Texas is not a separate country. That is the whole point of my question. If you think Ukraine is Texas, then you do not believe it has a right to exist apart from Russia. If Texas succeeded from the US I would support military action against Texas. If you believe Ukraine does not have a right to exist without being controlled by Russia, then you presumably accept the use of force to control Ukraine against the wishes of its citizens.
I see you asserting a lot of disconnected and confused rhetoric, much of which strikes me as logically inconsistent. You want peace but don’t seem to support self-determination by Ukraine if doesn’t accept Russian influence. I think you need to express your views more clearly. Like, do you think that Ukraine should exist as a separate country but only so long as it doesn’t join NATO, and joining NATO would be appropriately regarded an act of war against Russia?
Incidentally, I think most in the West are fine with Ukraine not being part of NATO. It’s more headache than it’s worth, even if it would protect tens of millions from the tyranny of Russian dictatorship. Anyway, the allegations about NATO are mainly a cover for Russia to assert its dominance over Ukraine, as is clear from Putin’s speech and his understanding of history and racial identity. Ukrainians are a slavic people but not a real nation, so they must accept the control of Russia. Where do you find fault with Putin’s views?
I might have put it slightly differently - he’s the gangster that Trump wishes he could be, but Donnie Dumb Dumb doesn’t have the smarts or guts to actually do it. Trump is a simple narcissistic charlatan who was handed enough money from his dad to become a household name. Does anyone think that if Trump was born into a poor family he would have made it big? He’d be a miserable used car salesman somewhere.
“Some percentage of the population will prefer Russian occupation to death” is a pretty tepid endorsement. It’s also not that relevant, since the Russian invasion seems likely to produce both an occupation and violence/death. Seems like the right question is whether the flawed Ukrainian democracy is preferable to violence, death and Russian autocracy. I suspect democracy polls pretty well there.
Well, there are rumors that Moscow has a kill list of dissidents and the like to take out. Also reports that a Ukrainian civilian was killed by rebel shelling yesterday. But that doesn’t matter, because there’s absolutely going to be armed resistance if Putin pushes beyond the current occupied territory. I don’t see the Ukrainian Army just laying down their arms without a fight. Even in the unlikely event that Russian forces stay put, I don’t see a realistic path to a peaceful resolution. The whole point of international law is that it allows conflicts to be resolved without force. When you throw away the idea that the Donbas conflict, however legitimate it may be, can be resolved by diplomacy or under law, war becomes almost inevitable.
It’s funny you’re talking about Texas because Putin’s play here is pretty much exactly step for step the playbook the USA used to steal the south west from Mexico. Get some of your people into a foreign country then have them start agitating for “independence” give them financial, rhetorical and military support. Once they achieve “independence” annex them into your country and spin the resulting tension as a reason to go to war with the host country and grab even more land. It’s a classic Polk move.