I agree that at some point there will have to be made a compromise with Putin, we have no other choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malaparte
On the other side, the whole world is watching this.
They will see that Putin gets away with this.
Printable View
I agree that at some point there will have to be made a compromise with Putin, we have no other choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malaparte
On the other side, the whole world is watching this.
They will see that Putin gets away with this.
May be in Austria not here, the extreme right are Putin puppets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Scholz is also the moderate left even most typical of the modern European left and hey even surprised the CDU which gave him standing ovations. The AfD is more leaning towards Putin.
Even if he gets away with this at first, the costs will be enormous and might lead to his end even in a good case scenario. For him really winning this, at this point, he needs a best case scenario which became very unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
And it was a Western provocation which cornered Russia to spread the Anti-Russian propaganda for years in Ukraine, send weapons and offering a NATO membership in the current borders without even talking about Crimea. I think the Ukrainian woman in the recent press conference with Boris Johnson said something very important: "You gave the Ukraine a guarantee in Budapest..."
Well, there is a president in the Ukraine which wanted the confrontation, with the support of the Western powers, and his regime was absolutely unwilling to accept any compromise with Russia while constantly shelling the Donbas and never keeping to the Minsk Agreement. What have people thought this would lead to? And they gave the Ukraine unrealistic guarantees to push them even more, and now they can't and don't want to hold it, if they don't want to stumble in a Third World War.
Its clearly the Western powers fault too, even though Putin made of course the big step he should have never made himself. I too think, of course, it was a grave mistake and crime of Putin, to act the way he did. I understand why he did it, and he was pushed to the limits, by the sanctions and threats he got anyway, even if just deciding to defend the Donbas and the Crimea, but still, what he did was wrong under the given circumstances and with the consequences it has. Because his trial, which might not even be successful, will cost a lot of lifes, leaves many crippled and economic destruction behind, not even talking about the psychological damage and human tragedy. That's not worth it, regardless which side wins in the end. Both the West and Russia are to blame for this, but he made the final decision.
Now its just about how to end this with as little human suffering as possible and for that we need a diplomatic solution as soon as possible.
Its probably your definition of extreme right. People get confused about what extremism means. There are many definitions, but one is the general acceptance of violence, others are more ideological. In any case, most of the AfD is definitely more on the populist right spectrum than on the extreme right. It depends on definitions and even within the party there are fractions and people, but generally speaking, extreme right is not how I would define it. Far right, probably, extreme, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northener
I doubt that the right you mean in the Netherlands is way more radical, you probably meant the usual populist right too.
Sure, the right parties will still be more inclined towards Russia, generally speaking, than the parties which always follow the US-directions, but in Austria the (populist right) FP� left the cooperation with Russia with the end of the last year:
https://orf.at/stories/3239554/
In the end the right in Europe didn't profit that much from Russia, Putin was, like I said, undecided and tried to appeal to a variety of opposition groups from the left and right.
Talking about myself, I don't think Russia or China are great, they might not even be better than the USA, which is beside the point. The main problem is, that whenever the USA got overly dominant over Europe, without any counterweight, things deteriorate pretty quickly and the options for Europeans to decide for themselves and for a different economic and social policy in particular are shrinking. Its rather about the US influence on Europe being the problem, rather than Russia or China being a better alternative, obviously.
Daily Mail UK (so a reputable source, right?) now claims that Covid was produced in a lab:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ly-Covid-cases
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...na-patent.html
Which lab though?
It's not about the blame if the West had done this, if Putin has done that. It's a fact that Putin has declared a sovereign country war, without there was a reason to do so (although in his frame with genocide and neon's this will be different).Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
There must the world draw a line in the sand, there can be no concessions about that. Because if you so that is rewarding for his behavior.
The authoritarian populist right is a form of extreme right to me. They can't stand diversity (one folk, one nation) and they are opposed to liberal democracy, they even disgust it. And it's very evident that Putin, Baudet, Wilders (Dutch) or the AfD in Germany or LePen in France are using much of the same frames. Are ideological very clear connected. And some of them get funded by Putin, so on an ideological and even an organization level they show a coherence.Quote:
Its probably your definition of extreme right. People get confused about what extremism means. There are many definitions, but one is the general acceptance of violence, others are more ideological. In any case, most of the AfD is definitely more on the populist right spectrum than on the extreme right. It depends on definitions and even within the party there are fractions and people, but generally speaking, extreme right is not how I would define it. Far right, probably, extreme, no.
I doubt that the right you mean in the Netherlands is way more radical, you probably meant the usual populist right too.
Sure, the right parties will still be more inclined towards Russia, generally speaking, than the parties which always follow the US-directions, but in Austria the (populist right) FP� left the cooperation with Russia with the end of the last year:
https://orf.at/stories/3239554/
In the end the right in Europe didn't profit that much from Russia, Putin was, like I said, undecided and tried to appeal to a variety of opposition groups from the left and right.
And the link with the FPO is a perfect example. Because it shows there was a cooperation, they joined forces, they had an agreement. But I guess they got the marker Putin's fifth colonne in Austria! Which was obvious when you sign an agreement with Putin. Just like in the old days the commies traveled to Moskva to get money and ideological education. I guess FPO want to get free from that label now Putin went more and berserk. But that's a PR choice...all too obvious Riverman.
Ukraine had open and honest elections. It was their own choice to join NATO and to open to the west. I don't understand that this would be a provocation. Unless you think Ukraine does not have the right to be a democracy and choose it's own policies. Is that wanting confrontation? Please explain to me, because I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
As for the Donbas and Lugansk, it was Putin who stirred up the situation and send an armed militia to ocupy the area.
If you think the people over there were discriminated (according to you and some others) and had the right to go there own way, you certainly must agree that the rest of Ukraine has the same right to go their way. Explain to me your double standards.
And this war will cost a lot in lifes and many will leave cripled, that's true, but first of all, whose fault is this, and second it is the sacrifice the Ukrainian people are willing to pay, because the price for them to live under a totalitarian Putin regime is much higher. Do you get that? I don't thnk you do.
And finaly, NATO has to make a clear stance here, because every one is watching. The west, China, the Ukrainian people and the Russian people. Do you think the Russian people enjoy living under the Putin regime and that they support this war? Maybe you should move and go to live under his regime.
Come on, what's a sovereign country worth these days?! That's just US propaganda, or did they care for any sovereign country in the last decades when they wanted a regime change, partition or just crippling it? What about Erdogan in Syria? Where is the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Northener
If this would be based solely on the law, and whats a sovereign country really, its just a power structure with certain geographical borders which being aknowledged by the international powers - from then on, this borders are fixed, if the country being not aknowledged (Kurdistan, Taiwan, Palestine etc.) nobody cares.
This is like a property law which just protects those who have from the have-nots, regardless of how the "owners" acquired it. If the "international community" would take this so serious, there should have been enough events in the last decades which should have caused the USA and Turkey, among other nations, to come under the same pressure. Does that happen, was that issue even raised? No, it wasn't.
That's hypocritical.
Not all populists are authoritarian by the meaning of the word.Quote:
The authoritarian populist right is a form of extreme right to me.
The Western states are no longer Liberal, only by the name of it, they just have a different totalitarian program and still use primarily softer measures. But the freedom is shrinking, nobody can deny that. Just like with the journalists, its always the freedom and the law which suits the establishment, if it doesn't fit into the plans they have, its not about freedom of the citizens, but the opposite. The citizens which demand something become "anti-democratic" out of a sudden, just because they don't agree with where society is heading towards. That's the same kind of framing we have if its about military actions indeed. If the right people do the right things, its ok or at least "acceptable", but if the wrong people doing the same things, its unacceptable and there needs to be a red line drawn.Quote:
They can't stand diversity (one folk, one nation) and they are opposed to liberal democracy, they even disgust it. And it's very evident that Putin, Baudet, Wilders (Dutch) or the AfD in Germany or LePen in France are using much of the same frames. Are ideological very clear connected. And some of them get funded by Putin, so on an ideological and even an organization level they show a coherence.
The problem really is that Putin started a war which will be way to bloody and destructive to be justified by the given circumstances. That's it for me. Everything else is just propaganda rubbish. As if the Western decision makers would care, they pushed things to this in the Ukraine, and they did or allowed similar things elsewhere.
Again: As if anybody really cares. Do you know for what kind of reasons the USA invaded "sovereign" countries over and over again? Or bribe and corrupt, spread propaganda and disinformation?Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
The Ukraine could be weaponised, brainwashed, join NATO, kick Russia out of its main military port and base in Crimea and then what's next? Probably even American nuclear missiles, right at the border of Russia? All of that with a country with such a large Russian speaking population and history? Putin has drawn the basic red lines over and over again, and no objective observer can say that his claims were not justified at all.
I tell you, the USA and UK would have intervened for far less, for far less, in the past and most likely the present also.
Russia would have accepted a lot of things other than questioning the base in Crimea and the NATO membership. Sure, we can ask whether its worth it, but it sure as hell was a massive provocation by the Ukraine government and the West to approach things as they did. Again, the USA did do military interventions on a regular basis for far less and with a much worse justification.
What Putin does is wrong because his plans cause too many kills, crippling and impoverishment of too many people for a dubious strategy, which might even lead to further escalation and great danger for the world. That's why its wrong, not because what the West and this Ukrainian government did and still does is right. They are both wrong, but the step Putin made is kind of "even more wrong" and goes in the wrong direction. He got pushed to that point, which is a strategy, now we need to get out of this mess asap and limit the damage.
You say these are allegations, so I guess you don't have clear sources on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
The only coloured people leaving Ukraine I've seen were male Nigerian exchange students and I don't know wether they made some demands when entering Poland.
These people are not homeless refugees, they have their homes and family in Nigeria.
Ukrainian males are not allowed to leave Ukraine, and most of them prefer to stay.
I am sure discrimination exists, the question is how far is it spread?
I am also sure that if Ukrainian males were fleeing en masse to Poland, Middle Eastern and African males would try and enter in Ukraine and from there enter the EU claiming they were Ukrainian refugees.
There is an industry in the Middle East and Africa to provide these people with fake papers and fake IDs.
As for the mindset in Germany, there is no reason to worry.
Nazis are every where, even in America. I think in Germany they are an even tinier minority than in America.
It's useless to discuss with people with double standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
Why wasn't Turkey treated the same way as Russia now, when they invaded Syria? A sovereign state on paper and the North was even defended by a cooperation of the Kurds with the Syrian National Forces. The same Kurds, which were supported by the US and got guarantees from the US government. Which were praised as war heroes in their gender-equal fight against the evil Islamic State, as the Western media put it, unlike the other Syrian forces, which were just suppressing "freedom fighters".
Erdogan did, with brutal means, just invade that region. He didn't even have the ethnic argument, he just didn't care and his forces are still there, supporting radical Islamists in the region. What were the consequences for Erdogan and Turkey? Surely not as bad as what is happening now to Russia, which had way better reasons in a direct comparison.
That is a double standard by the "International Community". If you read this, where is the difference, the Western powers even supplied the Kurds with weapons just like the Ukrainians. The only difference is, that Turkey is an important ally of the Western alliance up to this point, even if it became an Islamist dictatorship which suppresses its own and foreign people.
But just read this, you just need to exchange the countries and ethnicities, and you get the same thing as Putin/Lawrow are saying, aren't you?
https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-syria/w...spokesman-saysQuote:
Turkey�s western allies are wrong to treat Turkey as an occupying power in Syria, Turkish presidential spokesman İbrahim Kalın said.
�We are not targeting Syrian soil, but we were forced to take this step - because of our own security and the security of the Syrians on the ground,� Kalın told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview on Wednesday.
Turkey has launched three major military operations into northern Syria in the last five years in an effort to limit the growing influence of Kurdish fighters along the border. Meanwhile, Turkish proxy forces continue to clash with the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which says Turkey�s aggression undermines its continued fight against the Islamic State (ISIS).
The United States was instrumental in the creation of the SDF to battle ISIS in Syria in 2015, providing weapons, training, and air support. However, the backbone of the group�s forces are drawn from the People's Protection Units (YPG), a group historically linked to the Kurdistan Workers� Party (PKK).
They weaken the Kurds, so that the IS can spread again. But nobody cares any longer, because it would be "inconvenient".
Turkey's intervention in Syria is more comparable to what Russia did in Ukraine in 2014, not to the current full-scale Russian invasion.Quote:
Why wasn't Turkey treated the same way as Russia now, when they invaded Syria?
But also the First World doesn't care as much about wars in Third World countries, as they do about wars in the heart of Europe.
Surely Ukraine is also a developing country but a European one nonetheless. And it is not Third World (rather Second World).
So indeed there is a double standard, but it is not an anti-Russian double standard, it is an anti-Third World double standard.
I might agree with that, but, and that's the biggest issue: If Russia would have got the same easy way out of this as Turkey got, they would have never invaded the Ukraine in all likelihood. They just invaded because of the imminant threat of a NATO guarantee and membership for a hostile, anti-Russian fed Ukraine, weaponised and its current, for Russia unacceptable borders without any guarantees for its military bases and port in Sevastopol, nor any autonomy granted to the pro-Russian provinces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
If Russia would have been treated like Turkey, we would have had a peaceful solution and no war. Simple as that. The Western powers threatened Russia from the start, even if they would just have helped their pro-Russian separatists, in a limited operation, that these major sanctions would come anyway. Turkey did exactly not move on, also because it knew how far it could go. Russia was never given that option of a limited success, a fair compromise for both sides, but only "all or nothing". And that's what we got, an all-in situation for one of the biggest military and nuclear powers of the world.
Well done orange-revolution and secret service guys, by promising the Ukrainians things they can't deliver if the West doesn't want to start a 3rd World War!
These Western group did not want a peaceful compromise from the start and pushed the Ukrainians to a more aggressive stance. That's also why France and Germany, for example, didn't provide the complete support and all weapons initially, because they knew this would just push the more radical Ukrainian forces to provoke even more, like with a direct major attack on Donbas, instead of trying to find a diplomatic solution with Russia.
Of course, I do understand the Ukrainian position as well, even the position of the radical nationalists. They hate Russia for what it did in the Soviet Union in particular, all the suffering, the deaths, the suppression under the Reds. The long fight of the Ukrainian partisans, long after World War II has ended. They don't want to be at the mercy of Russia, but being protected by a nuclear shield also, even if its just on paper. They want the Ukraine state to be as big as possible, even if that means to be "imperialistic" and having minorities which don't want to belong to this state, like in Donbas and Crimea.
Its their position, they want as much as possible and they are willing to sacrifice lifes for it, just as Putin sacrifices lifes for his plans. And then there are all these people in between, caught between these two extreme positions, instead of trying to find a compromise with which both sides could live with, like Crimea to Russia, special autonomy for the Donbas and neutrality of the Ukraine. They probably could even join the EU then, decide where to go politically and socially on their own. But with these limitations. I'm sure Putin would have accepted this, no problem, but they were pushed to occupy a more aggressive stand and here we are. Its just sad.
Seems you forgot Iraq? Or the interventions in the past - like in Iran, Congo etc. Well, if its about the right geostrategic plans and resources, they can care minimum as much for a non-European country. With "caring" under exclamation marks. We all know, hopefully, these absurd stories about "tortured babies" in Kuwait and all the other crap the media told the world about what Iraq is doing in there. In a country which is as much a "sovereign and democratic" country as any Latin American country the US invaded or seized by covert-ops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
No no, it just suits the decision makers in Washington-London to have pushed Ukraine-Russia to this point. That's all. They don't suffer, they don't get the fallout as long as there is no nuclear war. And if someone is pro-immigration, we currently even have the immigration restrictions in most of Europe lifted. Not just for actual Ukrainians, not even just for people which lived for longer in the Ukraine. Yet another move which goes "unnoticed", just like the new restrictions on the free press and media in general, as if the Covid crisis wasn't enough to shut all dissenters down.
And probably, if they are lucky enough, there is even a regime change in Russia and there is no longer any counterweight to the USA in Europe.
Again, France and Germany knew why they hesitated to arm the Ukraine and push this Selenski regime to this point, because its a European catastrophy. Even the current, incomponent and American dependent politicians in France and Germany still had something like a little bit of self-interest and foresight. Because this escalation is a human, political and economic castastrophy. Unless it can be, just like Covid, instrumentalised.And as we can see, the "Western alliance" is already working on that, to get the maximum out of this crisis for plans which the Western people wouldn't have supported as willingly otherwise.
^^^
There was no civil war in Ukraine in 2014, Russians broke peace. While Syria had already been at war before Turkey intervened.
If Poland decides to send its troops into Ukraine or Belarus, it will be similar to what Turkey did in Syria (joining an existing war).
^^^ Jaroslaw Kaczynski kind of admires Turkey. In 2014 he said that:
https://www.wprost.pl/kraj/451487/ka...a-wladz-i.html
"Poland should strive to be like Turkey. Turkey has a reputation of being a serious country. We can acheve this level of greatness, but first we must replace the government [which he did in 2015] and the elites."
There was no international war. There was just an uprising, mostly by Sunni Islamists, against the government of Syria. So if there is any sort of uprising or popular movement, which ends up in an armed conflict, anybody is allowed to move in or what? That's again exactly what Russia did, on behalf of pro-Russian separatists. Yes, they "helped" to create this, but the sentiment and movement is real and most certainly a better justification than following the suppressed Kurds in every country and bombing them down, while installing Islamists and warlords instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
Turkey had no more right to intervene in Syria than Russia has to intervene in Ukraine. Absolutely not.
Talking about authoritarian role models for right conservative-religious nationalists. Of course, Erdogan does achieve some things for his Turkish nation by lying and using brute force. I can get that, though I think it might be not lasting. But it doesn't make this guy in Istanbul any better than Putin. Erdogan just has better means to blackmail the West into cooperation, that's all. He's playing the ally, and the Americans need Turkey, which is why one dictator which invades a foreign country gets money and weapons from the US, while the other...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
^^^ But I've been to Istanbul, and I wouldn't like Polish cities to look like this largest city of Turkey.
Except for few beautiful districts and an impressive airport, most of the city looks "Third World-ish".
The Istanbul airport itself is admittedly very modern and better than all airports in Poland.
[QUOTE=Riverman;642493]Really Riverman do I have to explain the significance? That is were our roads are dividing. Sovereignty en self-sovereignty of a nation is essential (in a democratic world order). These are imo not negotiable things and when you suggest that to authoritarian leaders than you are 'gone'.....see the Sudetencase.Quote:
Come on, what's a sovereign country worth these days?! That's just US propaganda, or did they care for any sovereign country in the last decades when they wanted a regime change, partition or just crippling it? What about Erdogan in Syria? Where is the difference?
In the case of previous mentioned before they all are....and that bites liberal democracy.Quote:
Not all populists are authoritarian by the meaning of the word.
I don't see any justification in this case.Quote:
The problem really is that Putin started a war which will be way to bloody and destructive to be justified by the given circumstances.
Sure, he went to far, but primarily because he acted against the will of the local population, even if this population was probably brainwashed, its still their will. Because of this, he has to use methods to achieve anything which are not justified under these circumstances. That's why I condemn this invasion of the Ukraine, because its not proportionate and inhumane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northener
Otherwise: Double standards and hypocrisy of the West, all day long, just like we know it.
We saw it in the last years, over and over again, especially in Syria, that the sovereignty on paper is worth nothing. Its all about making this an example with Russia, to inflict maximal damage to one of the last truly independent European states, because it suits the decision makers in Washington-London. And the way they cornered and pushed Russia before was just disgusting. They pushed Russians AND Ukrainians into this conflict, not caring about the consequences for the people on the ground. Russian could have tried other strategies and just watch, but that's just not him, if being pushed relentlessly. I hope he's still sane and understands that in a worst case scenario, his own life and regime is not worth the well-being of billions. Again, just sad that it went that far, this was the work of many forces in the Ukraine too, which pushed this country into this horrible conflict. But we are now at this point, as regrettable as it is and just need to find a way out of it, without escalating even more.
The Ukrainians should be pushed into a fair compromise and only being fully supported if they negotiate reasonable, while Russia needs to feel the pressure, but at the same time should be given a honourable retreat and exit out of this conflict. Otherwise, where should this end, where could it end?
I agree with you that more had to be done to support the Kurds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
It was a genuine case of self defense, hoping to create their own state in their own homeland.
And they seemed capable of organising themselves.
So I don't understand why you don't want to defend and support the Ukrainiens in this case.
As for Afghanistan, this is a divided country with clans fighting each other for their bit, but no one to defend or unify the country.
The ambition here was never to install democracy, which was impossible. The idea was to give Islamic fundamentalism a blow.
Islamic fundamentalism is still there, but at least the export of it is restricted.
I was also no supporter for the 'Arabian spring' as there were no structures to govern these countries and it was predictable that it would end in the same corruption and power struggles and fighting as before.
As for Turkey, I believe this is the last year for Erdogan, not that he will be beaten but that the country is going bankrupt and he will loose all support, despite the Turks being very nationalistic.
But this is a different story, of course.
And my guess is that within 15 years a new Erdogan will rise.
The country won't have changed by then.
The Kurdish case would be only comparable if the Kurds would have demanded not just the Syrian, but also Iraqi areas and even the Turkish territories, plus some areas inhabited by actual Turks. Then it would be comparable with the case of the Ukraine. I think that the Russians have absolutely no say for the West Ukraine in particular, but whether the West Ukrainian forces had the right to bring the whole Ukraine into NATO, suppress pro-Russian groups and take away the bases and ports from Russia on the long run. That's really a different category. The Turks were in a similar situation after WWI, when large parts of their territories being occupied by Greeks, Armenians etc., after their Empire had collapsed. That's when Atat�rk became the national hero, by essentially doing what Putin did, just more brutally.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
The Ukrainians should have made a deal with Russia long time ago and not going into confrontation mode with Selenski and the pushing Western intervention. That's the problem. What Putin did now was a disproportionate overreaction, but on the other hand, by not offering a more proportionate reaction from the West, like making clear that he might go into Donbas, but no further and this would make a difference, this wasn't exactly helpful either. They made Russia careless.
As things are now, I would like to help the Ukrainians on the one hand, but am at the same time very much concerned about Russia, further escalation and either a collapse of Russia or the worst case scenario, a nuclear conflict. My primary interest is therefore, for the good of the people on the ground and the world, that they come to terms with a diplomatic solution.
I don't want to push the Ukrainians into yet another round of escalation and if the current regime in Kiew believes it can actually win this war, with brute force, they will go for it. That's their mentality. And that's why I'm against supporting this, because they must come to the table for negotiations, they must be ready to make a compromise with Russia. Not at all costs, but they need to take it seriously and negotiate with good will.
It's pointless discussion this any furhter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
You accuse Ukraine of imperialism instead of Putin.
I'm done.
This war might have much deeper causes than just a dispute over some God-forsaken steppe in Ukraine.
Apparently Covid was made in a lab - and most likely "those at the top" have known this for a long time:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...na-patent.html
It begins to look more and more like "12 Monkeys", huh.
I didn't do that. Rather I accuse the Russian and the Ukrainian government, as well as USA and UK, to have done not enough to prevent this conflict. Especially USA and UK have pushed an already hardliner government to the extreme position of "no compromise at all". And that was wrong, because we all can see where it led to. That doesn't mean Russian is right or doing the right things, not at all, but they both did cause this conflict, its not as one sided as the Western mass media try to portray it. There was a constant and massive provocation of Russia, by going for the militarisation of the Ukraine, a potential NATO membership in its current borders, the constant anti-Russian propaganda and no solution for Crimea or the pro-Russian minorities. On the contrary, the Minsk agreement was ignored by the Ukraine and there were constant attacks on the Donbas region, including civilians and other covert-ops, presumably also including the assassination of various Donbas leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicicleur 2
Essentially, if anybody would want a truly fair and democratic solution, the people in the disputed regions should have been asked in a referendum, because both the Ukrainian and the Russian regime can act "imperial" in the sense of ignoring minorities self-determination.
Nobody cared, and instead of bringing a reasonable compromise on the table, the USA and UK favoured an Ukrainian position of "no inch to the Russians". Not just if its about territory, but also if its about guarantees.
That's like provoking a strong guy in a pub for 3 ours, slapping him in the face and calling him names, and then complain if he hits you in the face and beats you up. That's actually an excellent comparison, because just like such a guy in a pub, Russia did overreact and is now in a mess. But the provocations from the other side were very real and shouldn't be ignored.
And if the whole pub just cheers to two guys beating each other up, especially the two competitors in the room, which want the Russian guy weak, then its just disgusting. They should push both sides to the negotiating table, both sides.