“Putin responded by deploying troops to Crimea and weapons to the southeast Donbas region on behalf of ethnic Russians who felt their president had been undemocratically overthrown. While this backstory does not justify Russia’s invasion, it explains that it was hardly “unprovoked.””
So initial invasion of Crimea, not justified. With ya there Mr. Kuperman.
“Zelensky instead increased weapons imports from NATO countries, which was the last straw for Putin. So, on Feb. 21, 2022, Russia recognized the independence of Donbas, deployed troops there for “peacekeeping,” and demanded Zelensky renounce his quest for NATO military assistance and membership.
When Zelensky again refused, Putin massively expanded his military offensive on Feb. 24. Intentionally or not, Zelensky had provoked Russian aggression, although that obviously does not excuse Moscow’s subsequent war crimes.”
Still mostly tracking with you sir though I feel like saying one country “provoked” another country….intentionally or not…sufficiently to justify an invasion (even partially) sounds a whole lot like blaming the victim.
The basic outlines of a deal to end the fighting are obvious even if details remain to be negotiated, as Trump and Putin started doing today in a phone call. Russia will continue to occupy Crimea and other portions of the southeast, while the rest of Ukraine will not join NATO but will get security guarantees from some western countries.
Here we part ways sir. I myself saw Zelenskyy ask what those security guarantees would be in that meeting with Trump et Al and I saw their response and subsequent action against Ukraine afterwards. The basic outlines of security guarantees is far from obvious. Furthermore, Putin has expressly said security guarantees with boots on the ground in Ukraine is a non-starter.