I'm not sure what you mean by offensive generalisation. If you were in charge of saving Ukranians' lives, could you have done things differently from what has been done? Instead of provoking your much stronger neighbour for decades in false believe of security, could you maybe have made decisions that would lead to a less precarious situation? I think so. It would have been better for all Ukranians if this war didn't happen. Would their general freedom suffer? Probably, but at least it wouldn't be as bad as now.

EDIT: Ok I see now what you took offensively. Most of us Westeners I should have wrote. Most regulars peoples' attention as example diverted much more to the case of Johny Depps' Trial than to the war in Ukraine.

You got the edit right, thanks yeah. Playing over the what-ifs of how this could have been diffused is painful; And considering how some high profile people against the war in Ukraine had previously committed atrocities is more than a little frustrating - Henry Kissinger and John Bolton come to mind. That being said, it is a, "the milk has already been spilt, lets clean it up" situation. If a monstrous person says the war shouldn't be, that doesn't mean the war should have began. Your points of criticism of the past dickheads can be construed as trying to excuse or divert blame for current atrocities there. It is kind of incendiary, people will just disengage and drop back to insults. General butt naked also comes to mind. The horror of what he did is hard to overstate. In his mind does his current occupation make him a purely self interested hypocrite, a person working to help his community, or both? If their self interest isn't in conflict with the humanism then sometimes it really is both, at least in their view. Focusing on not having had justice for the critics, i.e. vengeance or reparations, feels like it sows doubt in the thread about the good faith intent of your posts. It sucks because this is the kind of thing where communication really helps inform people rather than make them dig in their heels at perceived misinformation. Similarly, the past shit heads being so high profile really detract from getting consensus about the future and understanding the faults of the past.

Age of information, not communication and all that

I've read your message but I'll not engage in it, as it seems to be a personal attack. All I'll say is that the countries in Europe are not really interested in saving Ukrainian lives.

Local community maybe, national politics, probably not.

If your country is a member of NATO, i'm pretty sure there are a few countries right this moment, that consider your soldiers on their land as an occupation.

I live in slovenia, and even we have soldiers in places like syria , and I'm pretty sure none of the locals want us there... now we, the occupying force of country X, complain about someone else doing the same to country Y.

Why would the kurds not want slovenian soldiers on their turf making turkish attacks more improbable?

Kurds are a minority in syria, and so are the russians in ukraine, and both are happy for being protected by a larger force.

But native syrians have had their country basically destroyed by nato (too). So did afghanis, etc., and they're not happy for being occupied (as we saw after the pullout from afghanistan).

Considering turkey is a part of nato, it's interesting that we let them attack the kurds without any sanctions... maybe we have to wait until they annex a part of syria to make it "bad".... but in reality, noone will care.

Maybe because reality is way more complicated than you paint.