My fault I misread part of that obviously. There's always flaws on both sides and there's nothing wrong with pointing them out. Just because you point out a flaw on Country_A doesn't mean you're minimizing the flaws of Country_B.
When sources dedicate entire articles explaining people why the West was wrong and in many ways Putin is right they sure are trying to maximize the flaws of one group of countries and minimize the flaws of the other one. And that's extremely problematic, we shouldn't forget that Putin is the one bombing women and children and that in this conflict the West hasn't done anything that remotely comes close to that.
I don't give out free passes to anyone whether it's video games like Sony, M$, and Nintendo or more important stuff obviously. I agree with your last statement in general theory but it's not always so nice and neat. Like if there wasn't an alternative to invading Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I'm sure many would have the stance that an invasion of Cuba would've been provoked by the Soviets and in the best interest of the US to do so.
But Cuba would have actively hosted nuclear weapons. The whole "Nato" theory is based on the idea Ukraine has to pay for NATO accepting other countries in it. Because again, Ukraine brought up NATO membership after the 2014 Russian invasion. And also note that as Belarus has said they are willing to host Russian nukes we would now have carte blanche to flatten that country by that logic.
A lot has changed since the Cuban missile crisis.
And let's be quite clear. Putin's "security concerns" have been a load of bullshit since the beginning. His KGB file stated he
underestimated risk and the fact he dared invading Ukraine thinking the West wouldn't do much about it is proof he knows damn well NATO would never invade Russia. NATO doesn't even dare give a sovereign nation fighter jets or close off its sky (which it legally could) to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. That's how much of a security threat NATO is to Russia...
The real "threat" NATO poses is the immunity to Russian military bullying it gives to its members, and that's Putin's real problem with NATO. And no, I do not believe allowing countries to join a defensive alliance which gives them the freedom not to be Russian puppet states should be considered a "provocation" or something we should regret doing for any reason whatsoever.
Then, of course, you have the Iraq war where there was literally no provocation at all. Yes, Russia's the bad guys here but it's not as unprovoked as the Iraq war was.
Actually, since Saddam was a horrible dictator who had no issues using chemical weapons on both his foes and his own civilians I would say you have more justification getting rid of that guy than Zelensky. The war in Iraq shouldn't have happened, but the one in Ukraine should even less. This idea that there was more provocation is something you keep on repeating but without actually providing any meaningful provocations.
