> Either Ukrainians have a right to self-determination, or no one does.

Cuba decided to allow the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons on their soil. Don't they also have that right?

This "self-determination" argument is both hopelessly naive and inconsistently applied. Somehow it applies to Ukraine joining NATO (despite that being a massive destabilizing influence to the world's largest nuclear power) but doesn't apply to, say, Palestine.

As further evidence of how dangerous this rhetoric was and is, Biden has repeatedly stated that the United States will not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Why? Because that would put nuclear powers in direct conflict, which is a recipe for disaster. This was always the case and the US and NATO were never going to come to Ukraine's aid so dangling that unrealistic possiblity filled Ukraine with false hope and provoked Russia.

For the interventionist hawks in the US, this invasion is in many ways a "win". The defence industry gets to sell a lot of guns and Russia gets mired in (their) Afghanistan 2.0 that may well end Russia through protracted insurgency.

Too bad a whole bunch of Ukrainians will die in the process and the country will be wrecked. But hey, things are looking up for Lockheed stock.

>Cuba decided to allow the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons on their soil. Don't they also have that right?

This was before 1997, when NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, stating the "aim of creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence limiting the sovereignty of any state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence#Contempora...

One of your basic premises are flawed, which makes me think you likely have further errors in reasoning.

We can condemn both the invasion of Iraq and Ukraine.

The embargo on Cuba has been a humanitarian and political disaster, and I think a position of respecting Cuban sovereignty is more widespread than you'd expect. The West has tons of dirty laundry, but it doesn't negate Russia waging a war of conquest.

> Cuba decided to allow the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons on their soil. Don't they also have that right?

Of course they do. They did exercise that right, didn’t they? But the US had the right to be concerned about that too, and the USSR cared more about striking a deal with the US than accommodating Cuba.

> This was always the case and the US and NATO were never going to come to Ukraine's aid so dangling that unrealistic possiblity filled Ukraine with false hope and provoked Russia.

You mentioned right above that Biden was clear that there would be no US force in Ukraine. So where is the false hope? NATO membership would take years to materialize. And Russia was provoked? Give me a break. Russia has been provoking, meddling with other countries, bullying smaller neighbors, annexing Crimea. It’s beyond absurd to say Russia is a victim. Russia consider themselves a superpower and have the right over their neighbors regardless of their desire. Simple as that.

The correct move is to pressure the US to stop doing that crap, too.

>Calling NATO membership "the root cause" is victim-blaming in the worst possible way.

He did not say that. He said "reckless foreign policy by the United States in particular" is the root cause.

>Either Ukrainians have a right to self-determination, or no one does.

It's complicated... Does the Donbass region of Ukraine have the right to self-determination?

What about North Cyprus?

And where are the champions of Palestine?

Absolutely correct. The idea that Putin or Russia is somehow 'threatened' by NATO is just wrong. Putin only doesn't want Ukraine in NATO because then he wouldn't be able to take over Ukraine.