Everytime I see this guy, this is all I can think of.

I get where you’re coming from, and I think you’re right that geopolitics isn’t driven by morality. But saying that morality ‘matters very little’ is different from saying it doesn’t matter at all. Leaders don’t operate in a vacuum, but they also aren’t just passive reflections of material conditions. They make choices—sometimes bad ones, sometimes catastrophic ones—and those choices have consequences beyond the abstract forces of history.

The chain of cause and effect you’re talking about is real, but it doesn’t eliminate agency. If it did, there’d be no point in trying to influence anything, because everything would already be preordained by material processes. That’s not how history actually plays out. Leaders make decisions within constraints, but they still make them. The idea that Russia had no other choice but to invade Ukraine ignores the fact that plenty of other post-Soviet states also experienced economic and political instability, yet Russia didn’t invade them all. Why? Because it wasn’t just about abstract ‘material processes’—it was about specific decisions made by people with power.

You’re also implying that NATO’s role in this is straightforwardly imperialist, which oversimplifies the situation. NATO is a military alliance, and yes, it serves Western interests. But Ukraine wasn’t ‘forced’ into NATO’s orbit—it actively sought security guarantees after watching what happened in Georgia, Crimea, and Donbas. If we’re doing a materialist analysis, Ukraine’s desire to align with NATO is as much a material reality as Russia’s desire to stop it. So why treat one as natural and the other as Western manipulation?

I don’t think we disagree that material conditions shape conflicts. But I do think dismissing leadership choices as secondary, or treating NATO as the sole driver of the conflict, is just as much of a simplification as ignoring material conditions entirely. The best analysis—whether practical or historical—accounts for both.

I appreciate the depth of this discussion, and I think we might be closer in our views than it initially appears. I agree that material conditions matter—history, economics, and geopolitical realities all create the environment in which decisions are made. NATO expansion did change the security landscape in Eastern Europe, and the fallout from the Soviet collapse created complex dynamics we’re still witnessing today.

Where I think we differ is in how we understand the decision to invade. Material conditions create contexts, but they don’t predetermine military aggression. Putin’s choice to invade has resulted in catastrophic humanitarian consequences—tens of thousands dead, millions displaced, cities reduced to rubble, and countless lives shattered. These aren’t abstract policy outcomes but profound human tragedies that demand accountability.

The material analysis also cuts both ways. If we’re talking about material interests, what about Ukraine’s? Their desire for security guarantees after watching Russia’s actions in Georgia and Crimea represents a material reality too. Their concerns about Russian aggression weren’t imaginary—they were based on observed patterns.

I still maintain that Russia’s actions reflect more than just defensive security concerns. The rhetoric about “one people,” the denial of Ukrainian identity, the installation of Russian educational systems in occupied territories— they are words and actions that point to imperial ambitions beyond simply keeping NATO at bay.

Perhaps the most productive approach is to recognize both material conditions and leadership decisions as essential parts of the analysis, while never losing sight of the real human beings whose lives have been devastated by this war.

I’m not ignoring Euromaidan or the broader post-Soviet fallout—I just don’t think they justify Russia’s actions. If anything, they reinforce my argument.

Euromaidan wasn’t some Western-orchestrated coup; it was a mass uprising driven by Ukrainians rejecting a corrupt, Russia-aligned government that tried to back out of closer ties with the EU. The response? Russia annexed Crimea and fueled a separatist war in Donbas. That wasn’t some inevitable “material consequence” of Soviet dissolution—it was a calculated move to punish Ukraine for stepping out of Russia’s shadow.

Yes, many Russians support the war—but why? Because Putin controls the media, suppresses opposition, and jails or kills dissenters. When you control the narrative, you control public opinion. That doesn’t make the war justified—it just means propaganda works. The idea that Russia had to invade due to “material reasons” falls apart when you consider that no actual threat existed. NATO wasn’t invading. Ukraine wasn’t attacking Russia. The only “threat” was Ukraine choosing its own path, and Putin couldn’t tolerate that.

Putin’s actions tell the real story. He has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is not a real country and that its independence was a mistake. That isn’t about NATO. That isn’t about self-defense. That’s about control. If NATO weren’t the excuse, something else would be.

You’re right that history is complicated—but some things are simple. Invading a sovereign nation because you don’t like its direction isn’t a “material necessity.” It’s imperialism.

I see where you’re coming from, and I’ll acknowledge that NATO’s history isn’t without controversy. The Cold War era was full of power struggles, covert operations, and actions taken under the banner of anti-communism that are fair to criticize. But historical context doesn’t automatically determine present reality. The NATO of today is not the NATO of 1950, and treating it as if it is ignores how global politics have evolved.

Yes, NATO was formed as a counter to the USSR, but alliances don’t exist in a vacuum—they evolve based on the actions of those they were meant to counter. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but Putin’s government has actively revived expansionist policies that threaten its neighbors. That isn’t just Western propaganda—ask the people of Ukraine, Georgia, or Chechnya.

More importantly, focusing on NATO as the reason for Russia’s invasion ignores a fundamental fact: Ukraine wanted to join NATO precisely because of Russia’s aggression. Ukraine’s sovereignty isn’t just a chess piece in some imperialist struggle—it’s a real country making real choices based on real threats. If this were purely a matter of NATO’s existence, why did Russia invade Ukraine in 2014, long before any serious NATO membership talks?

As for “Great Man Theory,” I agree that geopolitics isn’t just about individual leaders. But ignoring Putin’s role entirely is just as simplistic. Leaders shape policy, especially in authoritarian states like Russia, where power is heavily centralized. Putin isn’t acting alone, but his worldview—his obsession with restoring Russia’s sphere of influence, his belief that Ukraine isn’t a real country, his willingness to use force to achieve his goals—does matter. Dismissing that as just “character analysis” misses the material reality that his decisions are shaping the lives of millions.

So while I respect the historical perspective, I think the argument that NATO is the primary driver of this war is flawed. Ukraine wasn’t forced into conflict by some Western plot—it was attacked by a neighboring country that refuses to accept its independence. That’s not imperialist propaganda. That’s just reality.

I get what you’re saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:

NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.

If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.

Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO “threat” as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.

Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.

So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim “lost” lands is.

Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn’t an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin’s actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn’t reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.

NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn’t just to stop NATO expansion; it’s to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.

The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they’ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a “red line”—just as they’ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.

Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.