Your post proves my point. Lots of shades of grey.It still seems like your argument here is that there are no shades of grey: That any involvement in bad actions or outcomes is equivalent; and here, specifically, that Saddam Hussein and John Howard are equally "bad". I don't have any strong opinion on the specific case, but I think the general point you're trying to make is obviously false. (To give you a concrete example, I'd say both Hitler and Trump were/are bad people, but I think we can make a distinction between how bad they were/are.)
Why do you say that? I mean, before Russia invaded, Ukraine was already doing better than Russia on most indices of freedom and democracy. For instance, in 2021 Reporters without borders gave Ukraine a press freedom score of 67 vs. 51 in Russia (now 61 vs. 34); the Economist Intelligence Unit gave Ukraine a democracy score of 5.6 vs. 3.24 for Russia (now 5.1 vs. 2.2); and Freedom House gave Ukraine a freedom score of 60 vs. 20 for Russia (now 50 vs. 16). Is this not sufficient evidence to conclude that Ukraine under Russian control would generally be worse for Ukrainians' prospects for freedom and democracy?
I'm struggling to see the connection to your argument here. Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets, then run by the Taliban, then invaded by a bunch of other countries, and is now being run by the Taliban again. How does this tell us anything about the situation in Ukraine?
What's your source for this? I tried looking it up, and couldn't find anything reliable (the only relevant source I found was here, where Ukrainian troop deployments look pretty uniform across the country, other than the front lines; but I don't know anything about the quality of the site).
You're conflating two things here: Not wanting to die in a war, and not "believing" in a war. There are plenty of Ukrainian refugees in the city I live in, and I can tell you, they'd be pretty happy if Russia was driven out of their country and they got to go home. They just don't want to die themselves. (Fair enough too.)
Source? I had a look, and the best I could find was this: "Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership."
That would mean it was Russia, rather that "the west", that forced the war, wouldn't it?
Sure, but I don't think they need to be for us to form a reasonable opinion on whether one outcome is worse than another.
Sure, but whereas expressing that sentiment publicly here might have people rolling their eyes at you, expressing it publicly there will probably see you imprisoned. Just because the West is and has been responsible for some horrible stuff doesn't mean no one else is worse; or that the U.S. and its allies are always in the wrong.
If we've come to a point where we accept a level of ' bad ' just because it's less 'bad' than our perceived opponents and don't question it. Then I think we're in trouble.