I actually think that this is wrong. And that is the key to understand Russia’s behavior.
Russia seems to have (legitimate I would say, given the past) fears that it will be attacked eventually like it happened in the past and needs to be - as a result of that - heavily defended.
It's true that USA has done some terrible things in the past. And it's too bad the perpetrators never got punished. But it doesn't mean we should tolerate this behaviour elsewhere.
Russia is after all a rational actor on the world stage, and they must have thought the benefits are stronger than the cons.
It is 'rational' in Russian to invade a former colony, because they should be dominated by Russia. 75% of the elite are good with that, 50% of the population and the rest will be mostly indifferent in the end.
Russia obviously does not want NATO expansion but they are not afraid of it, and NATO 'on their borders' is not an existential concern.
Much like Putin set the 'red lines' for intervention and is destroying a nation saying 'others cannot be involved but we can' - his propaganda has you in the same 'mental bubble' - thinking about 'NATO' while he does the unthinkable.
Russia also has no interest in telling the truth - they lie, lie, lie. Their diplomacy is entire a function of leverage.
Your taking the intellectual posture of an abused person, listening to the excuses of 'why he had to abuse you' etc..
Again - if you want to understand, just read Putin's own words [1].
He does not view Ukraine as a 'place'. He views Ukraine as basically part of 'greater russia' and that 'Ukraine' is not real.
Also, read McFaul's thesis about NATO and Russia.
[1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
[2] https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears...
That makes no sense at all [0], it wasn't Russian politicians that went to Euromaidan to rile the people there up how more negotiations would be "Not enough" [1], that were pretty much Western, and particularly US politicians and "their people" in Ukraine, like Arseniy Yatsenyuk [2].
Who Victoria Nuland called "our man in Ukraine" when discussing how to grandfather in his new Ukrainian government at the UN [3]
Even Germany threw in their bid for new PM of Ukraine, with a German national [4], thus Klitschko didn't even qualify for that position without an Ukrainian citizenship.
I guess they could have done it like with Natalie Jaresko, an American banker who ended up becoming the new Ukrainian minister of finance, got her Ukrainian citizenship the same day she was sworn in as minister [5].
This whole situation also lead to the Russian military having massive supply issues, as East Ukraine used to be rather integral manufacturing hub for Russian military arms [6]. Why would Russia want to "manufacture" losing all of that?
> It's true that USA has done some terrible things in the past. And it's too bad the perpetrators never got punished. But it doesn't mean we should tolerate this behaviour elsewhere.
The US still is doing these things, US troops still illegally occupy territories in places like Cuba and Syria. US drones and Special forces still kill people in at least half a dozen countries [7], with the help of countries that allegedly condone wars of aggression [8], Gitmo is still open and nobody knows how many more like it secretly exist.
In that context I find it fascinating how US war crimes are always declared like this thing from a far flung past that simply doesn't matter anymore, to then turn around and demand how the whole world should punish Russia for war crimes like its the next Nazi Germany.
Which I totally could get behind, if this was the universal reaction to such acts of aggression, but it absolutely is not. That's only the reaction when established "rogue nations" aka the alleged "bad guys" engage in such aggression, thus it can be exploited to support US foreign policy narratives.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahn...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20140302111543/http://openukrain...
[3] https://youtu.be/WV9J6sxCs5k
[4] https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/id_66915060/ukra...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Jaresko#Citizenship
[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20150329000809/http://www.soufan...
[7] https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...
[8] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...
US war crimes are a thing, sure. But Russia just demonstrated a whole another level, as proven by genocide in Bucha, Mariupol and many others, as well as mass kidnappings and relocations to Siberia. US invaded countries, while Russia is literal Nazis.
As for why Russia was manufacturing the conflict: it’s obvious, it’s an attempt to grab land. They succeeded with Crimea.
This is Russian propaganda - either from someone who doesn't understand the situation (i.e. 'Useful Idiocy' as Stalin himself coined the term) - or - arguing in bad faith.
It's ironically a very good example of the cynical, authoritarian, toxic 'bad faith' acting by the Russian government, and people.
Foreign Minster Lavarov - literally just yesterday, was lambasting Israel for 'supporting the Nazi regime in Ukraine'.
The word 'repulsive' isn't strong enough.
'NATO expansion' is - much like the public story of 'WMDs in Iraq' - a canard.
It's as stupid as the lie about 'denazification' which Putin is using to justify a genocide.
Russia has no real threat from NATO - there is 0% chance of NATO aggression towards Russia, and they know it.
Concerns about 'not listening to Russian concerns for 7 years' is another lie - as though Russia had a material position to begin with.
Russia created the problems in Ukraine, quite on purpose.
In 2004 they poisoned Ukrainian Yushchenko, later, the GRU/FIS/FSB were all over, controlling and corrupting their stooge Yanukovich - who publicly declared he was going to focus on Europe, but after consolidating power, he indicated that Ukraine was going to 'Go with Russia'.
A revolution ensued - and Putin invaded Crimea and invaded (yes, invaded) the Donbas where his forces 'not in uniform' were used to start a conflict between Ukrainians.
Even the leaders of the Ukrainian ultra nationalists were on Putin's payroll - he was cynically playing both sides.
If you want to understand Putin's genocidal motivations in Ukraine, read his own words [1]
You can read Michael McFaul's (former Ambassador to Russia) great articulation of the situation [2]
2)
Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian mass murderer who invaded Kuwait (Iran before that), gassed his own citizens.
Saddam would call out members of Congress, ask them to confess to their failures ... and then have them executed on the spot.
Saddam is responsible for situation he created for himself, American intentions and methods were overall in good faith, though obviously poorly applied.
The 'WMD story' was an exaggeration of reality for reasons of populism, but it was not even false - WMD's were a problem for this regime, as was his ongoing antagonism.
[1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
[2] https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears...