Just breathe. This is such a typical, hyperventilating response. The critique here is not that the West "made" Russia invade Ukraine and only Russian sympathizers are saying that. The critique is of Western diplomacy over the last 30 years that directly contributed to the tensions in the region. The critique is that when the Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia was at its weakest, the commitment by the West to also disarm and cease expansion militarily into former USSR territory should have been upheld. It's the idea that unity and peace in the region should have been primary goal, not the liberalization of former USSR territories via NATO membership.
What exactly are you denying as "true?" You seem to have interpreted my comment as saying "Russia invaded Ukraine because of one singular thing the West did." Well of course that's not true, but that's also not what I said. There isn't one thing that Russia invaded Ukraine over. It's a mix of national desperation, a psychotic despot, and regional tensions that made for an easy target. My only contention here is that Western diplomacy failed in Eastern Europe and a different approach would have had a different outcome. Diplomacy is a very long game. This isn't a "hindsight is 20/20" issue, either. This strategy of military expansion for three decades despite Russia's protests has been widely criticized.
You don't have to agree with Russian interests here (I certainly don't,) but you seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept and purpose of international diplomacy and separating it from your own political views. The purpose of a diplomatic relationship should be to advance the goals which benefit the citizens of one's own country, while working within the constraints of a given political landscape, and to advance the good of all nations where possible, not proselytize liberal democracy via military expansion. Why don't you tell me what you think the benefit of NATO expansion post-Cold War was for the citizens of the West? How did that benefit the citizens of my nation, the USA? From where I'm sitting, it didn't. It seems more like a needless expansion of military power by the West despite prior commitments and despite the fact that it increased tensions with Russia and jeopardized peace in the region. Don't forget that this expansion was spearheaded by the USA, not the nations that volunteered to join. Spearheaded by a nation that has maintained its superpower status by being involved in and often instigating every major conflict for the past 80 years. Now Western Leftists are suddenly going to forget that and give them a pass because Russian sympathizers are using it as an inconvenient talking point?
I am 100% for supporting Ukraine in this war. That should have been clear by my comment, but somehow you decided I was instead promoting the rape of innocent children. However, I also believe that after this is all over, there should be a healthy discussion about how we got here in the first place. The most absurd thing is that everything I am saying would have been widely accepted as fact by Liberals prior to the Ukraine invasion. "Western powers, particularly the USA, love destabilizing and exerting control over other weaker nations, even when they pose no threat." Now that Russia finally did the horrible thing everyone knew they might do, this is now somehow a "pro-Russia" position to hold. It's ridiculous.
