First of all, I want to make it clear that I find any kind of war absolutely disgusting and unjustifiable. What is happenning right now is a disaster.<p>That said, the more I read about the events, the more I am confused about the real motivations and reasons for the decisions made these days.<p>One thing is clear to me: both sides of the conflict actively use propaganda, fake news and other dirty methods to nudge people in doubt in the right direction.<p>I have no reason to favor either side, but I would definitely like to understand the situtation better.<p>One thing I find a bit strange is that there is so much focus on Putin's actions now with huge support from Europe, but I don't remember seeing this level of solidarity back when the US did similar things (in my opinion at least). Isn't that a sign of double standards depending on the country?<p>There is also one common point made by the supporters of Russia: why weren't European states interested in the war occurring in Donetsk and Lugansk starting from 2014?<p>I do agree that even that is no justification to military interventions, but isn't that question valid to ask?<p>My view (one more time, I am not a specialist so I might be wrong) is that all the participants of the conflict only pursue their strategic interests and no one really cares about the Ukrainians (which is really sad).<p>Anyway, probably you know some articles that at least try to shed light on what is really going on without putting obvious labels in the first sentence? I mean, some articles I have seen so far call Putin an aggressor right in the title and then there is only one side considered.<p>Thanks!
I think you're confusing 'being nice to both sides' with 'being balanced'. It is totally balanced to call Russia the aggressor in this conflict, because they essentially decided the war would happen when it did. In the same sense, it's balanced to call the US the aggressor in Iraq or Afghanistan.<p>There are, sadly, not many articles that shed light on the situation. That's largely because the situation itself is murky. If you want a more objective take, wait until everything is done, then read academic treatments.<p>Bear in mind that 'balance' is not always a logically coherent thing to look for: there is no such thing as a balanced middle point between 7 and fish. It's still possible for interested parties to deliver sound analysis and to uncover or fairly present facts.
I have found Professor Sakwa's account after the 2014 kerfuffle to be illuminating and reasonably detailed[1]. He splits the story into the "Ukrainian problem" which are purely domestic that lead to the "Ukraine problem" which has wider geopolitcal implications. Sakwa's position was shared by some very illustrious names such as George F. Kennan of containment fame[2][3], unfortunately it seems to be a minority opinion among the policy makers of the West. It's depressing to see that the situation has not improved since 2014 and have festered instead.<p>><i>I don't remember seeing this level of solidarity back when the US did similar things (in my opinion at least). Isn't that a sign of double standards depending on the country?</i><p>Unfortunately as the global hegemon, the US (and to a lesser extent its allies) can and do get away with waging aggressive war, that's just how it is. Although the example comes to my mind is the Indian annexation of Goa in 1961, which is an aggressive war waged explicitly for irredentist aims based on historical claims (Goa was conquered by the Portuguese in 1510(!)). The world reaction to that was largely a shrug and India more or less got away with it.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24717077-frontline-ukraine" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24717077-frontline-ukrai...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n...</a>
> why weren't European states interested in the war occurring in Donetsk and Lugansk starting from 2014?<p>They were; see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...</a><p>Now, you could certainly argue that the response that time was far too light-touch.<p>> I mean, some articles I have seen so far call Putin an aggressor right in the title and then there is only one side considered.<p>I mean... who invaded Ukraine? Putin's Russia. That seems like a very clear case for Putin being the aggressor; outside of Russian state propaganda I don't think that's terribly controversial.
Having unbiased news these days is impossible. Reporting 100% truth online would be probably boring. At the end, it is always up to you, if you believe those information or not. Narration is always shaped in some way. Even personal verification is shaped. I wouldn't say it is bad or good. It is how it is. We are people, we are different.<p>I'm much more worried about general sanctions and censorship. This is first step to make conflict deeper in future and eventually could be used against anyone. Just imagine that asking this questions could be sanctioned or persecuted because it would be considered as proX or proY propaganda.<p>We should think about each other more and not let media think for us. Do not let them create virtual enemies and justify evil things.
I've been in the same boat. Putin's comments about "denazification seemed so absurd that I did a little digging. I found neonazis had a big role in the 2014 revolution, which started to look more like a coup. The more I dug, the stranger things got. Like Israel arming Ukrainian neonazis. WTF!?<p>This MR Online article does a good job summing up some of the historical context. It's a socialist rag, but the facts fit with many other sources.<p>The gist is that, yeah, Putin is an evil autocrat invading a soverign country, but the West has really pushed Russia to the brink, mostly to make Eastern Europe exploitable by Western capital. And NATO has expanded to the point where there are nukes on Russias border. If Russia put nukes on the Mexican border we would freak the fuck out.<p>Heres the article, keep looking and you'll find more. Look up the Azov Brigade and the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine too for neonazi stuff.<p><a href="https://mronline.org/2022/02/24/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/" rel="nofollow">https://mronline.org/2022/02/24/what-you-should-really-know-...</a>
Here is one: <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/united-states-europe-war-russia-ukraine-sleepwalking/" rel="nofollow">https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/united-states-europe-wa...</a>
> One thing is clear to me: both sides of the conflict actively use propaganda, fake news and other dirty methods to nudge people in doubt in the right direction.<p>Where social media is always going to result in the spread of disinformation and propaganda on both sides of this crisis and such content from there should be taken with a grain of salt and scepticism. Even the original Russian proverb of <i>'Trust, But Verify'</i> is flawed here in this case. Instead:<p>Don't Trust. Verify.<p>> One thing I find a bit strange is that there is so much focus on Putin's actions now with huge support from Europe, but I don't remember seeing this level of solidarity back when the US did similar things (in my opinion at least). Isn't that a sign of double standards depending on the country?<p>Possibly? At least a news source suggested that point. [0]<p>[0] <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-coverage-ukraine-russia-invasion-criticism" rel="nofollow">https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-cover...</a>
Sadly there is no sources of the kind to my knowledge.<p>Unfortunately all sources are overloaded with extreme simplification where Ukraine is angel and Russia is evil. It's tempting to believe in, although it's very far from truth.<p>Perhaps the only way to understand reasons and way of thinking each side has - listen to what Russia is saying over course of years, read about atrocities ukrainian army and nazi-style battalions did in eastern Ukraine for last 8 years. Read about nazi-style military camps growing in Ukraine last years.<p>All those things are rarely getting light in media. Putting a crying girl and "fuck you Putin" sells much better than in depth analysis or understanding why Putin did what he did. Hopefully I am wrong, but this kind of ignorance can lead to much much bigger troubles than current ones.<p>Try to read more of what both sides are saying, but be aware that ukrainian media is propaganda at it's best (would be better to put worst) so whatever they say should be taken with huge grin of salt.
<p><pre><code> I have no reason to favor either side
</code></pre>
Yes you do. A warmongering country with a crazy dictator (that threatens the world with nukes) has vowed to crush a friendly neighboring country, and then proceeded to invade said country. This is definitely black and white and a just cause for Ukraine. You will be hard-pressed to find anything clearer.<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance</a><p>Europe _definitely_ cares for Ukraine directly, but we also care about the larger security situation. A world where Putin invades countries on a whim is objectively bad for all countries (except for Russia _maybe_). Ukraine is protecting Democracy with the lives of their soldiers and brave civilians. I would be honored if Ukraine wants to join the EU after this.
I write all of this to help others understand the issue from multiple perspectives, not to justify or defend anyone.<p>Here’s what I’ve learned in the last week or so.<p>There is a good lecture on YouTube called Why Ukraine is the West’s Fault.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4</a><p>Mearsheimer, a foreign policy expert of 50+ years, belongs to the “realist” school. I find his viewpoint helpful as it’s very much Machiavellian and not focused on demonizing the Other. I’m not sure how accurate his analysis is, but it seems worth looking at.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer</a><p>The gist is essentially this:
- NATO, a Soviet-era military alliance, has continued to expand closer to Russia’s borders. Russia feels threatened by this.<p>- Russia tried to join NATO in the early 2000s but was rebuffed.<p>- Russia adamantly opposed including Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but America didn’t care and pushed for it in 2008.<p>- The US has largely driven this effort and has dragged the EU and Britain along for the ride.<p>- The revolution/coup in 2014 (depending on which side you believe, I guess) removed more a neutral / pro-Russian government and put in a Western-focused one. This was followed by the separatism in the Donbas and Russia’s taking of Crimea.<p>However, note that this lecture was before the recent escalation and Mearsheimer didn’t seem to think that Russia would actually launch a full-scale invasion.<p>I would also note that he doesn't cover other important issues that are relevant to the conflict, namely:<p>- The history of Ukraine in the last ±500 years, especially the Khmelnytsky Uprising, Cossacks, Ukrainian states in the aftermath of World War 1, the Holodomor famine in Ukraine, and how some Ukrainians helped the Nazis during WW2. In short, the history of Ukraine itself is very relevant to this conflict. There have always been competing groups in this region and it’s not a new phenomenon.<p>- The disaster that was Russia in the 90s and (from Russia’s perspective) how the West basically took advantage of Russia instead of helping them. This is one reason why Putin came into power in the first place. See: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ</a><p>- Social changes in the Western world that could be called “wokeness” or “LGBT rights” and the West’s behavior of trying to spread these values. This is interpreted as being anti-traditional by Putin and increasingly China (see the recent bans on feminine men in Chinese media as an example.) Putin mentioned this in a recent speech. You could probably describe this as a reaction to Westernization.
"I have no reason to favor either side"<p>I'm not being rude here but you're not grasping the most simple concept. Russia is the aggressor. I won't try to convince you - just try to find any evidence at all of Ukraine invading Russia.<p>BTW, I'm currently in Kyiv, watching Russian missile strikes.
<i>I mean, some articles I have seen so far call Putin an aggressor right in the title and then there is only one side considered.</i><p>What do you expect to see? Equal words given to both the pro and the con side? Is the universe so relative that, whatever the subject, all opinions are equally correct?<p>What on earth is the point of news, then? Half of every article saying that something happened and the other half saying it didn't?<p>News isn't letters-to-the-editor.<p><i>My view... is that all the participants of the conflict only pursue their strategic interests and no one really cares about the Ukrainians (which is really sad).</i><p>That's a worldview, not news. <i>That</i> is letters-to-the-editor.