> Your comment is a classical projection, so often seen in the West.

> The US has invaded a neighboring country Mexico (Mexican–American War (1846–48)) and has stolen its territory (California). The US is a country that is founded on the genocide of the Natives and the subsequent landgrab. Today, the US sees the whole World as its backyard and uses a Hitler-esque construct of "exceptional nation" as an excuse to go into wars - directly or through proxies - against everyone. Including nuclear powers. By forcefully installing an US puppet government ("F_ck the EU'' phone call), building a huge military force in eight years and intending to use that force to expell millions of Russians, the US has provoked Russia leaving it no other choice but to start a conflict in its literal backyard.

> So, what you accuse Russia of is a projection as the US and the rest of the West have done all that in the Americas, Africa, Asia. With impunity.

It's not projection, but your post sure has a lot of whataboutism. Unlike seemingly a lot of people who are pro Russian, I can hold the view that Russian war crimes in Ukraine are terrible and also that other countries have committed terrible crimes during wars.

None of that excuses Russias war crimes in Ukraine though.

> And the West did promise to Russia not to expand eastwards. German "Der Spiegel" has published an article [0] about it on 2022-02-18 but it is behind a paywall and all references to it are scrubbed by Google. There is an article about it at RT (Russia Today) [1] but to you it is most probably just "propaganda" even if it quotes "Der Spiegel". There is also a book tellingly called "Not One Inch" [2].

Your attempt to hide behind a paywalled article with literally 0 other evidence is an admirable effort, but unfortunately theres plenty of non paywalled articles on exactly why you're wrong.

The view of the president of the Soviet Union at the time would be the most authoritative source on the matter and here's a quote from exactly him.

'Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.'

> You may argue that breaking promises and agreements doesn't matter, but as we can see in Ukraine it leads to death and destruction.

So what are the consequences of Russia breaking the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia literally promised to.

1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.

3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

5. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[7][8]

[1]. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...

[2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum