Yes, I'm aware of it. That view point comes from far left publications, and I'm wary of it.

The reasoning seems to be that Russia had a right to invade because it was a way of protecting herself against a future invasion by the west.

That, to me, is an excuse. There isn't a single reason one invades another country - ever.

What I gather (and I might be mistaken) is that the current Ukraine president is very nationalistic, and he didn't glorify Russia. So what! That's not justification for invading Ukraine.

Also, the idea that Russia didn't have sufficient international prominence, and therefore she was entitled to invade Russia, and it was all the west's fault because they didn't allow Russia to be an international voice and have a powerful status in the world is also absurd.

What exactly did the west and nato do to Russia? Nothing!

Russia, like many countries which are not built on ethics (the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period of time) sold off her assets to friends of the government and never actually educated the majority of her people or allowed them to flourish. This is her fault - not the fault of the west.

Estonia, at the time that the USSR felt, had a 10,000% inflation rate, had no phone system, and the country was in extreme poverty.

In 20 years, the prime minister took it to first wold status. How? Removing the privileges of the wealth, educating all kids from day one on coding, giving free public transport to everybody, providing internet access to everybody just as it was coming on to the scene. It also offered virtual citizenship to anyone who headquartered their business there.

Russians lack an imagination. I guess it was bred out of them by a century of abuse by their leaders.

Putin wants grandeur for some reason. He is a murderous swine.

Can you tell me precisely what I'm missing here, because I keep reading how the west is responsible for this, but not a single person actually words why. That, in itself, says it's propaganda.