You fail to link “us meddling” to justification for a war. Or more accurately an invasion of a sovereign nation.
A bunch of armed men seized parliament and established a new government which banned opposition parties. Another bunch of armed men seized local government buildings and declared independence, after which they requested Russia send troops to come to their aid. Each side claims the other was foreign-backed while theirs was a legitimate expression of popular will.
Whether Russia invaded or responded to a request for aid depends on the legitimacy of the separatists and of the central government. When France sent troops to the British colonies in America, we don’t generally call that an invasion.
If the US meddled in overthrowing Ukraine’s previous government and picking out the new one (and there’s some evidence of that) then it calls into question whether the central government has more legitimacy than the separatists, and whether they really had the right to send tanks in to suppress the separatist rebellion.
bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 2 days ago
That’s where you drifted, the point is that the US has been involved since the start, i am not trying to justify neither side actions, though im clearly biased towards Russia but that’s for another day. The US geopolitical games using Ukraine as a pawn directly led to Russia’s invasion, it’s really not that hard to see.
arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
If we are going back to the main point then, being involved is not starting the war. Russia started the war when it crossed the border. All these “geopolitical games” amount to is Russia believing that Ukraine should not be an autonomous state. It disliked the country’s move to the west and invaded.
Of course there are always influences and pulls between nations. Those factors may influence the decision to start a war, but the war is started when the aggressor attacks.