whYNOT

The American foreign policy seems ruled by pragmatism. My enemy's enemy is my friend. (No, not necessarily). In that way, it has supported and enlisted some dubious political, ideological types in surrogate conflicts against other dubious types. For now it's utilizing Ukraine to damage/weaken/change regimes/etc. in Russia (with an eye on China). It should have left both alone, now it is clear. Some like me maintain that very few of those foreign "entanglements" (Thomas Paine?) have been in the US rational self-interest. And given those many more detractors an "imperialist US" reputation.

Laid out quite clearly below.
The more one finds out and interprets all these events, the greater the realization that combined Ukraine, NATO, the US, UK and EU did everything, pre-22, a foot short of making a full declaration of war on Russia.
While yet maintaining their "plausible deniability" with "unprovoked, unjustified invasion" if it went haywire.
Their pet media publicists covering for them - to keep their loyal people onside and riled up at the wrong instigator.
Russia was sent an engraved invitation they couldn't refuse, to a war party.
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2022/12/09/merkel-spills-beans-how-us-and-nato-partners-planned-war-ukraine-against-russia/

Russell hits some marks
https://youtu.be/CLF7P4T2AC8
 

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).