I’m not interested in having that conversation with you, just pointing out that this is one of the more extreme points of view on the table. It is certainly not a widely accepted one.
You could for example read what Mearsheimers university of Chicago colleague Paul Poast, or Stanfords Michael McFaul have to say about this.
They’ve gone as far as argue that it is exactly the absence of NATO expansion that is to blame for creating the permissive conditions for Putin's invasion.
It’s hard to view linking only to Mearsheimer as anything but deliberate cherry-picking.
You're ignoring the fact I gave 2 links - one of them extremely critical of Russia, but still very far away from claiming Russia has some kind of ethnical cleansing motivation in the story - and the other, which you don't like, giving an alternate and at least plausible, if not widely accepted, explanation of what's behind the agression by Russia. Who's cherry picking here?
You could for example read what Mearsheimers university of Chicago colleague Paul Poast, or Stanfords Michael McFaul have to say about this.
They’ve gone as far as argue that it is exactly the absence of NATO expansion that is to blame for creating the permissive conditions for Putin's invasion.
It’s hard to view linking only to Mearsheimer as anything but deliberate cherry-picking.