I don't usually like to frame any serious discussion in such a completely subjective dipolar context as "right vs wrong", but given the puerile, Disney world view of political analysts these days I have chosen just this once to engage on the established ground.
Usually I prefer looking at the interests of each party and establishing motive and agenda based on that.
I'm not bothering with those that suggest this entire invasion, SMO, or whatever, was an unprovoked attack by Russia, that's absurd on its face and I've been writing about this build up since 2015 pointing out all the antagonism and corruption, including the Hunter Biden saga, years before the mainstream picked up on it. I've also warned of problems in Moldova and the greater Russian plan for winning the economic war, which they clearly are doing.
What must be pointed out upfront is that not a single one of the supposed critics of the US role in Ukraine, the ones who open with the provisor "I think what Russia did was wrong, but..." and then go on to rightly criticize the US, none of them has ever been able to say why Russia was wrong, they only state "war is wrong". That is not a specific position here, it is a generalization that makes anyone who challenges your need to say it instantly appear suspicious. The the tactical aspect of such an approach cannot be lost on anyone using it. If Russia is wrong too then why can't any of them come up with an alternative?
What alternative do any of them put forward that was able to stop the ongoing Genocide in Donbass and positioning to eliminate the Russian state? As president of Russia your number 1 mandate is the security of the Russian state. Every other duty falls away once that is threatened, and no case can be made that placing nukes 8 minutes missile time from Moscow is not a threat, that building a vast military on your border not a threat, that biolabs where Slavic gene based gain of function virology is tested is not a threat.
Is banning your language is not a threat? Is surrounding your borders with a hostile mitary alliance (ask Serbia, Libya and the middle east) not a threat?
Why is any measure you take to counter such aggressive postering hysterically described a "Russian aggression" What would they, as NATO member states or US citizens of a nation wich has destroyed 47 nations post WW2, have done differently after 8 years of trying everything as Russia has?
Bear in mind the fact that Russia has a far different international intervention recird prior to this. She has only previously intervened twice in foreign military ops (Those times were stopping Syria from becoming another Libya and Crimea another Ukraine, both times BY INVITATION). Now let's hear their explaination of why Russia was wrong, because outside that context their contribution is nothing more than virtue signaling and parading a fake demonstration of their ability to read nuance I'm a situation, by ignoring nuance. Rather shut up, you are not advancing the issue by introducing "right and wrong" moral judgements.
How it works is first you establish:
1) Understanding of context and lead up
2) Interests, threats & incentive, then you
3) Evaluate options, you assess the risk, benefits and consequences of actions, AND then
4) evaluate the successes and failure which puts you in a position to stray from the observable outcomes and enter into to territory of subjective opinion of good and bad.
Moral judgements signal the content of your character, I am not saying that is not input I want, but what are you signalling making judgements when your approach betrays the fact that despite having no real understanding of what transpired, you are willing to make judgements publicly with conviction?
What that signals to me is that no matter how nice or fair those people sound, they are the ones that ultimately will roll out witch trials and inquisition. Those who think in absolutes and make judgements based on virtue are by far the most dangerous people in history because any evil ultimately becomes justifiable once you take that path.
