Quote (Black XistenZ @ Apr 13 2022 10:18am)
Fair argument, but I have to vehemently disagree. The West and Ukraine tried to appease Russia after 2014, they let Russia get away with the annexation of Crimea against international law, they were willing to accept Russian control over the separatist regions in Donbass. A NATO membership was not realistic, no matter how much the Ukrainian government might have ran their mouth about it.
In particular, it's asinine to assume that ceding Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk to Russia would have resulted in peace and sovereignty for the rest of Ukraine. Putin doesn't recognize Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign nation, he's overtly said so throughout the years on countless occasions. Imho, this war had to happen to settle the issue. Only after a scenario in which Russia tried and failed to subjugate Ukraine can the rest of Ukraine, however much of it is left after the war, become a free nation.
The way I see it, Putin threw down the gauntlet to the rest of the world and formulated what I would call the "Putin doctrine" about the "limited sovereignty of Russia's neighbors". The invasion of Ukraine has made it clear once and for all that he's willing to go to any lengths to enforce it. This current war is essentially a battle between the West and Russia to see if Putin actually has the ability to enforce this doctrine.
Not really, the Donbass includes cities like Mariupol and other cities in the region that in response to them trying to break away Ukraine sent tens of thousands of troops. They then started to de-russify those heavily Russian cities by sending Azov type militias to intimidate and shut down any separatist movements.
I mean i don't really disagree with your last point, it's certainly a war over influence, the west thought it was going to turn Russia's closest satellite state against them, miscalculating the response then Russia in turn miscalculating Ukrainian resistance.