Interesting how you keep mentioning Putin being Hitler and hating the Russian people, because nobody has said or suggested these things. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent other people's sentiments?
Because it's implied in the overall tone and content of the rhetoric. Those of us who were alive during the Cold War should be able to recognize the tactics quite clearly. I've seen it many, many times before.
The fact that some people feel the need to bring up "Putin apologists" at all is quite an interesting phenomenon, in and of itself. Where do you think that comes from?
Everyone knows that the people of Russia aren't to blame for what their leadership does, nor has Putin's atrocities reached the level of mass genocide and death camps.
I've seen numerous comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany, as well as numerous comparisons to the Soviet Union and Stalin. This is ostensibly considered a valid "equivalence" in many people's eyes, who simultaneously cry "false equivalence" when comparisons to the West are made.
I agree that the people of Russia aren't to blame for what their leadership does, although I'm not entirely convinced that "everyone" knows this. Are you?
How is there any ethical ambiguity when it comes to invading a sovereign, democratic nation unprovoked?
This is not about ethics. If it were, then your statement in your OP about 'Those harboring butthurt towards "the west" in general' would be immediately invalidated. Whenever someone cries "whataboutism" or "false equivalence," I consider that a tacit admission that their position is NOT based on ethics or morality at all.
Once that's established, then we can look at it from a more objective and rational perspective.
And you apparently missed the main point I was trying to make. Think of what you're saying here. You're suggesting that there are "Putin apologists" not because they actually love Putin or approve of what he's doing or that they have some special love for Russia.
A.) Those harboring butthurt towards "the west" in general, or B.) MAGA cultists who, because Trump licked Putin's boots, feel obligated to follow suit out of loyalty.
Nothing actually substantiated or rational, unless I've missed or overlooked something?
Regarding A and B, you mention the West and MAGA cultists, which are mainly phenomena here closer to home, not in Russia or Ukraine. You've taken the focus away from the events in Ukraine and Russia and focusing more on domestic politics and dissension within the United States.
If we assume that we (the West) are facing some grave, mortal threat in Putin, then stoking the flames of internal divisions within our country seems counterproductive and unwise.
On the other side of it, to make it into a patriotic/nationalistic issue ("for us or against us") can also have some serious side effects. While it's often used as a tool to promote national unity in a time of crisis, it's oftentimes an ideological flirtation with the right-wing side of the political spectrum. That's where those MAGA cultists are. In plainer terms, they are "America Firsters," although they have their own America-centered version of patriotism and nationalism which runs counter to the more prevalent interventionist, internationalist view that has dominated the foreign policy of America since WW2.
However, the interventionists have had to heavily draw upon elements of American patriotism and American exceptionalism in order to drum up support for their geopolitical aspirations, often justified as in the name of America's national interests or "our way of life," as many often put it. Therein lies the ideological trap that we've put ourselves.
?
