There is however a big difference between the Cuban case and the Ukrainian case. In Cuba US might have sponsored, but they never invaded Cuba. In Ukraine Russia sponsored the Donbass terrorists, and when they could not finish the job, Russia invaded Ukraine. Maybe a small detail for you, but a huge event for the Western world. So you cannot say that the US did what Russia is doing now. Left aside that Russia is just killing all Ukrainians; children, women... in short any living human being in Ukraine. Civilized people call that war crimes. Russians are telling all the time that there were agreements. But if we remember them other agreements, they ignore them if that fits them better. Russia puts national law above all other laws when it is more convenient for them. So when they are convicted in any court anywhere in the world they don't respect these laws. They clearly don't respect the international agreement that civilians cannot be killed in a war. And prisoners of war should be threated with respect, not executed like the Russians do. An eye for an eye should be applied on the Russians.
I have not reached a conclusion. On the surface, your points seem merely a justification for us to do what we want, when we want, hypocrisy be damned! However, I respect your perspectives and need to have a think before committing to a position regarding your post. Besides, Bugenhagen may be preparing to educate me!
All wars probably see war crimes by both sides. You think any major country was innocent in WWII, for example? The test in my opinion is if an attack on civilians was specifically sanctioned by leadership while the other side did not engage in war crimes. Collateral damage is guaranteed in war. I agree the country initiating an unjustified conflict is liable for said collateral damage, but shifting the status quo versus historical precedent in such situations may make it more difficult to reach peace, effectively putting more civilians at risk. If both sides committed war crimes, it seems unreasonable for the other side to claim moral authority. In my opinion, there seems to be at least circumstantial evidence of Ukrainian solders committing war crimes based on published photos. If true, the next question would be if it was sanctioned by Ukrainian leadership. I am not going to try to win an argument here. It is important to realize that unfair play can lead to long term resentment where international agreements get undermined at every chance by the party that perceives injustice.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not justified no matter what false comparisons are made or frivolous assertions of broken “promises.”
EU say now that they are going to fast-track Ukraine's membership. Wow, we are into uncharted territory on this one. If Russia takes Ukraine that could be a complicating factor, eh?
Give me a bit, tricky to find something that symbolises context you could put in your truck. This is not bad, give the guy props for realising there is a gap in the market and making a specific context symbol.
It seems reasonable to say NATO is now committed to the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian war. If this is the case, any action of NATO’s that might be interpreted as “Backing down” becomes very hard. We may just have entered the “Must be a winner (And thus, a loser)” zone.