whYNOT

I think "Empire" is often used loosely and metaphorically, the USA isn't one. It might appear to act like one.
Dramatizing 'the War between two Empires' seems how neocons and Leftist militants (dangerously) view their world. It looks to me they'd relish a return to the Evil Empire, so it can be soundly defeated in war this time.
We should be more precise.
empire. noun. em·pire ˈem-ˌpī(ə)r. : a major political unit with a large territory or a number of territories or peoples under one ruler with total authority. especially : one having an emperor as chief of state. I suggest the US "hegemony".
heg·e·mon ˈhe-jə-ˌmän : something (such as a political state) having dominant influence or authority over others : one possessing hegemony
 

But no. One can't ignore that Putin was very slow to action. If he'd chosen to expand a Russian Empire he could have invaded 1. soon after Ukraine's independence in 1991 2. after the Kyiv coup. 3. shortly after the Donbas civil war began.
The first two times, the country's forces were weak and could have been defeated easier.
But very apparently he endorsed the (fraudulent) Minsk attempts--and for 8 years waited to see if there was a peaceful resolution.
Only did he invade when (his Intel would have informed him all along) NATO had already strengthened the UAF and he no longer had the luxury of delaying further. That, or allow the Donbass to be lost. 
None of this affirms a move and intention by "the Russian Empire" -- the opposite, a reluctance to intervene. 

?? Why must I be the one tasked with an opinion?
An aside (may be relevant):
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it". Mark Twain
IF, as I believe, NATO is inextricably tied to "American and Western interests"  I am of the opinion the USA should prepare to leave NATO.  (After this is over). Not that I can see it happening soon. But the binding "encumbrances" elsewhere are not in American - rational - interests.
The big picture I hear from geopoliticians is nearing the close of "a unipolar world" and the "rules -based order". Dominated and led by the USA during this post-Cold War period, for which I and most in the world would be thankful. But it has served its critical purpose - all good things must end.
I think their analysis is true, and the war was a catalyst for this change, for better or worse.
(They enthuse about the emerging multi-polarity of neutral, non-aligned, non-western countries, which would not support and/or condemn the West/Ukraine or Russia on issues of sanctions etc. . I have doubts).
 
 
 

At least the defense minister put this unmentioned but widely-accepted fact out in the open. Ukraine is de facto in NATO, (and has been pre-invasion). Look out for his emotional blackmail - the guilt-trip, which without fail, accompanies the altruist doctrine.  The western support capacity, arms, instruction, covert troops, cash -etc.  (they die, we pay) ever digging the West into a deeper hole, demonstrates: Guilt works.
https://sputniknews.com/20230107/bombshell-admission-ukraine-is-carrying-out-natos-mission-against-russia-defense-chief-says-1106118578.html

Taken from an article by Joshua Cho, early 2022; Putin explicitly states his invasion rationales. Yeah, the Donbass features as one.
A widely unpublished essay, the reasons will become clear.
 
"Recreating empire?"
An oft-repeated corollary to the Western media’s frequent Hitler comparisons is that there was little point before the invasion in addressing Russia’s security concerns surrounding NATO expansion and the US’s unilateral abandonment of arms control treaties, since Putin supposedly wanted to recreate the Soviet Union or Russian Empire despite his repeated explicit denials. Putin’s alleged belief that the modern state of Ukraine has no right to exist, the argument goes, is proof of his supposed Hitlerian expansionist ambitions.
“Talk of ‘de-Nazification,’ while absurd on a factual level, is nonetheless revealing. It tells us that Putin is acting on his long-held belief that the Ukrainian government has no right to be independent. It hints at his ultimate goal: to transform Ukraine into a vassal of a new Russian empire,” wrote Zack Beauchamp for Vox (2/24/22).
The two sources Western media most cite to make this claim are Putin’s speech (2/21/22) recognizing the independence of the separatist Donbas republics, and an essay he wrote last year (7/12/21) titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Vox’s Zack Beauchamp (2/24/22) wrote that Putin “believes that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian.” Ha’aretz (3/17/22) published an op-ed comparing Putin’s July essay, with its “Hitlerian motifs,”  to Hitler’s Mein Kampf—particularly “the notion of an artificial and tragic division of a people that must be rectified by reunification.”
Perhaps the most frequent purveyor of this narrative is Timothy Snyder (4/18/18), who claimed that the war in Ukraine is a “colonial war”:
"In a long essay on “historical unity,” published last July, [Putin] argued that Ukraine and Russia were a single country, bound by a shared origin. His vision is of a broken world that must be restored through violence. Russia becomes itself only by annihilating Ukraine".
However, when one actually reads both sources, rather than relying on secondhand sources to explain what Putin meant, it quickly becomes apparent that these are blatant misrepresentations of what Putin said. Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” is long and convoluted, but although Putin talks about Russia and Ukraine’s shared historic, religious and linguistic heritage, and claims that “modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era,” he also stresses that Russia has acknowledged new geopolitical realities:
"Things change: Countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!… The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country". 
This point was repeated in Putin’s later speech (2/21/22), where Putin blamed the existence of the modern Ukrainian state on Vladimir Lenin and the USSR. Putin’s claim was not that Moscow should continue to govern all of Ukraine, however, but that Russia’s recognition of Ukrainian independence was an act of political generosity, in contrast to what he presented as Kyiv’s ungenerous treatment of the residents of Donbas:
"Despite all these injustices, lies and outright pillage of Russia, it was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine’s dignity and sovereignty".
Putin’s efforts to justify Russia’s invasion are not based on events that happened centuries ago; his historical accounts in these two texts, however self-serving, are not linked to attempts to justify violence. Rather, the speech (2/24/22) that declared the “special military operation” did so on the grounds that the “eastward expansion of NATO” that began in 1999 is “a matter of life and death,” and a “red line” for Russia’s security that had been crossed despite several warnings. 
He also maintained it was to “protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime” in the Donbas region. Such concerns are generally dismissed as pretextual in the West, but the UN’s count of civilian deaths in the Ukrainian civil war—3,321 as of January 2019 (UN OHCHR, 9/23/21)–is comparable to the UN civilian death toll from the Russian invasion, with a tiny fraction of the international outrage.
[...]

I notice from Israel the (I think) minority who are bitterly against Zelensky because of his allegiances have taken to calling him "the Kapo" - a Jew and sell-out to his people who assisted the Nazis (in concentration camps).
Zelensky can well be Nazi-like in his dictates without self-contradiction. To attract approval simply because he's nominally Jewish and therefore purportedly has certain inbuilt attributes is stupid. Really, my point is that the ambivalence about a "Jewish" Zelensky's dealings with neo-Nazis `proves` to the pro-Ukraine fans that there clearly exist no such people, and is all Russian propaganda. They'd like to deny and hide the ugly reality there indisputably are neo-Nazis in positions in Govt. and Army--and they support them.
A Jew - or anyone - hasn't "chemical predestination" to believe anything. While many Jews have followed their parents'/teachers' religious education, religious Jewishness is not in their blood.

Bla bla bla. To prove that Russia will lose. That Russia too has its share of anti-war dissidents and pacifists and draft dodgers. To prove Russia will lose.
You fanatics set a lot of store in a Ukraine victory, I notice. This is a massive psychological investment.
If they win, it shows finally how 'good' they are - and *I am*, by association -- but, if they lose...
I think the realization will begin to set in. A defeat means it was all for nothing. In tune with our gvts, we resisted rational, diplomatic efforts between two countries whose fight was none of our business.  We verbally urged Ukraine on to its heroic sacrifice and destruction, but nothing came of it. The harsh economic measures back home enacted by our government sanctions - self-sacrifice all for nothing. And the loathing of reality: Russia must not win! (Nuke Moscow).

3 minutes! Well done. You are a great checker, nibbling away for any insignificant gotcha! I quoted exactly what I read in her interview.
But my main argument? Ukraine is a similar "outlaw"?
Nothing to add of substance.

A sophist diatribe. Exactly, you make no "claims". You show no recognition of anyone's deduction.
This war's entirety is not seen, heard, touched, "reality" that can be "proven" ostensibly by personal experience. The onus is on each to conceptualize from many, many accounts and a thousand reported events. Unless one is a mind reader, one cannot know people's motives. You go by what they say and what they do - assessing that isn't easy.
e.g. Jack Matlock ex-ambassador who was an intimate of Putin believes the war could have been averted by implementing Minsk. Taken together with other accounts and applied logic, this would appear true.
But better to let others make claims you can dismiss out of hand. The return to "revealed knowledge" again: if knowledge is not laid out on a plate for you in texts and subtexts and footnotes from 'proper' publications and writers, (or via 'good' propaganda) it apparently does not exist. You have learned that existence exists independent of a consciousness?

"Putin's ... war against Ukraine (started in 2014)".
So it was ~Putin~ who arranged Maidan, incentivised the Right Sektor et al, the toppling of the government , the anti-Russian sentiments of many Ukrainians, the rebel breakaways, the "anti-terrorist campaign" by Kiev - and other offshoots.
This Putin is an evil mastermind!
One logical cause, seldom mentioned, of the Russian annexation of Crimea, is that with the regime overthrow in Kyiv the Sevastopol naval base could well have been taken over by the West which clearly has prized it, with its proxy Ukraine.
You claim to have been following events from multiple sources, yet learned nothing.

A sophist diatribe. Exactly, you make no "claims". You show no recognition of anyone's deduction.
This war's entirety is not seen, heard, touched, "reality" that can be "proven" ostensibly by personal experience. The onus is on each to conceptualize from many, many accounts and a thousand reported events. Unless one is a mind reader, one cannot know people's motives. You go by what they say and what they do - assessing that isn't easy.
e.g. Jack Matlock ex-ambassador who was an intimate of Putin believes the war could have been averted by implementing Minsk. Taken together with other accounts and applied logic, this would appear true.
But better to let others make claims you can dismiss out of hand. The return to "revealed knowledge" again: if knowledge is not laid out on a plate for you in texts and subtexts and footnotes from 'proper' publications and writers, (or via 'good' propaganda) it apparently does not exist. You have learned that existence exists independent of a consciousness?

"Putin's ... war against Ukraine (started in 2014)".
So it was ~Putin~ who arranged Maidan, incentivised the Right Sektor et al, the toppling of the government , the anti-Russian sentiments of many Ukrainians, the rebel breakaways, the "anti-terrorist campaign" by Kiev - and other offshoots.
This Putin is an evil mastermind!
One logical cause, seldom mentioned, of the Russian annexation of Crimea, is that with the regime overthrow in Kyiv the Sevastopol naval base could well have been taken over by the West which clearly has prized it, with its proxy Ukraine.
You claim to have been following events from multiple sources, yet learned nothing.

Right...
As in: If it's not *my* (good) propaganda it is ¬their¬ (evil) propaganda.
The feature of expert (in particular) western propagandizing has been ubiquitous groupthink, the fast rejection of everything outside the official and proper line. Which all the people know when the thought police jump all over it.
Goes well beyond not today being allowed to freely and candidly discuss these matters with others, first, one must never even objectively consider them to oneself. To self-censor.
 

Real evidence? In one stroke, little left for you to say. That happened when Angela Merkel admitted she knew that no resolution of conflict was being pursued at Minsk, but 'buying time'; demonstrated again later as blocks by Biden/Johnson on early negotiations showed, Ukraine and its western allies were on a path to conflict--and every ruler knew it.
Since you never seem to arrange "facts" by prority, this "fact" dominates.
The West gets the war it wanted.
Against Russia, militarily, financially, economically - politically. But - fought ¬by¬ Ukrainians ¬on¬ Ukraine territory. The best of all worlds, they only have to pick up the expensive tab. (Offset by massive profits to the arms industries and construction contracts afterwards --etc.).
The neatest trick of psy-ops, to indoctrinate soft-minded populaces it was all Putin's doing. (But it's getting clear he wasn't keen to intervene, he didn't for a long time).
And that Ukraine one of the least democratic nations in its short history is "defending western democracy" and western "values".
Everything else falls away, your quibbles over trivial details included.

Real evidence? In one stroke, little left for you to say. That happened when Angela Merkel admitted she knew that no resolution of conflict was being pursued at Minsk, but 'buying time'; demonstrated again later as blocks by Biden/Johnson on early negotiations showed, Ukraine and its western allies were on a path to conflict--and every ruler knew it.
Since you never seem to arrange "facts" by prority, this "fact" dominates.
The West gets the war it wanted.
Against Russia, militarily, financially, economically - politically. But - fought ¬by¬ Ukrainians ¬on¬ Ukraine territory. The best of all worlds, they only have to pick up the expensive tab. (Offset by massive profits to the arms industries and construction contracts afterwards --etc.).
The neatest trick of psy-ops, to indoctrinate soft-minded populaces it was all Putin's doing. (But it's getting clear he wasn't keen to intervene, he didn't for a long time).
And that Ukraine one of the least democratic nations in its short history is "defending western democracy" and western "values".
Everything else falls away, your quibbles over trivial details included.

Real evidence? In one stroke, little left for you to say. That happened when Angela Merkel admitted she knew that no resolution of conflict was being pursued at Minsk, but 'buying time'; demonstrated again later as blocks by Biden/Johnson on early negotiations showed, Ukraine and its western allies were on a path to conflict--and every ruler knew it.
Since you never seem to arrange "facts" by prority, this "fact" dominates.
The West gets the war it wanted.
Against Russia, militarily, financially, economically - politically. But - fought ¬by¬ Ukrainians ¬on¬ Ukraine territory. The best of all worlds, they only have to pick up the expensive tab. (Offset by massive profits to the arms industries and construction contracts afterwards --etc.).
The neatest trick of psy-ops, to indoctrinate soft-minded populaces it was all Putin's doing. (But it's getting clear he wasn't keen to intervene, he didn't for a long time).
And that Ukraine one of the least democratic nations in its short history is "defending western democracy" and western "values".
Everything else falls away, your quibbles over trivial details included.

If Russia is a dictatorship so is Ukraine. But they are both sovereign nations. Your idea of what constitutes dictatorships is at fault.
There have been many atrocities committed by Ukraine and its ultra-nationalists: I have recently viewed some. They don't receive -any- msm publicity.
I've gone on at length as to the justification(s) for the invasion. This affair doesn't resolve as simplistically as you'd like it. The conditions that Putin was facing: a NATO-assisted militaristic Ukraine, the potential of NATO membership and ICBM bases on its borders, the plight of Russian-Ukrainians--would not be tolerable to any nation. Why should Russia be different? Oh, right - it's an outlaw nation! It is innately inferior. It can't defend its own people!
I have to caution everyone to prepare for disappointment, since those unindoctrinated by 'experts' can see Russia is getting close to driving back the opposition from its four annexed regions. Ukraine has been taking heavy losses.
Everything could have been circumvented peacefully with honest participants in Kyiv and the West.
It seems that a Russian win is the only way the world will finally realize how much they have been lied to altogether from the start. It did not have to be this way.
 

OSCE negates this account, as reported in Reuters.
A great increase of Ukraine shelling the civilian areas -- peaking when?
19 February, days before the invasion.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi53ufswZP8AhVTiVwKHYHrBsgQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fosce-reports-surge-number-explosions-east-ukraine-2022-02-19%2F&usg=AOvVaw2Unx_x-BHhp80UAIwSRQbt
"No genocide perpetrated" is disingenuous by the OSCE and UN.
The numbers of dead civilians might not reflect "genocide" from '14 to '22, but the huge numbers of shells fired into towns (without any miiltary tactical rationale) indicates the ¬intention¬ of genocide.
Even that is beside the point. I assume that you know of the accelerated training and arming of Ukraine's forces up until 2022? As shown by Merkel and Poroshenko's remarks ("buying time to build the military")?
Can you answer this:
Build an army - for what reason?
Only one reason possible:  a greater Army was required for a major and imminent (2022) assault on the Donbas.
--during which the Ukraine Armed Forces - the largest European army after Russia - would also be planned in all likelihood be needed to fight a predictable invading Russian Army (on stand-by at the border for a year) coming in to defend the Donbas. 
If that assault by a much strengthened UAF had been allowed to go ahead, with only resistance by the separatist militias, what do you think would have been the outcome, considering Kyiv viewed all the Donbas inhabitants as "terrorists" and had long been shelling them. 
Mass killings of civilians.
One may infer that Putin pre-empted and prevented that likely 'genocide', he "stole a march" on Kyiv.
 

Please read up from independent sources. Like the author interviewed above.  It's not possible for me to rectify all your mistakes. i.e. Regime change - the well-known bombings recently by Ukraine deep inside Russia. Etc.

"The idea...is laughable Kremlin propaganda".
Whew. You are uninformed! I fully see now the total grip of propaganda.
You heard nothing in the msm, no 'civil war' in Ukraine, so it never happened...
Unreal - a regional war in Europe was hidden for 8 years. Confirming my suspicions, a true conspiracy by the West to invite Russian retaliation - naturally, for no justification or provocation (that the public heard of and still haven't, going by your protest). 

Please read up from independent sources. Like the author interviewed above.  It's not possible for me to rectify all your mistakes. i.e. Regime change - the well-known bombings recently by Ukraine deep inside Russia. Etc.

"The idea...is laughable Kremlin propaganda".
Whew. You are uninformed! I fully see now the total grip of propaganda.
You heard nothing in the msm, no 'civil war' in Ukraine, so it never happened...
Unreal - a regional war in Europe was hidden for 8 years. Confirming my suspicions, a true conspiracy by the West to invite Russian retaliation - naturally, for no justification or provocation (that the public heard of and still haven't, going by your protest). 

The Rand statement - inapplicable. Russia is not a "dictatorship". Autocratic, yes.
"The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches".
Wiki:
The politics of Russia take place in the framework of the federal semi-presidential republic of Russia. According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament's approval. Legislative power is vested in the two houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding by-laws. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Russia has seen serious challenges in its efforts to forge a political system to follow nearly seventy-five years of Soviet governance. For instance, leading figures in the legislative and executive branches have put forth opposing views of Russia's political direction and the governmental instruments that should be used to follow it. That conflict reached a climax in September and October 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin used military force to dissolve the parliament and called for new legislative elections (see Russian constitutional crisis of 1993). This event marked the end of Russia's first constitutional period, which was defined by the much-amended constitution adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1978. A new constitution, creating a strong presidency, was approved by referendum in December 1993.

I'd like you to argue this "fact".
Merkel confirmed the suspicions first admitted by Poroshenko, but she is much more credible than he. The total facade exposed, that was Minsk, was conducted in order for Ukraine "to buy time", militarize its army with NATO and UK assistance, with the aim of eradicating the Donbas people, they who were honest signatories to the insincere accords, looking to cease hostilities and gain some autonomy. 
By Ukraine's continuing aggression assaulting the towns, and certain, future aggression, the West got the war they wanted and could have avoided; or does anyone think NATO believed that Putin would have held off and sat on his hands, while Russian-Ukrainians in Donetsk and Luhansk were being wiped out? 
NATO (MI6, CIA, etc.) aren't stupid people.
So Merkel inadvertently (or maybe deliberately) has vindicated Putin completely. Ukraine together with NATO, indeed posed "an existential threat": first to the Ukraine-Russians and second to Russia.
Since they could not have acted independently of the EU, UK and USA, she and Hollande would have been quietly told to carry on the fake negotiations as if in good faith.
"Unprovoked and unjustified invasion"? Premeditated, media/PR fluff to delegitimize Putin from the outset. Putin had every moral right to invade -- in self-defense. That he held off until this stage, was clearly because he was tricked, he seemingly still counted upon Kyiv to implement Minsk, perhaps waiting to see if the new guy Zelensky would fullfil his election promises. While in the interim Kyiv were using the time preparing for war.
So the cynical warmongers got the war you wished for, applauding Ukrainians (to their destruction)--but it's not working out as planned to defeat Russia, the saving-face and recriminations and self-justifications will be rampant.

Note the demand to rush to judgment. While evidence is still coming in - against the backdrop of major deception, obfuscation and disinformation - this is a complex evaluation to make, while early estimates and suspicions are now being confirmed. I have gone further than the simplistic, preconceptual, moralizing I hear from you.
I have categorically criticized NATO's irrational expansion and plans to expand further and the outside meddling in Ukraine politics to establish a regime change and foreign efforts to enlarge and strengthen the military in several recent years (for an unstated, but self-evident reason)-- and presently.
I ventured this war was premeditated by the West, a trap set for Russia, to be fought and suffered by Ukrainians - sacrificially of them. Confirmation is emerging of this.
I've shown repeatedly that Ukraine's social and legalized ill-treatment of the 'untermensch' Russian-Ukrainians, was tribalist-racist (apartheid, in practice); and then Kyiv's lengthy military attack on the Eastern breakaway civilians, flouted the ceasefire agreement and political solution, is absolutely immoral - and illegal. By their aggressive acts and from reports of brutality, Kyiv fully deserved to lose the loyalty of the Donbas, and will deserve to lose those territories . 
The interventions in and sabotages by western politicians of peace negotiations and prior Minsk accords, were viciously immoral.
I have maintained that Putin appeared alone in seeking a peaceful resolution, pre-invasion and after.
As for the West self-sacrificing for many years to come its economies, etc., etc., "in solidarity" or whatever 'with Ukraine' by their intention of weakening Russia's economy at all costs, no Objectivist needs to be told how immoral that is. Those governments and leaders deserve whatever they get, but as usual it's their (compliant)  people who will pay.
The entire episode has been sacrificial, of physical lives and human thriving, it seems you lot cannot grasp that altruism has been the ruling doctrine.
On balance Putin comes out much more rational, valuing and protective of his country than the aggregate of irrational Western leaders 'selflessly' willing to damage their own nations, and possibly have their citizens killed. For a conflict they could have averted.
As for those military experts who promised a glorious victory over Russia, I don't know if they are inept or corrupt. They and the pet media and Zelensky's regime who enhanced that folly and gave Ukrainian soldiers false encouragement to be killed in droves, have blood on their hands.
All this was coming down the road, foreseeable by many thinkers pre-2022, (even to a non-expert like me in Feb) which is why the first action (by a moral western leadership) -should- have been concerted efforts to diplomatically, ease tensions, sort out differences and find a peaceful outcome within the Minsk format. They didn't - that tells critical thinkers all they need to know about Western motives and moral character.
Where is your moral evaluation? Try to leave aside your feelings and avoid your normal nit picks.