I feel this is a somewhat hard question to answer, but will do my best. Apologies in advance as it’s going to be long.
In short, I don’t think that the US and NATO’s action were morally justified.
First, I don’t think the aid to Ukraine was motivated by moral reasons. I don’t think the West cared about the Ukrainian people or our primary goal was to support a Democratic Ukraine (for instance, had a dictator/military government/etc. taken over after the 2014 revolution, and that government decided to align itself with the West vs. Russia, I don’t think our actions would have been any different, even if that government was cruel to it’s own citizens). I think the goal in helping Ukraine was simply part of our efforts to isolate Russia and increase our sphere of influence for economic and other selfish reasons.
Second, I think the West never really intended to give Ukraine enough aid to win a war vs. Russia, but simply enough to put up a fight and show that Russia’s military wasn’t as strong as they projected. While we did give them training and lethal weapons, it wasn’t nearly what they asked for. All our military analysts - including those in the government - projected that even with our aid, Ukraine would lose the war, and that the only question was how long it would take. Thus, I think we knew our aid was at best a half-measure. We also seem largely fine with Ukraine being destroyed and thousands of citizens being killed and even more deported. It seems we wanted Russia to be drawn into another Afghanistan where they suffer lots of losses and eventually have to leave/install a puppet who wouldn’t last, but that we were fine with lots of Ukrainian suffering to achieve that.
I think it would have been moral to take steps that would have actually prevented Russia from attacking (e.g. NATO membership, stationing troops in Ukraine, providing them with all the equipment they asked for, etc.), but the limited aid with the possibility of NATO membership (which I don’t think we ever would have actually done) was moral. Obviously those steps would have increased the odds of a full war with Russia, but in terms of pure morality, I think that would have been the right course.
As for whether reading the article would change anyone’s mind, I have no clue. Probably not as it seems no one really ever changes their mind here and just wants to dunk on everyone else. That said, I still think it would be good for people to read more and post less in general, but don’t expect it to actually happen.
Other analysts allege, more plausibly, that Putin regrets the demise
of the Soviet Union and is determined to reverse it by expanding Rus-
sia’s borders. According to this interpretation, Putin, having taken
Crimea, is now testing the waters to see i! the time is right to conquer
Ukraine, or at least its eastern part, and he will eventually behave ag-
gressively toward other countries in Russia’s neighborhood. For some
in this camp, Putin represents a modern-day Adol& Hitler, and strik-
ing any kind o! deal with him would repeat the mistake o& Munich.
Thus, NATO must admit Georgia and Ukraine to contain Russia be-
fore it dominates its neighbors and threatens western Europe.
This argument falls apart on close inspection. I& Putin were com-
mitted to creating a greater Russia, signs o1 his intentions would al-
most certainly have arisen before February 22. But there is virtually
no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other
territory in Ukraine, before that date. Even Western leaders who sup-
ported NATO expansion were not doing so out o! a fear that Russia was
about to use military force. Putin’s actions in Crimea took them by
complete surprise and appear to have been a spontaneous reaction to
Yanukovych’s ouster. Right afterward, even Putin said he opposed
Crimean secession, before quickly changing his mind.
Great call, bro. Definitely has his finger on the pulse.
I scrolled right past her posts a lot of the time. She wrote a lot of dumb stuff and was very difficult to engage with for cultural (mostly) and language related reasons.
She kept calling us warmongers for talking about the impending Russian invasion, and she claimed that the US government was agitating the situation for our own gain.
She is a well-educated Russian currently living in Germany who speaks at least four languages.
This was part of her problem when discussing American politics. You’d have Americans telling her how things were here and she would flat out refuse to believe it because it didn’t seem logical to her.
As previously mentioned, I didn’t read a lot of her posts, so there could have been some of that going on. But I’m referring to exchanges like this
X: Lots of Americans really love Trump and think he is great
Zara: That’s not possible. I mean just look at the guy
X: Well, I get what you are saying but trust me a lot of people like what they see
Zara: That can’t be. No one would like that. At least not large fractions of the population. They will see him for what he is and reject him.
of course! btw zara did link at least one normal source, Ekaterina Shulman, who was inside russia and even on a channel that was considered last one safe from government pressure. well the channel was disbanded, and Ekaterina herself was just named as a foreign agent, and she’s now on some academic project in Germany, likely for the foreseeable future.
To me she just came off as wanting to avoid war at any cost; thought negotiations would avert it if only the West would talk to Putin. Wrong, but as I recall, the foremost international relations “experts” were saying the same thing. Most people, even most Ukrainians, didn’t think the invasion would happen. On UP, only a small majority thought Putin would go as far as he did.