The short of it is "the US (like all powers which can afford to, but more) will do whatever it needs to do for its benefit while crucifying the same actions from anyone else".
From a HN commentator in 2054:
> I think Russia was very concerned at the time that Ukraine under Zelensky would become a client state or a vassal of the US. Russia still upholds the "No outsiders" Doctrine which states that any intervention in the politics of the Russian World by foreign powers is a threat to Russia. Russia does not want any foreign interference or potential military bases in its 'backyard'.
There is no morality in geopolitics. In the anarchic international system, there is no global enforcement mechanism, so states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others. In short, might makes right in this system.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
Yeah, I guess it's a thin line between "providing neutral historical context and reasoning" and "implicitly suggesting that the reasoning makes the actions acceptable or understandable". I'll trust what you're saying though and assume you're not actually trying to justifying it.
> states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others
I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.
For some countries, maximizing their security simply means trying to survive and not get taken over. These are typically smaller countries such as Armenia. They can't afford to focus on their economic well-being or working with other nations if their existence is threatened. For other countries that are established powers, maximizing security can mean anything from securing the territory it currently holds (India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea) to expanding its territory (Russia, Azerbaijan) to getting or maintaining a sphere of influence (US, Russia, China).
So, they are saying they're okay with killing in order to improve their economic prospects.
But more importantly, from a "realpolitik" International Relations perspective, the biggest problem with the invasion of Ukraine is that Russia couldn't win it as swiftly as it believed it could. If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it. Because they failed, they get the US and other Western allies supporting a resistance for the stated goal of defending Ukraine's sovereignty but for the true goal of not allowing Russia to grow stronger.
Not at all true.
Downvoting me and saying "not true" doesn't make it less true.
The actual internal political communication within Russia makes it clear that they don't consider Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity as legitimate. That is why they want to annex Ukraine. Putin launched the invasion in a speech where called Ukraine a fake nation that shouldn't exist.
The stated reasons for starting a war are rarely the true reasons. Although Putin did, among other "reasons", say NATO expansion is a critical factor.