This is, indeed, a succinct way to say what I took so many words to say. One has a very hard time seeing how this war can end without Russians, once again, being "fucked", as you say. Though the Soviet Union contributed mightily to the defeat of the Nazis in WWII, in doing so 24 million Soviet sons and daughters were lost. That war ended with Russians completely "fucked". In that sense, are we likely to witness not only the rhyming of History, which is common, but an actual repeat? The obvious difference being that this time the fucking would be well deserved.
All week I've been hearing stories from Russia media how they've now captured a Leopard II in Ukraine. After a whole year of fighting, this seems to be their.... big victory over the world. Good for them... now their kids can sleep well in their bunks at night knowing that the evil-bad German tanks aren't invincible and won't be rolling up toward Moscow again any time soon. There seems to be something them old communists have against the Iron-Cross on tanks. Notice how Putin never cared a damn about Abrams tanks in his threats? It was like, he had no fear and considered the US variants as not any threat. There must be something to it...
Last time Ukraine was independent until 1990s was in 13th century, it was mostly Polish, German or Lithuanian etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#History
Yes, there are arguments. So how to select from the various arguments the one with the most weight behind it in logic and law? It seems not difficult to do this. If one of the several arguments has both the majority will of the Ukrainian citizens and the force of international law behind it, that is the argument that would ordinarily prevail. All arguments based only on sentimentality or history, would be secondary and could only prevail by way of lethal force.
Yet the West seems to have huge issues to apply the same principles to China and Taiwan (and in the past Hong Kong) . Funny world, ain't it? When it's politically expedient then "the winner writes the history book" applies and at other times the opposite view is held. Hypocrisy
It seems if one wanted to cite examples of the Western democratic nations' hypocrisy we both could come up with much better examples than Taiwan or Hong Cong. It seems that the situation in Ukraine is not dissimilar to what could befall Taiwan. In Taiwan, as in Ukraine, both the will of the people and international law is strongly on the side of Taiwan, and in Hong Cong we also have not a good example of Western hypocrisy. In 1949 there was no legal superiority of the PRC over the ROC. Hong Cong, which was a British protectorate for 99 years until the British lease ran out, is now a part of the PRC, but, like Macau, it has enjoyed a separate administration from the mainland. The independence of Hong Cong's administration has come under pressure from the mainland in recent years. Regardless neither Taiwan nor Hong Cong are good examples of Western democratic nations' hypocrisy. There are plenty of good examples, but the two examples you cited are not. The U.S. has been a fairly reliable partner and defender of Taiwan. The strength of that relationship has been tested from time to time as political winds in Washington shift. We may see U.S. resolve tested if the Mainland blockades Taiwan, or invades it. Let's hope not. The most dramatic differences we see are between the behavior of democratic countries and autocratic ones.
There is no hypocrisy in dumping opium on China, then invading China and annexing Hong Kong to the British empire? So, if Putin promised to return Ukraine in 100 years then its ok? You can't have it both ways,unless of course you are OK with being a hypocrite. Similar story with Taiwan. The US promised to protect and support Taiwan only to dump it in the UN and okeying the kicking out of Taiwan from the union in order to give in china's demands and let China join the UN and later WTO just because it was in the US best interest. That is a double standard and hyprocisy textbook definition. You really should study history more accurately. The US has never had an issue with hypocrisy. Stating that the main difference is between democratic and autocratic countries is quite an insult to the centuries of American tyranny all around the world whenever it served American interests. And no hypocrisy in multiple flip flops of support for then wars against the Taliban? How about the Shah and Iran and the many flip flops there? By the way, it's spelled Hong Kong not Cong.