Exactly. It bothers me immensely that we cannot have an adult conversation about topics such as these, because people who only have a superficial understanding try to pick a certain phrase or argument as proof that you are on "the other side". It's actually part of the problem of why we cannot have reasonable public opinion a the moment, as journalists and intellectuals have also adopted this way of thinking.

It's not the US's fault that Russia's past imperial subjects are now seeking protection from Russia in NATO.

Parts of the US are able to put itself in those shoes. The DOS isn't staffed by morons, it fully understands why Russia felt threatened by encirclement, even if the press didn't.

It pursued that direction anyways, because what (aside from nuclear war) is the worst that could happen..?

(A full invasion of Ukraine, as it turns out is the worst thing that can happen - so far. But that's no sweat off the backs of anyone on this side of the Atlantic.)

no more both-sides propaganda please. one side attacked and is committing genocidal destruction of Ukraine, not the so-called other side.

if all Russia wanted was Donbas they could just go here, take it, and eject the ethnic Ukrainians if they like, and steal the resources and territory instead of paying for them. Instead they go all-in on destroying as much of the country as possible before they most likely retreat to a relatively small region in the east, which I think was the original objective.

Russia chose to commit this massive crime, no one else.

I was very confused why Russia felt the need to meddle in US politics reading coverage of 2016.

If we look at the timeline, US signaling intent to expand nato lines up perfectly with Russia’s belligerence, and it’s not exactly subtle.

Putin more or less said “we won’t stand for this” at the time.

Perhaps it is a lack of empathy as implied by the parent comment, but that seems surprisingly oblivious.