whose fault is this?
Some on the Left are resolute in placing the blame for Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the US, perhaps with some side blame on the EU and other NATO members.
They argue that the US was foolhardy and greedy in "pushing" NATO to the border of Russia via its Open Door policy, recruiting former Soviet Bloc nations and Soviet republics into its nuke-backed mutual defense pact. This arguably pushed Russia into a corner and "forced" her to attack Ukraine to keep Ukraine from flipping into the EU and NATO.
Others go farther and seem to be repeating base Russian propaganda when they call Ukraine's current leadership "neo-Nazi puppets" of the US, and call attention to poor treatment of Russian ethnic minorities in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, even using the word "genocide". Ukraine failed to live up to its side of the Minsk agreements, they say, regarding the breakaway region in eastern Ukraine.
Even outside of the Left there are many who view Russia as having a proper "sphere of influence" in eastern Europe that the US failed to respect, as the US has fought a Global War on Terror that seemed to make the entire globe subject to US domination.
-----
I definitely view the US as an expansionary global power, bent on expansion from its origin. Early on the US expanded directly into North America, proclaimed the entire Western Hemisphere as its own "hemisphere of influence", proceeded westward into the Pacific, and then headlong into Asia -- taking and holding the Philippines by force, and working to contain expansionary Japan. After WW2 the US remained a major military power in the Asia/Pacific region, occupying Japan, fighting large wars over Korea and Vietnam, providing security guarantees to Taiwan, and ultimately creating a NATO-like organization called SEATO. The US also pushed into the Middle East after WW2, providing security guarantees to Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, and then supporting Israel, and then into the rest of Asia by invading Afghanistan/Iraq and containing Iran.
Some people are so opposed to this global domination by the US that they support Russia and/or China as regional counterweights, even though both Russia and China have also been expansionary powers for centuries. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I've seen some people on the Left take sides with any authoritarian or expansionary country that opposes the US, simply because they oppose the US! Their goal is to create a multipolar world in place of a US-dominated world.
And, to some extent, this is my goal, but my goal would be a multipolar world of small, secure, nonexpansionist, neutral democracies. Like Switzerland. Not a multipolar world of aggressive expansionary powers like China and Russia.
But isn't the US the real elephant in the room? Isn't this invasion of Ukraine by Russia a distraction from the real problem -- that the US dominates the world both militarily and economically?
-----
I oppose US domination -- I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan from the beginning, unlike so many of my fellow citizens. I'm glad we finally left under Biden, and I'd previously supported Trump's desire to leave. I opposed the invasion of Iraq so strongly that it seriously damaged my mental health. I oppose the routine use of economic sanctions by the US against any country that it doesn't like, such as Iran or Venezuela. I've (pointlessly) expressed my opposition to US domination by frequently voting for (and contributing cash to) Green or Libertarian candidates over the years. I consciously take the perspective of a citizen of the world by opposing nationalism as much as I oppose racism.
But for me opposing US domination doesn't mean I have to support any country that is not aligned with the US, no matter what they do. I don't support the US having a hemispheric or even global sphere of influence, and I don't support other countries having spheres of influence. In any event, I oppose violence as a solution to problems of foreign policy, and I support democratic referenda to resolve border questions regarding secession or independence. For example, I would've allowed the Southern states to secede instead of fighting a war to keep them in the Union, even though they were seceding to preserve slavery -- the world eventually found nonviolent ways to eradicate legal slavery.
I know that borders have often been drawn unfairly, but I don't support initiating violence as a way of fixing badly drawn borders. I know that some countries mistreat their ethnic, religious, racial, or political minorities -- look at how my own country does this. But I don't support initiating violence as a way of rectifying bigotry.
So I cannot support Russia's invasion of Ukraine as some sort of "At Least We're Bringing Down a US Puppet Regime", just as I cannot support terrorism.
Ultimately, I support violence only as a matter of direct self-defense. If I were a resident of Ukraine, I'd support my country in kicking out the Russian troops and shooting down the Russian planes. I might even raise arms myself, though I'm getting old for that.
It gets tricky in deciding how to come to the aid of a country that has been invaded, especially in this nuclear age, especially when the aggressor is a nuclear power. It's easy to offer humanitarian aid. Perhaps OK to offer military supplies. But going to war on behalf of another country, that usually widens the conflict instead of containing it. But if your country had a mutual-defense treaty with the defending country, then you are legally compelled to join the conflict, and the aggressor should've known that ahead of time.
The problem for Ukraine is that they had only talked about joining NATO, they didn't actually join NATO, so NATO (and much of the rest of the world) feels stuck in a posture of sending supplies to Ukraine and placing sanctions on nuclear power Russia.
-----
Helping Ukraine to resist aggression doesn't mean supporting the politics of its leaders, or supporting the many many instances of US aggression around the world and throughout history. But helping Ukraine does mean being on the same side as the US, for now, and some people find that impossible to swallow.
In politics and in foreign policy, sometimes you work with people on one issue, even though you disagree with them on other issues. It's how you get things done.
They argue that the US was foolhardy and greedy in "pushing" NATO to the border of Russia via its Open Door policy, recruiting former Soviet Bloc nations and Soviet republics into its nuke-backed mutual defense pact. This arguably pushed Russia into a corner and "forced" her to attack Ukraine to keep Ukraine from flipping into the EU and NATO.
Others go farther and seem to be repeating base Russian propaganda when they call Ukraine's current leadership "neo-Nazi puppets" of the US, and call attention to poor treatment of Russian ethnic minorities in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, even using the word "genocide". Ukraine failed to live up to its side of the Minsk agreements, they say, regarding the breakaway region in eastern Ukraine.
Even outside of the Left there are many who view Russia as having a proper "sphere of influence" in eastern Europe that the US failed to respect, as the US has fought a Global War on Terror that seemed to make the entire globe subject to US domination.
-----
I definitely view the US as an expansionary global power, bent on expansion from its origin. Early on the US expanded directly into North America, proclaimed the entire Western Hemisphere as its own "hemisphere of influence", proceeded westward into the Pacific, and then headlong into Asia -- taking and holding the Philippines by force, and working to contain expansionary Japan. After WW2 the US remained a major military power in the Asia/Pacific region, occupying Japan, fighting large wars over Korea and Vietnam, providing security guarantees to Taiwan, and ultimately creating a NATO-like organization called SEATO. The US also pushed into the Middle East after WW2, providing security guarantees to Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, and then supporting Israel, and then into the rest of Asia by invading Afghanistan/Iraq and containing Iran.
Some people are so opposed to this global domination by the US that they support Russia and/or China as regional counterweights, even though both Russia and China have also been expansionary powers for centuries. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I've seen some people on the Left take sides with any authoritarian or expansionary country that opposes the US, simply because they oppose the US! Their goal is to create a multipolar world in place of a US-dominated world.
And, to some extent, this is my goal, but my goal would be a multipolar world of small, secure, nonexpansionist, neutral democracies. Like Switzerland. Not a multipolar world of aggressive expansionary powers like China and Russia.
But isn't the US the real elephant in the room? Isn't this invasion of Ukraine by Russia a distraction from the real problem -- that the US dominates the world both militarily and economically?
-----
I oppose US domination -- I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan from the beginning, unlike so many of my fellow citizens. I'm glad we finally left under Biden, and I'd previously supported Trump's desire to leave. I opposed the invasion of Iraq so strongly that it seriously damaged my mental health. I oppose the routine use of economic sanctions by the US against any country that it doesn't like, such as Iran or Venezuela. I've (pointlessly) expressed my opposition to US domination by frequently voting for (and contributing cash to) Green or Libertarian candidates over the years. I consciously take the perspective of a citizen of the world by opposing nationalism as much as I oppose racism.
But for me opposing US domination doesn't mean I have to support any country that is not aligned with the US, no matter what they do. I don't support the US having a hemispheric or even global sphere of influence, and I don't support other countries having spheres of influence. In any event, I oppose violence as a solution to problems of foreign policy, and I support democratic referenda to resolve border questions regarding secession or independence. For example, I would've allowed the Southern states to secede instead of fighting a war to keep them in the Union, even though they were seceding to preserve slavery -- the world eventually found nonviolent ways to eradicate legal slavery.
I know that borders have often been drawn unfairly, but I don't support initiating violence as a way of fixing badly drawn borders. I know that some countries mistreat their ethnic, religious, racial, or political minorities -- look at how my own country does this. But I don't support initiating violence as a way of rectifying bigotry.
So I cannot support Russia's invasion of Ukraine as some sort of "At Least We're Bringing Down a US Puppet Regime", just as I cannot support terrorism.
Ultimately, I support violence only as a matter of direct self-defense. If I were a resident of Ukraine, I'd support my country in kicking out the Russian troops and shooting down the Russian planes. I might even raise arms myself, though I'm getting old for that.
It gets tricky in deciding how to come to the aid of a country that has been invaded, especially in this nuclear age, especially when the aggressor is a nuclear power. It's easy to offer humanitarian aid. Perhaps OK to offer military supplies. But going to war on behalf of another country, that usually widens the conflict instead of containing it. But if your country had a mutual-defense treaty with the defending country, then you are legally compelled to join the conflict, and the aggressor should've known that ahead of time.
The problem for Ukraine is that they had only talked about joining NATO, they didn't actually join NATO, so NATO (and much of the rest of the world) feels stuck in a posture of sending supplies to Ukraine and placing sanctions on nuclear power Russia.
-----
Helping Ukraine to resist aggression doesn't mean supporting the politics of its leaders, or supporting the many many instances of US aggression around the world and throughout history. But helping Ukraine does mean being on the same side as the US, for now, and some people find that impossible to swallow.
In politics and in foreign policy, sometimes you work with people on one issue, even though you disagree with them on other issues. It's how you get things done.