The question is what to make of those provocations when even the people wanting to argue them agree that "By any reasonable standard, his move was an over‐the‐top response to any Ukrainian or NATO provocations."
If we all agree it was over the top - like someone who pulls out a gun and shoots someone at the bar for hitting on their girlfriend - then what is the point of harping on the provocation?
This is why people using this line get accused of "siding with Putin". It doesn't come across as a good faith discussion of the complexity of international relations - it comes across as doing your best to provide cover for Putin and for his invasion.
Now if you *don't* believe the invasion of Ukraine is a monstrous act of aggression and an over-the-top response, make that argument honestly.
But then you have to deal with people who disagree with you saying it was a reasonable and proportionate response.
We're not even going to get into the "Ukraine is like Canada" comparison, which implies that there is no way Canada could disagree with the United States and that if Canada chose to side with China it would be obviously because China was "encroaching on the United States" and therefore the US would be justified in invading.
There is no smoke without a fire. You cannot talk about the response without talking about the provocation because you would be arguing only one side.
Yes you can talk about the quality of the response and make the honest case that yes there was provocation but the response is over the top, brutal etc., Which is a judgement I agree with. But the "why" is just as important.
Otherwise it just becomes a convenient argument where you turn a blind eye to everything the US/NATO does, while blaming Russia - which most definitely did not act without cause.
This is the line that posters opposing my point of view are taking here. They have this strong belief that for some reason, they consider US/NATO as good or pure even, while they consider Russia evil. They turn a willfully blind eye to NATO actions, not just in eastern EU, but all over the world,. NATOs actions around the world by any reasonable standard of human decency would be and should be considered evil. For example, the brutal and unjustified invasions of Iraq, extraordinary renditions, torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the killing of civilians the world over in the name of war on terror while calling it "collateral damage" and so on just to name a few.
That however doesn't mean I am arguing Russia is good. Russia is just as bad and are just as brutal.
But it is important to agree that while what Russia is doing is wrong, it is just as wrong for NATO to provoke them. These provocations are not recent and have been going on for decades.
