Would it be valid?
Theres a reason the Crimea "referendum" is not accepted, and the issue is far from settled.
This is a complete lie. Also the USSR settled Crimea with many Russians to change its demographics.
Tell me: in 1941, did the Baltic States enter the Soviet Union willingly (via democratic votes of coincidentally brand new Soviet-aligned governments) or did it happen due to Soviet military coercion, threats and ultimatums? Was it a settled issue in 1945-1953[1]? In 1989[2]? How about now? Same question about Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
2. Finding it really hard not to see this as victim blaming. Do you believe cutting off the water supply to Crimea was what prompted a military invasion that targeted Kiyv, among other targets? Should Ukraine have absorbed the infrastructure costs, maintenance, etc. to keep the water supply operational for a, your words 'settled issue'? Since it would then be an international matter, the water supply question would be governed by treaties, yes? Again, at the very least, there are costs involved in keeping the water flowing. Unless you feel this is a situation where Russia can take what ever it wants and get paid for it. A sort of Bullying as a Service, if you will.
3. First of all: what if Russia's the pawn? Secondly: did the US organize the 2003 Tuzla Island incident, where Russia tried to annex Ukraine's island in the Kerch strait? Might this be a pattern that's not solely the interest of the US military-industrial complex?
4. Whataboutism. Or, as the Soviets used to say: "Oh yeah? And you're lynching negroes in the US!".[3]
5. Since you are equivocating the Soviet Union and Russia, the US is objectively more benign. To paraphrase your point: you are making the same mistake that most US "anti-imperialists" make by seeing it as the most active and subversive force in human history. In terms of repressiveness and meddling in foreign countries (coups, revolutions), Russian and Soviet history is hard to beat. Bucha in 2022 is what my great grandparents and grandparents had to live through when the Soviets occupied our country. The equivocation is justified.
6. It takes two to tango, but it's hard to listen to the crowd shouting about how you should start dancing when the other side has just left the floor and stabbed your mother in plain sight of everyone.
Fascinating how you agreed that the Russian narrative is completely ridiculous and then ended with another whataboutism about the US.
1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Soviet_partisans#During_S... 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way 3- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
1. Crimea is a settled issue. You may not like it and the referendum was obviously flawed by repeated Western polls since 2014 have shown annexation by Russia to be widely popular (~70% support). So much of this post talks about agency. What about Crimean agency?
2. While Russia is the bad guy here without doubt, you can't gloss over Ukraine's failings here. Stop with the binary thinking here that one or the other is wrong or that criticizing Ukrainian actions is victim-blaming. Prime example: cutting off the water to Crimea following 2014 by any objective standard is a human rights violation;
3. Ukraine has been a pawn for US foreign policy. It's wild to pretend otherwise. For the US military-industrial complex the current situation is basically ideal. Russia is mired in a war they cannot win, Russia has been isolated from the international community, Europe is set to become less dependent on Russian energy exports, NATO is strengthened and the US gets to sell lots of weapons to Ukraine.
4. The idea that Russia doesn't want a buffer to NATO is laughable and hypocritical. It ignores 200 years of the Monroe Doctrine where the US will not accept any foreign military presence in the Western hemisphere (it's self-declared sphere of influence). This was practically tested when the US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. So why is that OK for the US but not Russia?
5. These authors make the same mistakes most US wonks do: they view the US as benign. Even if you agree with that you should at least accept that not everyone else does and there's plenty of evidence it isn't. I mean NATO's raison d'etre was to destroy the USSR. The USSR is gone so now it's by default the destroy Russia alliance.
6. As for the diplomatic solution, there ultimately will be one. There always is. Even unconditional surrender is a diplomatic end. Russia is a nuclear power. The pre-WW2 standards of defeating hegemonic powers just don't apply any more. There's a whole straw man bit in this about how the only alternative is unconditional surrender. Nobody is saying that.
I think the only thing I agree with is the justification for the invasion (most notably "denazification") is completely ridiculous. This is propaganda and it's what imperial powers do. It's really no different to the US spreading democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.