Puh-lease. Any other argument other than that tired argument. As if the US military has not been complicit in similar business around the world.

Which of the two, Russia or the US, would you rather live in and associate yourself with?

Not sure how that question is relevant, but if you think the politicians and military brass are worried at all about the “murders of children and women” I have a bridge to sell you.

The 99% who aren't psychopaths worry about it very much as something to be avoided if at all possible

Noble intentions and I agree with you it should be avoided, but again I’m confused that you’re suggesting that morality is the major driver for the actions or inactions of nations around the world when it comes to war. It probably is the major driver for most people as you say, but geopolitics simply don’t work that way.

>"Continue doing business as usual as if they're not murdering women and children?"

No we should do everything possible to stop it.

There is a problem though - when "murdering women and children" is done by approved country "Continue doing business as usual" is pretty much what the West does. And I am not aware of any real repercussions for the crimes committed.

You have to pick your battles and fact is, the American public wants to stop Russian atrocities in Ukraine. They don't want to do anything about Yemen or Syria. I'm sure many books have been written about how and why people get involved to help strangers.

The problem for both Syria and Yemen with US audiences is that the USA just went through 2 decades of jingoistic anti-Muslim propaganda and complicated Middle-East wars ending in political failure.

The war in Ukraine is a straightforward story with an obvious bad guy, and it doesn’t require much self reflection to figure out or cause much cognitive dissonance.

>"They don't want to do anything about Yemen or Syria."

"They" were fine with their own government killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq and whole bunch of other countries. They're fine with their government threatening ICC as organization and its members. They've definitely picked their battle and frankly I think by doing all those things without any repercussion they are being hypocrites and setting example to other countries. No high moral ground here. The whole world affairs are quite disgusting for that matter.

Personally I just try to think about nice things that humanity still manage to produce and as I am a creative person my brain is always busy with rather more inspiring matters.

The American public want what the TV tells them to want. Today it's Ukraine, but tomorrow nobody will be able to find Europe on a map.

Yes, Manufacturing Consent is a good one.

The media & their masters tells us who to support. And Ukraine vs Russia is profitable.

It's simpler than a conspiracy, although a conspiracy may exist. Ukrainians are white, Christian, hold Western values and millions of people of Ukrainian descent live in the US and Canada. Opposing Russia is an easy sell.

We're in agreement (unfortunately for dark-skinned people all over the world).

Sign multilateral treaties declaring Ukraine won't join NATO ?

And what about Ukraine? Why should it's sovereignty be surrendered? Why are you blaming the victim of agression they didn't surrender? When else would you apply that same logic?

sovereignty is not surrendered by respecting the condition of avoiding all military bloc alliances, under which such sovereignty was granted initially [1]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, produce or acquire nuclear weapons."

[1] https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...

First, intention of Ukraine. Not "condition" for independence.

Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum. Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the situation is already drastically different. Ukraine's choice post-2014 were to surrender to Russia's whims, or try to find allies to protect it from future Russian incursions.

And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto.

> First, intention of Ukraine. Not "condition" for independence.

These are the same in the followed legal events (see below)

> Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum

The Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994. The Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine was signed in 1990 and it pre-dates all further legal documents that led to Ukraine's independence. All subsequent legal documents and events are predicated on respecting and referencing the declaration of 1990. The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 references and follows the Act of proclamation of independence of Ukraine from August 24, 1991, which in turn follows and references "Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine" [1]. Implementing the declaration means following and executing all intentions of the declaration, that's why I said above that "conditions" and "intentions" mean the same thing in the underlying legal procedures.

> Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014

you forgot to add: after a prior armed coup against a legitimately elected president in Kyiv. The coup, among many other things, violated the right to a political representation of the people's voice who voted for that president. In case of president Yanukovych, these were the people of the eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, who were deprived of their right to a democratic process in their country.

> And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto.

Blatantly false, the Ukrainian SSR had certain autonomy under the Union, as did a few other european and asian SSR's, but it didn't have sovereignty [2]. This is the whole reason the Declaration of 1990 exists in the first place, as it was the means to declare and begin a legal transition to a sovereign state. And in that sense sovereignty was granted to Ukraine, because there only are two ways a nation can obtain sovereignty: either by fighting for it in a war or by coming into a peaceful legal agreement on mutually respected terms and conditions. In 1990, the second approach was taken and the terms and conditions were declared and signed by all parties in the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of...

[2] Under the Soviet one-party model, the Ukrainian SSR was governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union through its republican branch: the Communist Party of Ukraine. No decision of the government of Ukraine (Council of Ministers) was adopted without approval of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Rep...

If they're gonna be murdering women and children regardless, we might as well not crash our economies...

I wonder, how many people will die because of Russia (war) vs. because of Western sanctions (famine+energy crisis). So far Russia is "winning" but let's wait until the winter...

The world economy was experiencing severe problems due to the pandemic. Russia's attempt to secure Ukraine for itself may have pushed it over the edge, but it didn't cause the collapse.