"States do not have friends, they have interests" (do not know who to attribute it to). And any serious student of history would see this being confirmed over and over. [Fun fact, V.P. said that in one of his more relaxed informal interview with two western journalists few years ago]. And when discussing events at that level of abstraction, we should not loose focus of this collective law of nature of how states interact (US, EU, Ukr and Russia)!

At the same time I tend to look at from a little bit of distance to see the "forest" rather than the individual trees. And it is here, in this point of view, that I think criticism should be addresses as well.

So, when when someone makes a valid point that there are groups such as Azov battalion (which is one out of many such groups), it's not a minor detail that can be dismissed as being blamed on this or that. It simply does not start or stop there. Rather, it's a symptom of a "disease" (or politically correct way: institutionalized mechanisms and processes that not only tolerate but promote it, and that was before the conflict itself. They have at their hand assassinations of journalists, etc).

A view of Ukr elites just several months ago in The Guardian/Reuters/etc having headlines such as "VZ aliance with far right","Ukr has more Pandora papers than anyone else", Ukr neo-nazi problem","Ukr hate crimes against LGBT","Secret papers shows elites/state looting UKr","VZ president is increasingly corrupt", (all actual headlines just under a year ago... and one can go on for quite some time). Regarding the war itself, Ukr military has been using cluster bomb against its own citizens (Luh, Don. before independence, and also latest was 3 days ago), Ukr. is openly using terrorists attacks, using civilians as shields etc. (Things we condemn in Israel-Pal. conflict, yet overlook in Ukr-Russ. conflict).

So, the criticism should stem from the narrative itself, and I think there are worrisome developments I and nearly any one I talk to from post-soviet countries sees in the synthetic and unbalanced narrative that is being pushed on people in rather less than gentle propaganda. (Unbalanced not in a way to reduce attackers guilt, but the utter lack of balanced journalism). I mean, even when in Syria terrorirst were cutting people's (western journalists) heads off in live TV did not spark anywhere near the level of abstract hate on them as was spread against Russian civilization in a matter of a month.

People cannot always express it well, but there is already an "official" and "kitchen-table" discussion dichotomy in nearly all homes I could visit. And of cause (common) people (as oppose to the ruling elites) always have natural tendency to flock and help, the compassion and urge to help is wonderful display of humanity. But the elites in the west have taken over this collective sense and are using it, nay, exploiting it (for what is not yet clear to me), at least thats my gut feeling.

NB: perhaps these are little too disjointed thoughts, and it is not a plea for more criticism against Ukr. Rather, it is a plea for balanced discussions free of double standards, or hyper-emotional one liners. When situation is complex and time short to orient oneself we become overly emotional, something to be aware of and mitigate.