So Russia is invading? That alone, pretty much regardless of the reason, is enough to side with Ukraine.

But that reason, even if true, is one of the stupidest reasons to invade. A softer, more propaganda focused approach would be both far more effective and far less costly, in both lives and resources. So either Russian leadership is so useless that an invasion is the best they can come up with, or they're invading to take over Ukraine. Incompetent to the point of malice, or malice. Take your pick.

Ah yes, because the fascist one for sure isn't the country where people are afraid to speak openly. Let's conviently forget what it's doing to say, feminist voices inside it's own borders. I'm not exactly a fan of most governments, but to pretend that Ukraine was doing anything to justify being invaded by Russia is just sympathy for fascism.

That's not fucking true they fucking killed people just like israel killed Palestinians just because a eastern country attacked a western company that doesn't equal a good cause

Damn, you're in deep. Good luck.

Not gonna convince you, but in case others read...

• Ukraine is a sovereign nation
• Ukraine holds elections
• Ukraine is known for corruption but had been improving
• Ukraine has ethnic Russians in the Eastern areas of the country, but more Russians were sent into the region as agitators before the annexation of Crimea
• Russia believes Ukraine as both a country and culture should not exist, according to their strategy published in Foundations of Geopolitics, which they have clearly been following the past few decades
• Ukraine is a major grain producer for Russia and Europe, so the region is highly valuable
• Ukraine had been discussing NATO membership before the war
• NATO was created explicitly in response to fears of invasion of European nations by the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation is seen as the inheritor of the Soviet Union
• Russia considers NATO a nearly existential threat and has historically exerted political pressure over neighboring states to prevent them from joining NATO
• In text, NATO acts as a mutual defense pact, among other provisions around economic and political cooperation
• In practice, NATO has only been invoked in the Iraq War, attacks against Turkey from Syria and terrorist forces, and Russian incursions into Ukraine. Note that since Ukraine is not a member, NATO has not responded with the full provisions demanded in the text. It had been invoked by neighboring and nearby nations.
• At the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia to hand over their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of sovereignty and peace
• During the war, Russia has targeted and destroyed both civilian and military assets and individuals in Ukraine
• During the war, Ukraine has made drone strikes against military targets in Russia proper, including Moscow

Puppet government is a stretch and depends on your definition. Considering that Ukraine is not a member of NATO despite several economic ties with the US, I don't think it's much of a puppet state, if at all. (Edit: I say this not to suggest that NATO is subject to the US, but it would be highly beneficial to the US if Ukraine had become a member long, long ago.) The Ukrainian government being full of Nazis is generally considered fake news, but I haven't seen evidence one way or the other.

NATO is not imperialist, as it does not establish hierarchical relationships. It is quite egalitarian. If anything, it encourages Europe to be more self sufficient, as the US wanted to minimize commitment to joining a European war. It is also meant to discourage and if possible prevent conflict among members. You could argue post-colonial economic dependence on the US, but... what countries don't have that?

Also, to break the logic in the commenter's argument... if a nation exhibiting Nazi behavior - that is, genocide or subjugation/mistreatment of a demographic under the government's rule - then we should invade the following countries for the mentioned populations:

• China for Uyghurs and arguably Mongolians
• India for Muslims
• US for immigrants
• Several African nations
• Myanmar for several ethnic groups
• Israel for Palestinians/Arabs
• Some middle eastern nations for denominations of Islam
• Russia for homosexual people

While I'm a fan of... you know, not abusing populations, I'm also not a fan of invading sovereign nations. So Russia's justification for invasion is a pretense and has a huge amount of historical context around it. OP's argument is highly flawed.

I'll only respond to items with cited evidence. Cited evidence should not include state-backed media or unreputable sources like some clearly extremist "news" site or individual blog.

If you'd like my citations, lemme know. Typed this up on mobile, so a bit of a pain. Corrections always welcome with proper evidence. Being corrected is good learning :)