What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is possible that some American politicians genuinely desire liberty for Ukrainian people, but overall, I think geopolitical interests drive and have always driven American foreign policy. If the liberty of Ukraine didn't happen to be aligned with American interests—that is, limiting Russian influence and thwarting the threat of Putin's expansionism toward allies of the US—I highly doubt the US would bother aiding Ukraine as much as it does now. The end result is good (i.e., helping people fend off a hostile and imperialist invasion), but history indicates that the motives of the US are most likely pragmatic and perhaps only partially ethical.

Well, yes. But that is not unique to the USA.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have never seen the real world. I don't know what it looks like, how to observe it or apply science to it. Are you sure real is not an idea in your mind?

As for prefer there is more than one version of freedom. So which one is the real one?

Enigmatic questions they are.
Each person has their own preferences.
They're real to each one.

 

[Nimos]

How can one argue that socialism is better than capitalism
if something not "pure" can't be compared with something
else not "pure"?
And yet, you argue that personal freedom under capitalism
isn't what it should be, without offering an alternative.

Because it is not something written in stone. The way capitalism work today is not like it was when it was originally thought out and there was massive use of cheap child labour and people working under horrible conditions, is that pure capitalism? It doesn't make sense to talk about it in such specific ways I think, because things have been modified and adjusted over the years. Instead, I think it makes more sense to talk about it from an overall idea of where things should end up or what the goal is.

The same with democracy, it was probably quite different back in the day than how it works today, now that women can vote as well etc. Yet it doesn't change the fact that we can still talk about the overall idea behind what democracy is supposed to solve or compare it to other political systems and whether it is good or bad.

I do talk about an alternative, obviously, a company run by an executive with 100% power, is very different from an employee-run company.

This is from the website where the list comes from, just a quick list as you can look it up on the website if you want. But clearly, this is not something you would do in a company where employees are simply workers.

Just about every ESOP company wants to have employees who think and act like the employee-owners. Compelling research and decades of experience show that employee ownership is in fact a powerful tool to improve corporate performance – but only when companies have “ownership cultures” in which employees think and act like owners.

Creating an ownership culture involves at least these six elements:​

• Provide a financially meaningful ownership stake, enough to be an important part of employees’ financial security.
• Provide ownership education that teaches people how the company makes money and their role in making that happen.
• Share performance data about how the company is doing overall and how each work group contributes to that.
• Train people in business literacy so they understand the numbers the company shares.
• Often (but not always) share profits through incentive plans, profit sharing, or other tools.
• Build employee involvement not just by allowing employees to contribute ideas and information but by making that part of their everyday work through teams, feedback opportunities, devolution of authority, and other structures.

 

[Viker]

"What is the US interest in Ukraine?"

Ukraine.

Liberty of Ukrainian people?

That's likely part of it.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah. You win. That is all there is to this. There is not more to history than US Cold Warriors and the rest you mention.

I will be honest. I am a former Nato soldier under the Cold War. I have my biases. Do you have any?

I don't know if being (or not being) a former NATO soldier has anything to do with it. I've known plenty of former and current NATO soldiers, and their opinions and biases vary as much as anyone else's might be.

I am a US citizen, a child of the 1960s and have had extensive experience with the discussions surrounding the Cold War. I've heard both sides from the Hawks and the Doves and understand both positions. I also wanted to study more about Russia and their history, because I honestly wanted to know why they were viewed as such a horrible enemy from the US side. But as I studied more and more, I began to realize that history is not the comic book opera that some people in government would like us to believe it is. There are nuances and shades of gray within the mechanisms that run this world.

 

[exchemist]

Assuming that's true, why would he want that? Is it just for fun? Is this how he gets his jollies? For those posting in this thread who obviously know so much about Putin's inner thoughts and desires, why not expound further and give us a complete psychoanalysis? Because I'd like to know myself.

I mean, if he really did have dreams of conquest, then why didn't he plan better? Why didn't he prepare better? Why did he start off with such a paltry force to invade a country the size of Ukraine with access to NATO weapons technology? He allowed his own army to be looted and gutted by kleptocrats to the point where they can't do anything. Their military is a paper tiger. (It probably always was, even as US Cold Warriors tried to paint them as the "evil empire.") It's clear that he was only planning a small-scale operation, otherwise he would have had an army ten times the size he started with. He would have been preparing and building up his military forces, not letting them fall apart due to corruption and mass pilferage.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Putin's Russia is competent. The inevitable result of the corruption Putin has allowed to flourish for decades is that, as is now apparent, though it was not until the invasion started, the armed forces were not in the state he thought. People lie to rulers like Putin.

He most definitely did intend to take the whole country. There was a huge military build up beforehand and not just confined to the Eastern areas that he would take in a limited land grab. He started the war by a lightning strike by special forces straight at Kyiv, to decapitate the government and take control of the capital, which was foiled. This was followed by a huge armoured column, 40 miles long, despatched on the road south to Kyiv, which got bogged down and ran out of fuel due to military incompetence and bad equipment.

So far from it being clear that he planned a limited operation, this was obviously a campaign aimed at taking control of the capital and replacing the government - thereby taking control of the country.

There's no need to be sarky about Putin's motivation. We know what it is from his own mouth. See my previous posts for details and links.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't oppose considering alternatives.
Just advocating for alternatives that have fared poorly.
Don't take a cure that's worse than the disease.

You would have to tell that to anyone who advocated USSR-style communism or anything like it. As far as I know, no one in this thread has done that.

You're conflating capitalism with climate change, which is
actually caused by government policies, eg, which fuels
are taxed at what level, environmental regulation, population
controls, building codes, emissions regulation, fuel economy
regulation.
Not one of those things is intrinsic to either capitalism or
socialism. There's no reason the problem can't be mitigated
under capitalism, nor is there any reason to believe that
socialism would inherently make it go away.

I strongly disagree that capitalism can be decoupled from climate change. The very nature of large-scale consumerism and entirely profit-based economies inevitably results in colonialism, exploitation, and environmental destruction. Without strict regulation, this always ends up being the case. Just look at the cruise ship industry or the fossil-fuel sector.

We have reached this point even though there are at least some regulations in place, although they're far from sufficient. Do you think these industries and corporations would play nice without regulation? They continue lobbying and playing foul now, when there isn't even a full absence of regulation. They need to be reined in with public ownership or markedly strict laws.

Both capitalism & socialism have been tried.
Results can be compared. It makes no sense
to propose abandoning a system which has
been shown capable of working well, with one
that's been shown to always work poorly.

Capitalism has not been shown to work well in its current implementations except for a minority of people on a global level, and, as I said above, it has been shown to be unsustainable without colonialism, exploitation, and environmental destruction. You might like what you have in the US, UK, France, etc., but consider that much of it has been built on fundamentally harmful policies that have contributed to widespread poverty and loss of life around the world (especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America).

 

[Revoltingest]

It is possible that some American politicians genuinely desire liberty for Ukrainian people, but overall, I think geopolitical interests drive and have always driven American foreign policy. If the liberty of Ukraine didn't happen to be aligned with American interests—that is, limiting Russian influence and thwarting the threat of Putin's expansionism toward allies of the US—I highly doubt the US would bother aiding Ukraine as much as it does now. The end result is good (i.e., helping people fend off a hostile and imperialist invasion), but history indicates that the motives of the US are most likely pragmatic and perhaps only partially ethical.

The most ethical thing to do could sometimes involve
things that ordinarily aren't thought of as ethical.
So it goes in hot & cold wars, when civilians die
intentionally & unintentionally....yet we see that
war is useful on occasion, eg, defeating Nazi Germany.

It seems that you're rather a moral absolutist compared
to my moral relativism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The most ethical thing to do could sometimes involve
things that ordinarily aren't thought of as ethical.
So it goes in hot & cold wars, when civilians die
intentionally & unintentionally....yet we see that
war is useful on occasion, eg, defeating Nazi Germany.

It seems that you're rather a moral absolutist compared
to my moral relativism.

I'm not a moral absolutist. I just tend to have a considerable dose of skepticism toward the motives behind global powers' foreign policies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know if being (or not being) a former NATO soldier has anything to do with it. I've known plenty of former and current NATO soldiers, and their opinions and biases vary as much as anyone else's might be.

I am a US citizen, a child of the 1960s and have had extensive experience with the discussions surrounding the Cold War. I've heard both sides from the Hawks and the Doves and understand both positions. I also wanted to study more about Russia and their history, because I honestly wanted to know why they were viewed as such a horrible enemy from the US side. But as I studied more and more, I began to realize that history is not the comic book opera that some people in government would like us to believe it is. There are nuances and shades of gray within the mechanisms that run this world.

Yeah, both the USA and Russia/the USSR have do bad things. And both the Hawks and the Doves can be dangerous. It is always different shades of grey but sometimes there are different shades.

 

[Revoltingest]

You would have to tell that to anyone who advocated USSR-style communism or anything like it. As far as I know, no one in this thread has done that.

It's not clear to me exactly what you've advocated,
given the conflation of Marxism, socialism, capitalism,
& communism in your posts.
That's why I prefer to deal with real world examples
over hypotheticals with ill-defined labels.

I strongly disagree that capitalism can be decoupled from climate change. The very nature of large-scale consumerism and entirely profit-based economies inevitably results in colonialism, exploitation, and environmental destruction. Without strict regulation, this always ends up being the case. Just look at the cruise ship industry or the fossil-fuel sector.

If people really cared about AGW, they'd vote in a government
that addressed it effectively. There's nothing fundamental in
capitalism that leads inexorably to AGW. Also, there's nothing
about Marxism or socialism that solves the problem. It's up
to the leaders, & if a democracy...the public.
As we saw in USSR, the environment was of little concern.
Everyone learns from experience, especially disasters.

. Do you think these industries and corporations would play nice without regulation?

And yet, regulation happens.
You imagine that socialism is more environmentally
conscious, but this is an unevidenced claim. Instead of
advocating for replacing capitalism with socialism, just
advocate for useful environmental regulation & conduct.
Capitalism is compatible with responsibility...

Most Environmentally Friendly Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Capitalism has not been shown to work well in its current implementations except for a minority of people on a global level, and, as I said above, it has been shown to be unsustainable without colonialism, exploitation, and environmental destruction. You might like what you have in the US, UK, France, etc., but consider that much of it has been built on fundamentally harmful policies that have contributed to widespread poverty and loss of life around the world (especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America).

You don't offer an example of socialism working well.
But you want it to replace capitalism? Pish posh!

I'm continually amazed how fans of socialism avoid
comparing real world results. Their comparison is
what they want socialism to be, with what capitalism
has been at its worst.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not a moral absolutist. I just tend to have a considerable dose of skepticism toward the motives behind global powers' foreign policies.

Note that I only compared our orientations...
"It seems that you're rather a moral absolutist
compared to my moral relativism."

 

[Stevicus]

Don't make the mistake of thinking Putin's Russia is competent. The inevitable result of the corruption Putin has allowed to flourish for decades is that, as is now apparent, though it was not until the invasion started, the armed forces were not in the state he thought. People lie to rulers like Putin.

He most definitely did intend to take the whole country. There was a huge military build up beforehand and not just confined to the Eastern areas that he would take in a limited land grab. He started the war by a lightning strike by special forces straight at Kyiv, to decapitate the government and take control of the capital, which was foiled. This was followed by a huge armoured column, 40 miles long, despatched on the road south to Kyiv, which got bogged down and ran out of fuel due to military incompetence and bad equipment.

So far from it being clear that he planned a limited operation, this was obviously a campaign aimed at taking control of the capital and replacing the government - thereby taking control of the country.

There's no need to be sarky about Putin's motivation. We know what it is from his own mouth. See my previous posts for details and links.

Yes, I did see your previous posts, although again, if it relates to past leaders in Russia or the USSR, then I can also go by historical precedent and look at how they operated in the past. I won't say they weren't wrong to do a lot of what they did, but right or wrong, a lot of their attitude towards Europe had to do with how Europe has historically treated them, making them believe that they needed a defensive buffer zone to protect themselves and their country. Unfortunately, a lot of this buffer zone entailed countries which are currently under discussion - such as Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, Poland, etc.

A way of persuading them to give up on the idea of a buffer zone and making them withdraw would be to convince them that NATO and the West are not a threat. They've never been afraid of Poland or Ukraine or the Baltics, but they have been afraid of Germany, France, Britain, and (of course) the U.S. At one point or another, we've all had troops in Russia with hostile intentions, although the Russians have never had troops in America or Britain. We were never in their sights. But now we are, only because they think we're going to attack them. Based on our own history of aggressive warfare throughout the world, it's not an entirely unfounded or paranoid belief.

So, how can the U.S. and NATO convince Russia that NATO is not a threat and has no designs on attacking Russia? If you want Russia to withdraw and no longer threaten Eastern Europe, that's what must be done. That's the way to stop Putin. A good way to prevent all of this from ever happening would have been a public statement from the US that they would never let Ukraine become a member of NATO. A simple promise like that would have stopped it before it began. Maybe the US has its own reasons for not doing so, but it does refute any projections about what Putin might want. It was the US government which made the choice, not Russia, possibly to goad Russia into attacking, even if they weren't prepared.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I did see your previous posts, although again, if it relates to past leaders in Russia or the USSR, then I can also go by historical precedent and look at how they operated in the past. I won't say they weren't wrong to do a lot of what they did, but right or wrong, a lot of their attitude towards Europe had to do with how Europe has historically treated them, making them believe that they needed a defensive buffer zone to protect themselves and their country. Unfortunately, a lot of this buffer zone entailed countries which are currently under discussion - such as Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, Poland, etc.

A way of persuading them to give up on the idea of a buffer zone and making them withdraw would be to convince them that NATO and the West are not a threat. They've never been afraid of Poland or Ukraine or the Baltics, but they have been afraid of Germany, France, Britain, and (of course) the U.S. At one point or another, we've all had troops in Russia with hostile intentions, although the Russians have never had troops in America or Britain. We were never in their sights. But now we are, only because they think we're going to attack them. Based on our own history of aggressive warfare throughout the world, it's not an entirely unfounded or paranoid belief.

So, how can the U.S. and NATO convince Russia that NATO is not a threat and has no designs on attacking Russia? If you want Russia to withdraw and no longer threaten Eastern Europe, that's what must be done. That's the way to stop Putin. A good way to prevent all of this from ever happening would have been a public statement from the US that they would never let Ukraine become a member of NATO. A simple promise like that would have stopped it before it began. Maybe the US has its own reasons for not doing so, but it does refute any projections about what Putin might want. It was the US government which made the choice, not Russia, possibly to goad Russia into attacking, even if they weren't prepared.

I am not sure that is enough for Putin and that the problem is only with Ukraine and Nato as such only for Ukraine.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I did see your previous posts, although again, if it relates to past leaders in Russia or the USSR, then I can also go by historical precedent and look at how they operated in the past. I won't say they weren't wrong to do a lot of what they did, but right or wrong, a lot of their attitude towards Europe had to do with how Europe has historically treated them, making them believe that they needed a defensive buffer zone to protect themselves and their country. Unfortunately, a lot of this buffer zone entailed countries which are currently under discussion - such as Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics, Poland, etc.

A way of persuading them to give up on the idea of a buffer zone and making them withdraw would be to convince them that NATO and the West are not a threat. They've never been afraid of Poland or Ukraine or the Baltics, but they have been afraid of Germany, France, Britain, and (of course) the U.S. At one point or another, we've all had troops in Russia with hostile intentions, although the Russians have never had troops in America or Britain. We were never in their sights. But now we are, only because they think we're going to attack them. Based on our own history of aggressive warfare throughout the world, it's not an entirely unfounded or paranoid belief.

So, how can the U.S. and NATO convince Russia that NATO is not a threat and has no designs on attacking Russia? If you want Russia to withdraw and no longer threaten Eastern Europe, that's what must be done. That's the way to stop Putin. A good way to prevent all of this from ever happening would have been a public statement from the US that they would never let Ukraine become a member of NATO. A simple promise like that would have stopped it before it began. Maybe the US has its own reasons for not doing so, but it does refute any projections about what Putin might want. It was the US government which made the choice, not Russia, possibly to goad Russia into attacking, even if they weren't prepared.

OK, so let's first be clear on the issue we were discussing: Putin did intend to take the whole of Ukraine and we do know he has an agenda of reversing, at least in part, the break-up of the USSR, of which Ukraine is just one element.

On the point about buffer zones etc, it comes down to a legal question of rights: whether or not free countries should accept they belong to a "sphere of influence", determined by someone else for historical reasons dating back to the Cold War, and be thereby permanently constrained in their choice of alliances. Ukraine is part of Europe and would like to join the EU to develop itself. Who is to tell them - and the EU - that they can't ever do that, because Russia wouldn't like it?

When have we had troops in Russia, by the way? Are you thinking of the Crimean War?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not clear to me exactly what you've advocated,
given the conflation of Marxism, socialism, capitalism,
& communism in your posts.
That's why I prefer to deal with real world examples
over hypotheticals with ill-defined labels.

I've been clear about what I believe, but you frequently conflate the umbrellas of Marxism and socialism with the systems of the USSR, North Korea, and others.

If people really cared about AGW, they'd vote such that government
addressed it effectively. There's nothing fundamental in capitalism
that leads inexorably to AGW. Also, there's nothing about your
Marxism or socialism that solves the problem. It's up to the leaders.
As we saw in USSR, the environment was of little concern.

Case in point about said conflation: the USSR is irrelevant to my own position.

Merely voting for people who support the status quo doesn't resolve the current issues either, since further reforms to the overarching system are needed. Corporate lobbying has a deep-seated hold on political decisions. Voters only choose from the offered alternatives, which are usually mostly limited to people influenced or hamstrung by such lobbying.

And yet, regulation happens.
Also, you imagine that socialism is more environmentally
conscious, but this is an unevidenced claim. Instead of
advocating for replacing capitalism with socialism, just
advocate for useful environmental regulation & conduct.

With some exceptions, regulation happens to an insufficient and largely neutered extent. We probably wouldn't have a climate crisis on the horizon if past and present regulations were sufficient.

I'm advocating for replacing the current implementation of capitalism with a more robust system that addresses the most egregious excesses we see today. Call it "socialism" or anything else you want; it just wouldn't be the current unsustainable iteration of capitalism.

You don't offer an example of socialism working well.
But you want it to replace capitalism? Pish posh!

I'll iterate what I said earlier:

When presented with current issues, people need to consider solutions that may not have been tried before, because the current set of circumstances is also unprecedented. No era in history has had this scale of anthropogenic climate change, interconnected global trade, and strong corporate influence, nor this size of a global population and their resultant needs. Being content with the current system of global capitalism is a recipe for continuing down the same path that has led us here. It's utterly unsustainable at this point.

Capitalism also hadn't been tried before when it was first put into practice. The same goes for every economic and government system in existence.

We seem to be going in circles, as happens every time we try to discuss capitalism and socialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been clear about what I believe, but you frequently conflate the umbrellas of Marxism and socialism with the systems of the USSR, North Korea, and others.

Not quite as clear as you believe.
Always remember that what's clear in one's own mind,
isn't always conveyed to elicit a matching inference.

Case in point about said conflation: the USSR is irrelevant to my own position.

If you propose socialism as the better alternative to capitalism,
you can't just list capitalism's sins, & presume socialism would
cure them when the record shows the same & other sins.

Merely voting for people who support the status quo doesn't resolve the current issues either, since further reforms to the overarching system are needed. Corporate lobbying has a deep-seated hold on political decisions. Voters only choose from the offered alternatives, which are usually mostly limited to people influenced or hamstrung by such lobbying.

You can't blame corporations for what the voters want.
There are alternatives to what the Big Two offer, but
people choose them over 3rd parties that offer more
variety of views.
Under socialism, we see the emergence of single party
dominance, which is even worse than our 2 party system.

With some exceptions, regulation happens to an insufficient and largely neutered extent. We probably wouldn't have a climate crisis on the horizon if past and present regulations were sufficient.

You criticize regulation under capitalism, but
don't address what it's like under socialism.
Again, you offer only bias confirming criticism.

I'm advocating for replacing the current implementation of capitalism with a more robust system that addresses the most egregious excesses we see today. Call it "socialism" or anything else you want; it just wouldn't be the current unsustainable iteration of capitalism.

What do you call it?
And define what you call it?

I'll iterate what I said earlier:



We seem to be going in circles, as happens every time we try to discuss capitalism and socialism.

We have different methods for evaluating economic
systems. I prefer what works. You prefer the dream.
I'm also biased towards liberty & individualism.
Not much common ground with fundamentally
different premises.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Not quite as clear as you believe.
Always remember that what's clear in one's own mind,
isn't always conveyed to elicit a matching inference.

No, this isn't our first rodeo. Every single time, clarifications don't seem to make a difference to you, and you end up repeating the same arguments that don't remotely represent my position. You seem to think that any socialist position has to be lumped in with the USSR and the rest of the list of 20th-century communist dictatorships.

But here's an entire thread going into detail about my views, if you're unsure what they are. You've even participated in it:

Ask a Marxist

(Credit goes to @JustGeorge for the idea. Thanks!) I have seen some overgeneralizations about Marxists or implications that all of us support the USSR, China, North Korea, or any other self-proclaimed socialist or communist state. This thread is to allow more room for questions and hopefully a...

www.religiousforums.com

If you propose socialism as the better alternative to capitalism,
you can't just list capitalism's sins, & presume socialism would
cure them when the record shows the same & other sins.

See? If I ask you what those "sins" of socialism are, I suspect you'll bring up the USSR and the same list of countries. Never mind that those have nothing to do with my own position; they must be "socialist" and therefore representative of what other socialists believe.

You can't blame corporations for what the voters want.
There are alternatives to what the Big Two offer, but
people choose them over 3rd parties that offer more
variety of views.

On an individual level, people see that only the big two win and understandably believe their vote will be practically useless if they don't vote for either. It's a collective effect; you would need significantly large groups to vote for a third party before the rest could see that doing so wouldn't be a waste of their voice, since they would finally be able to see a real third party that could effect change.

Under socialism, we see the emergence of single party
dominance, which is even worse than our 2 party system.

That's one-party, big-state communism. Yet again an example of the conflation I'm talking about.

Have you talked to any socialist anarchists before and asked them what they think of a one-party system? Or libertarian socialists? Democratic socialists? Market socialists? If you haven't, perhaps doing so might prove informative and show you that they're not some uniform group of fans of the USSR and North Korea.

You criticize regulation under capitalism, but
don't address what it's like under socialism.
Again, you offer only bias confirming criticism.

It needs to happen before I can criticize it. There's a first time for everything... unless you're talking about 20th-century regimes again, in which case you'll need to ask someone who believes in that kind of system to address it.

What do you call it?
And define what you call it?

I think democratic socialism would be ideal, but I don't believe it should be imposed on state law by force or authoritarianism. Instead, I lean toward social democracy as an ideally temporary and transitional stage to build toward public ownership of essential services via public shares. Mainly, I believe in addressing present issues using empirically optimal solutions without pulling from a predetermined, ideological playbook. What matters is what works, not what the playbook prescribes. If or when they match, that's fine. If they don't, what works should always take precedence. It's also fine if society never voluntarily adopts socialism (and I don't claim to know whether any society will); any system should be a means to an end (i.e., prosperity and peace), not an end by itself.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe we're experiencing an unprecedented era of human history. We will have to test and figure some things out for the first time as we go instead of assuming that previous systems will necessarily work out well. This is why I'm more in favor of an open and experimental approach rather than a formulaic one. Each country is different to one extent or another and has its own circumstances, too, so what works in, say, India or the US may not work in Saudi Arabia or France. They would each need to figure out their optimal solutions too.

We have different methods for evaluating economic
systems. I prefer what works. You prefer the dream.
I'm also biased towards liberty & individualism.
Not much common ground with fundamentally
different premises.

See above.

 

[Estro Felino]

They are using Ukrainians as human shields to fight a proxy war against Putin.
They want to:
1)dethrone Putin
2) destabilize Russia
3) dismember the Russian Federation
4) steal Gazprom from the Russian State

Do you need more?

 

[Father Heathen]

They are using Ukrainians as human shields to fight a proxy war against Putin.
They want to:
1)dethrone Putin
2) destabilize Russia
3) dismember the Russian Federation
4) steal Gazprom from the Russian State

Do you need more?

Putin is the one who decided to invade and it's his troops who've decided to commit war crimes. None of the propaganda nor conspiracy theories that you've decided to choke down will ever change that.

I hope Putin loses the war, loses his power, and dies in disgrace.