Anything else is highly irrelevant.
Russia is a repressive dictatorship and has a combination of a brainwashed and scared population. We don’t need unnecessary nuance there.
In the world sphere, there is no de facto government. The UN is an attempt to create some sort of world governance, but as we know it's quite imperfect and it doesn't have the stick (i.e., the equivalent of a police force) to enforce its resolutions. Thus, the world works in a fragile equilibrium of military and economic power, with multiple countries forging alliances and pacts to try to put in place some form of civility.
So, while Ukraine "can decide" what alliances to join, there is nobody to ensure that it "can decide". Ukraine was relying on the West/US/Nato to get some say in its future, but we are seeing how that's unfolding. Ukraine unfortunately has to "earn" this right by forging alliances or building a stick big enough to ensure that others respect it.
Ukraine doesn't have a stick (it gave it up after the fall of the Soviet Union) but Russia does. Thus, Russia gets away with enforcing its own view of the world.
Unless other countries use their own sticks to enforce their point of view about what should happen with Ukraine, Russia will simply get away with it. "Rights" have very little to do with will happen.
I cannot think of a time in human history when things didn't work like this.
Quite frankly your comment adds nothing of value.
Nonetheless, I'll try again to not leave you empty handed... What I'm saying is that "right" and "wrong" have little to do with the situation. I suggest you read Wikipedia on Realpolitik: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
Russia guaranteed ukraine free choice of alliances with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Charter
There is no chance of NATO acceptance while there are still ongoing territorial disputes like crimea and donbas. Solving those could take decades if not longer.
Putin himself has said that the ukrainian state is a historical mistake and has no claim to statehood.
He just wants some juicy bits of strategical importance like a land connection to crimea and a broken country as a buffer zone that he can show to other aspirants what happens if you misbehave.
It's funny how many people here constantly repeat that it's a crime to attach and split an independent country, but I could not hear such voices anywhere in any western country when NATO bombed civilian targets in Serbia for months to support Kosovo independence.
As a remainder, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Mali, Yemen ... all independent countries attacked by NATO and its allies. Sorry if I added a few extra or missed a few, the number is just too big to remember correctly, since the number of independent countries worldwide attacked by NATO and its allies is bigger than list of countries attacked by Nazi Germany in WW2.
There is no NATO blood on my hands, can I condemn Russian action without you scolding me with "whataboutism"?
US is a misinformed bipartisan country and has a combination of brainwashed and scared population
I'm sure that if Cuba or Venezuela entered a pact with Moscow that placed ICBMs on their territory, we would respect their sovereignty the same way.
There are a few things I'd like to respond to below but the rate-limit hammer has dropped.
What I will ask is that we refrain from calling the brave people who stood against the grain apologists or naive. They warned of the dangers decades ago.
We owe them better than that; they were prescient.
- How is Ukraine joining NATO different from Cuba or Mexico joining a military alliance with Russia?
- Dictatorship argument is moot since US actively supports many evil dictator and provides them with financial and military support.
- Any country is right to be scared of the US as it has invaded/destabilized many countries in the last two decades including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya.
Mexico has entirely different problems.
Neither of these countries got invaded or had their regime changed by the USA.
But I fail to see what this has to do with the Ukraine and the Russian invasion there, which is not theoretical.
Cuba did, in fact, get invaded by the US. But not like Russia is doing to Ukraine.
That said, despite how shitty the US is towards it in terms of sanctions etc., there's certainly no boots on the ground invasion by the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Well, it's different than Cuba doing that in that it never actually happened.
I'm not sure what your point is.
We don't care about sovereignty when we're violating it.
You are trying to imply a hypocrisy that simply isn't there.
The distinction isn't meaningless. You can't reach the conclusion that "we don't care about sovereignty" if we only violate it in the face of perceived imminent threats.
But then when push comes to shove and we are shown clear evidence, the only arguments they can find to justify real aggression against a sovereign state is whataboutism.