Canada has blood on it's hands too,
it makes and exports military equipment for Saudi Arabia (it's 2nd largest export market, you know,
that bastion of freedom and democracy) plus it's mining companies are second perhaps only to Australia's in terms of
poisoning and killing indigenous communities across the globe. Plus there's their political support for Israel, the list goes on...
But I digress; I don't think anyone here
likes Putin (at least I hope not), he's a crypto fascist dictator, maybe some of the far right members like him for his social conservatism/nationalism, but speaking for myself, I understand where he and the Russian Federation is coming from because I have at least a passing awareness of modern Russian post-soviet history. Now, this doesn't mean I support the war, or think the invasion was justified (let alone smart), but there is, from the Russian POV, a logic to why they've pursued this strategy, and the propaganda from the EU, State Department, and general English speaking internet users isn't helping, things like calling Russians ethnic slurs, laughing at the terrorist attack at the Kremenchuk mall, celebrating deaths from the Ural River flooding saying it's an act of god, etc.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the West totally botched a chance to fold it in to the bigger European project; instead of treating Russia and Russians with respect, it kicked them when they were already down, and the EU and US sought to loot the country's wealth indirectly via privatization while simultaneously extracting huge geopolitical concessions from Russia, such as it signing on to the reunification of Germany, and the EU's eastward expansion. What did Russia want in return? Help with economic stabilization as it transitioned to a market economy (but that was limited,
neoliberal in nature, and
punitive for the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens), a relationship of equals prioritizing mutual diplomatic benefit ("Sure" they'd say, but not a chance that would happen in reality), and an understanding that if/when the EU expanded, it didn't include NATO (
James Baker lied through his teeth on that one). Instead of these things, the West got a man they could work with in Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who was told to sit down and shut up while the West dictated the terms of the 21st Century in Eurasia until Putin's election, and regular Russians saw a decline in standards of living, life expectancy, income, etc. but hey, you could go to McDonald's in Red Square and get Pepsi at the grocery store now.
Still, even knowing what kind of man Putin was from his work as a KGB Agent before the Soviet Union's collapse, and his work after it (anyone saying he was an enigma prior to 1999 is full of shit, Putin was a member of Yeltsin's cabinet, Director of the FSB, Prime Minister, and held numerous other posts, he wasn't an unknown quantity) and his war crimes during the Second Chechen War (and
the bombing of Grozny in particular) the West originally was optimistic that Putin was just going to be a sober Yeltsin that would respond "How high?" when told to jump by DC and Brussels. That didn't turnout to be the case, and I'm convinced that the repeated talking down to, treating with contempt and disrespect, and even slights like
Western leaders downplaying Russia's role in saving the world from Nazism further radicalized a man who was clearly a Russian nationalist.
All this occurs in parallel to the
EU, and
NATO expanding further East, and 1999 and 2004 in particular being key years. With the former, NATO was now on the
Union State of Russia and Belarus' border via Poland, and in the later, Russia itself via Estonia and Latvia. While it's each state's prerogative to enter alliances as they see fit, I know the US Government and many Americans would absolutely lose their minds if Mexico entered a military alliance with China, and PLA battalions started rotating in and out of Northern Mexico. This experience further radicalizes Putin, Russia, and Russians, I would argue rightfully so, even if Poland, Estonia, and Latvia haven't directly threatened Russia's sovereignty. Oh, and on trop of this, all hell breaks lose next door in Ukraine when it goes through a
Color (Orange) Revolution the same year which is coincidentally against Russia's preferred presidential candidate (yes, Viktor Yanukovych was insanely corrupt).
Now, fast forward 10 years, and ANOTHER Color Revolution happens again next door in Ukraine, and while having populist overtones about being anticorruption, a large component is about whether Ukraine's future lay with Brussels or Moscow, again something Ukrainians deserve to decide. Now, while the Orange Revolution was accused of being spooked up, which it likely was to the same extent any protest involving Western interests is, the Maidan Revolution was fully
backed by the US and EU given the protest's stated goals (
EU Association Agreement and Free Trade Agreement/leaving the
Eurasian Customs Union in particular) yet people like to act as if it was just the Russians backing Yanukovych and the Party of Regions while DC and Brussels stood by and watched on the sidelines, but the facts to come out since, such as Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland's leaked call (I assume by the Russians) in which she says "Fuck the EU" shows that the State Department/
NED/every other 3 letter agency desired a more active role for the West in shaping Ukraine post revolution.
All this is to say this is how the stage was set so that 8 years later a full scale Russian invasion came underway. Now, as I said previously, not only do I not support the invasion, I think it a strategic failure because it played directly in the US and EU's hands while simultaneously weakening the arguments (justly made I believe) by Russia that NATO/The West has been an aggressor since the fall of the Soviet Union, and a legitimate threat to Russia's national security. For those that feel this to not be the case, I ask you this: imagine if Canada had a revolution, and it decided to leave NATO, and began talking to China about a security agreement? A bunch of Chinese front groups then started operating in Canada, pushing for better relations and closer ties with China, and this include a military alliance with China that would see PLA battalions on both of the US' land border, and should Canada join the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese military bases near Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, etc. Would the US and Americans be right to feel threatened? Would you understand why some might wish to invade, even if you wouldn't support such a war? Would you also understand that it's Canadian's rights to decide their future, but such decisions come with consequences, even if you disagree with such consequences?
The idea that this is a simple conflict and any person with a brain should be shouting "Slava Ukraine" (might want to check the contemporary history on that saying, especially if you're Jewish or another minority) is a reductionist attempt to minimize how exactly the world got to this point. I lay no blame at the feet of Ukrainian civilians, especially the young men being forced by the Ukrainian state to be cannon fodder (
including this 14 year old they tried to kidnap in April) nor do I blame young Russian men on the other side who face the same scenario, including prisoners being told they can either serve or be shot, I do however blame the West, and Zelenskyy for refusing to accept reality, that short of a direct NATO occupation of Ukraine, or transfer of tactical nukes, there is no positive outcome for Ukraine save for peace, as this is the map of Ukraine 2 years after the invasion: