[keymone]

gosh, it's so hard to be respectful here...

your argument is:

1. US deployed nukes to Turkey, 2. to which USSR responded symmetrically by attempting to deploy nukes in Cuba, 3. to which US responded with blockade 4. and therefore Russian invasion to Ukraine is justified 5. because NATO may deploy nukes in Ukraine

4. simply doesn't follow from previous 3 points because the assumption in 5. is incorrect in three ways:

1. Ukraine is not in NATO so NATO doesn't have the capability to deploy nukes there 2. If NATO needed nukes close to Moscow - they ALREADY HAVE where to do that - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland 3. US was responding with blockade to ACTIVE DEPLOYMENT PROCESS of nukes, which isn't happening in Ukraine

[vl]

No, I never said it’s justified. More over, this war is highly unpopular in Russia itself (dictatorship countries can be engaged in unpopular wars). But to understand it you need to look at it from Putin’s perspective: “NATO is explicitly was anti-Soviet, and now is anti-Russian organization. It continues to rapidly expand right next to Russia’s borders. It is a security threat. It deployed nukes in close proximity in the past.” The point is that something unjustified from your perspective is justified from Putin’s perspective.

[jacquesm]

What Putin's perspective is doesn't really matter though, he will do whatever he wants to do for whatever misguided/crazy reasoning is going on in his head. In the end the only thing that matters is how the rest of the world reacts.

Letting a megalomaniacal dictator that has clearly lost command of his senses run amok, especially when in control of a large nuclear arsenal is a risk we can not really afford, and appeasing such a person will only feed into the cycle of demands.

[vl]

> In the end the only thing that matters is how the rest of the world reacts.

But what exactly do you propose?

[keymone]

> It continues to rapidly expand right next to Russia’s borders

this is bullshit. NATO is not expanding, NATO is not the actor that is able to perform that action, rather it's emergent property of sovereign countries choosing to join NATO.

So who is Putin to tell what sovereign countries can or cannot do? If he's so unhappy with a choice that sovereign country is making with regard to joining a defensive alliance, maybe he should offer something better instead and not behave like a crazy lunatic dictator?

There is nothing valuable in "look at it from Putin's perspective" argument when his perspective is tyrannical.