep them under the iron boot of some mafioso tyrant so he can pursue his mad dreams.

You may be right, I don't like autocratic rulers for life either, and I think a majority in the US and NATO agree with that very sentiment.

However note how aggressive a stance that is. NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization but with the charter/purpose you suggest, it is rational for Putin and Xi to fear US/NATO aggression and do whatever it takes to fight its expansion. It is very much a threat to their survival, and the existence of their countries as they know it.

The problem is that Ukraine was not able to join NATO and is invaded anyway.

Ukraine joining NATO has been in the works for over a decade now and it is already closely involved with and cooperating with NATO including joint military drills. It's done everything short of being an official member:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...

It couldn't join NATO until the war against Donetsk and the Dombass were over anyway. That mean recognition that this region seceded. Doesn't matter the formation/joint training, it wasn't legally possible for Ukraine to join.