> Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them ...
Let's not lose track of the truth in the hubris. The Iranian strategy to immediately target all the alliance partners of the US ("peace and prosperity for everyone or no one") in the region has lead to a stalemate in the war, with both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost. (And as you noted, the US has only used a quarter of its firepower yet). But, just like the Ukranians, Iran shouldn't forget that they are fighting a superpower, with a stronger economy and military than them, and neither Ukraine or Iran can defeat them in a conventional sense, if at all. Any nation can survive against a stronger enemy, as both India and Iran have proved with their civilisational heritage. However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.
> both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost
What are "both sides", exactly, and what are their respective goals?
To an outside observer, it would seem that the Iranian regime's goal is to stay in power, and that they are in a better position to do that now than before the bombing.
They have even unlocked a previously unheard of bonus, to put tariff on transports through Hormuz, which they never had the power to do before.
As an outsider it is hard to understand why this is happening and how it will end, unless all these concessions served to the Iranian regime were deemed worth it as distraction from domestic issues.
>> However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.
You are aware Iran fought a 8 year war with Iraq? With over 1 million casualties, and they wanted to continue that war? Do you remember all the fuss when ONE US pilot was shot down?
Yes, and I see the 8 year Iraq-Iran war as a sign of poor leadership on both sides. Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour under his stewardship (especially as Ukraine has no real hope of winning the war). Stepping back from a conflict, even if the terms aren't ideal, shouldn't be considered a defeat (think like your enemy - the US never retreats, it only does "conflict management" when the odds are against it). Prioritise people's well-being over territory, over everything because without them you have no civilisation or culture to preserve. (India has fought many wars since independence, but never allowed any of it to drag on for years). All that said, I will concede that the current foes of Iran are irrational fanatics, and Iran has very difficult choices to make ...
> Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour
What is he supposed to do? Give up and let the barbarians rape and plunder his nation? Would you want to live under Russian rule?
Zelenskyy is doing exactly the right things. His short and long range strikes inside Russia are severely damaging the Russian economy and war machine. Russia has lost Ukrainian territory in their offensive this spring/summer, and Russian frontline soldiers are being killed and injured at a far higher rate than Ukrainian soldiers who are leaning on a millions-of-drones shield. If you want your continued freedom in whatever country you live in, you better be praying Ukraine defeats Russia. Your country may be next if not.
If Ukraine surrendered now, ceding occupied territories and perhaps giving up some extra in the Donbas, all that would happen is a pause that Russia desperately wants to rebuild and rearm, and return in a couple years (as it did in Chechnya and Georgia). There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees--far more than the empty promises they had before, meaning third party forces patrolling a DMZ. Until that happens, Zelensky and Ukrainians recognize that continuing to bleed Russia on the battlefield while building their capabilities and stressing Russia's economy is the only viable strategy. No conventional victory is possible for either side, it's a race between who collapses first, and in this, Ukraine is doing well: receiving aid from, and building relationships around the world.
It was never an option for Zelensky to stop the war from dragging on. Thank God he recognized that.
> There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees
Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic. Ukraine ceded from the USSR under the specific guarantee to the Russians that they would remain a "permanently neutral" State that would not join any military alliance that was against Russia - Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine ( https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/uk... ) states:
> The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to purchase nuclear weapons.
The founding leaders of the Ukraine honoured that and this was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution - to be a neutral state that would not endanger Russian security. And under these leaders, Ukraine lived in peace. It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine. (Which is a completely natural political response). The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?
So the short version is: Russia felt threatened and invaded. It didn't do that for any of the Baltic states. It didn't do that when Finland aligned with NATO by joining the PfP in 1997, or joined NATO in 2023. All that had to happen was for Ukrainian leaders to say they wanted to join NATO, and that caused such a perception of undermined security that it demanded the extinction of Ukraine?
How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO, and 1/3rd of Russian land-based nuclear weapons are within 400 km of that border. Sweden is also in NATO, so the Baltic sea is an all-NATO sea except for St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad. They have over a million casualties, lost more than half their tanks and AFVs, and are struggling to avoid general mobilization, all to occupy an area in Ukraine a little smaller than the state of Colorado--an area that is now completely in ruins. What remains of the Black Sea Fleet is in hiding in Novorossiysk, beaten by a country that has no navy.
The Russian economy survives by selling deeply discounted crude oil to China and India, liquidating its gold reserves (73% gone to date), and drawing down its foreign currency reserves. In the Russia/China relationship, Russia is now the subordinate partner, dependent on China to buy its crude and sell it materials for its war effort (Khrushchev spins in his grave). Europe is rearming and cutting any remaining energy ties to Russia.
> Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014?
Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions.
All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ...
> How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ...
Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now.
Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians.
See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?
Your narrative on the Winter War is very flawed. For starters, it was not fought before WWII, but from late November 1939 to mid-March 1940, which puts it between the invasion of Poland and the fall of France. It was a part of the broader joint German-Soviet attack on smaller European democracies in the early part of WWII. The secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed in August 1939 between Germany and the USSR that divided Europe left the USSR free hands to invade Finland. Immediately they began pressuring Finland and conducting false-flag operations like the shelling of Mainila to accuse Finland of hostility and demand concessions. When the talks broke down, the Finns woke up on 30 November 1939 to the surprise of Russian bombers dropping their loads on Helsinki. So much about "choice".
Pinning this on "the false assurances of then western powers" is just rubbish (with a very modern smell), nor was there anything comparable to the international coalition currently supporting Ukraine. Finland was very much alone. Even the Swedish state hesitated and lot of support that is counted in statistics as "Swedish" came through volunteers instead.
The war ended not because "they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego", but because Russians had broken through the main defensive line and the situation had become critical for the Finns and making territorial concessions was considered the less risky option. The Finns were afraid that if the war dragged on, Germany would enter the war in support of the USSR. Germany was about to invade Denmark and Norway (April 1940), after all.
Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant. When the major fighting broke out on the eastern front in 1941, Finland fought three years to regain their lost territory in the Continuation War of 1941-1944, and the USSR ultimately settled for far less than Russia is demanding from Ukraine.
The situation is nothing comparable to Ukraine's present day, because Russia has been stuck for years, the defensive lines hold well and the risk of sudden breakthrough is minimal, while Ukraine is able to deliver increasingly severe and disruptive strikes on the Russian rear. Since the introduction of improved drones in February-March 2026, the balance of power has been visibly tipping in favor of Ukraine, and the FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles that are expected to enter service in the coming months will shift that even more so.
As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out, but because the unprovoked nature of the war against Ukraine and the scale of it proved neutrality as an unviable option. There's simply no hope for any country in Europe to avoid such invasion without betraying their independence and becoming a colony of Russia, nor to stand against such onslaught alone. Even with pooled European resources and additional support from all parts of the world, it's still very difficult, as we can see from the news.
Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out, because that did little to slash Russian ambitions, but left Ukraine without much stronger foreign support in the initial stages of the war.
There's a reason why from the arctic tip of Norway down to the hot deserts of the Middle East, not a single neutral country remains on Russian border anymore. What you are suggesting is exactly the kind of recipe that led to this war: isolate your country from allies and hope Russians don't come to attack you. That is not a responsible statesmanship.
And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place.
Why did the Winter Wars start? The Russians knew that the Nazis wouldn't honour the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and that Germany would have to use Finnish territories to invade Russia. So Stalin made some pre-emptive demands on the Finns to enhance security at their borders (territorial swap to create buffer zones, Soviet bases on strategic areas in Finland and in return Finland was offered security guarantees and trade). Ofcourse, due to historic mistrust between the Finns and the Russians, and as this impinged on the sovereignty of the Finns, the Finns had plenty of legitimate concerns to these demands. But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians. The west didn't / couldn't. Just like with Ukraine today.
> Finland was very much alone.
Just as Ukraine is fighting the Russians alone, today, right? That is factual. It is also factual that just as Ukraine is backed by many western powers in its fight against the Russians today, Finland was also backed by many western powers in its fight against the Soviet Union. The scale of effort may be different, but the politics are the same - encourage a proxy to fight the Russians, to weaken them, without sacrificing any of their own countrymen.
> The war ended ... because Russians had broken through the main defensive line ...
Yeah, and that the Finns were smart is my point too - they knew when to stop fighting and surrender! Ukraine is losing men and territory, which it has no hopes of replenishing or regaining militarily, however much it hopes it can inflict some kind of defeat.
> Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant.
That's debatable. Yeah, they licked their wounds after the Winter War, made a new alliance with Nazi Germany (who they assumed was a stronger partner) and when they felt confident to fight again, they did. And then after 3+ years, when they realised that they were again on the losing side, they stopped fighting and pragmatically surrendered. Read the history notes - Finland actually lost more territory after the Continuation war than it did in the Winter Wars. Apart from the loss of territory, they also had to pay huge reparations, fight the German army and rid of them from its territories, demobilise most of its army and agree to a reduced military and be neutral. And they did all that.
The pragmatism displayed by the Finnish leaders has to be appreciated. They fought, made peace, fought again, realised they (and Germany) were on the losing side, made peace again and even signed a "Friendship treaty" with USSR and gained the trust of the Russians again with sincere compliance. Subsequent Finnish governments were highly conscious of Soviet security interests, and Finland avoided policies that Moscow considered threatening. This bought them peace and security to strengthen themselves during this period.
As for the demands on Ukraine being different, note that the Russian demand on Ukraine, for a long time, was only to remain a neutral state and maintain its multi-cultural identity. Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. That's it. Instead, he escalated confrontation with Russia. If he had actually gained anything from that, I would call him a smart politician too. But what has been the result - he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military is being decimated, it's economic infrastructure is facing heavy destruction, it's GDP is in the negative and now it is in danger of becoming a land locked country in the future too.
> As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out ...
They were neutral as long as it served their interest. But they were also pragmatic to prepare for the day they had to choose a side. That is what the 80+ years bought them. If they had let their ego dictate their war, they would either be a Russian territory or a war-ravaged nation with a broken economy like Ukraine is now.
> Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out ...
It chose not to be neutral and became a pawn in the superpower politics between the west and Russia. It is as simple as that.
> And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place.
Nobody forced the USSR to enter an alliance with Germany. You stress "good-faith" as is customary to Russian trolls, because the pre-war negotiations were anything but; the USSR demanded free transit through Poland in the event of war with Germany. Poland rejected this, fearing that the Soviets would remain as an occupying force and never leave. History proved them correct. In practical terms, this would have legitimized the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September 1939.
> But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians.
This claim is not supported by the historical record by any stretch. It is a modern Russian spin on events to belittle the agency of neighboring countries and reduce everything to a "western conspiracy", because they don't want to draw attention to the reasons why everyone hates Russians. After Russians dropped bombs on Helsinki, the Finns did not need any cigar-smoking top-hat wearing man from Washington to tell them to defend their homeland from invaders.
> Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. /---/ he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine
There was no coup in Ukraine, and by the time Zelenskyy was voted into office (2019), the Russian war against Ukraine was in its fifth year. Pinning the loss of Crimea (2014) on him tells that you just don't know what you're talking about. Accusing Zelenskyy of escalating tensions with Russia is also utterly absurd. He campaigned on de-escalation, met with Putin in December 2019 in pursuit of that, and in the first few years in office, worked on a comprehensive ceasefire. His efforts were rewarded with a full-scale invasion of the entire country.
As I said before, you are recommending a recipe that already led to a disaster.
NATO funds no one and trains no one. NATO is a treaty about military cooperation and a bureaucracy for facilitating it. Or do you believe that NATO is secretly a more powerful, and comprehensive entity than it appears to be?
The countries that have provided military and economic aid and training are members of NATO because they're closely allied with the U.S., who, under Biden provided a generous level of aid and coaxed its allies to do the same. Then Trump became president and American aid was cut off, while the rest of the allies tried to ramp up to replace what was withdrawn.
So when you say "NATO funded, NATO trained army", you're vastly overstating the NATO-ness of the UA. They received much western hardware, and cohorts of soldiers did their basic training abroad to relieve pressure on Ukrainian training capabilities; this does not equate to a force that fights like NATO forces would, either by doctrine or organizational competence. Indeed, the one time they tried a "NATO-style" offensive in the summer of 2023, it was an abject failure (in part because they lacked air superiority, which is a foundational condition for applying NATO tactics, but mostly because the UA at the time wasn't capable of corps-level organization).
> how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?
This isn't a war that can be won militarily by either side. Ukraine wins by surviving; Russia loses if Ukraine survives. If, by treaty or exhaustion, the lines freeze where they are, then Ukraine has won and Russia has lost: Ukraine remains, more western-oriented than ever, ready to join the EU (which has a much stronger mutual defense clause than NATO's).
Russia, OTOH has a barren, parched wasteland earned at a ruinous cost. All the industry in the Donbass is destroyed, and the fertile wheatfields of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson can't be irrigated because Russia destroyed the dam that created the Kakhovka Reservoir. Half a million dead Russians bought them a picturesque coastline.
And just as Ukraine has chosen not to grant a pause to Russia to rearm and return, Russia can't grant Ukraine a pause either. As soon as hostilities stop, Ukraine has a domestic drone industry that is the best in the world and can sell them, and their expertise, worldwide to finance their reconstruction (along with five or six Middle Eastern countries desperate for an effective defense against Shaheds who've already gone to the Ukrainians for help). And every time Ukrainians beat NATO forces in an exercise, more customers line up.
What's telling to me is that you're unable to discuss Ukraine's future as anything but a pawn for western interests. You don't think Ukraine has agency to chart its own course, military or politically. The chaos in NATO alone should tell you that there's no coherent western power(s) directing Ukraine. Ukraine is simply doing really well at surviving and getting whatever aid it can to do so.
Time favours Ukraine. Are there more Chinas and Irans waiting to align themselves with Russia?
> The countries that have provided military and economic aid and training are members of NATO ... So when you say "NATO funded, NATO trained army", you're vastly overstating the NATO-ness of the UA.
No, sounds about right - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. NATO "members" are funding Ukraine and its military. NATO "members" are training Ukraine's military. NATO "members" are arming Ukraine's military. For me, that is indeed a "NATO funded, NATO trained" army. (And surely, Ukraine's political and military leadership aren't attending NATO summits and meets for the drinks they provide, are they now? - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c29d03574zdo ).
> This isn't a war that can be won militarily by either side.
I disagree. If the west send their soldiers to fight alongside Ukrainians Russia can be defeated. But they won't. Otherwise, Russia is already winning militarily. Without NATO "member" funding, Ukraine doesn't have the economic or military capability to fight the Russians. That is a reality that remains unchanged.
> Ukraine wins by surviving
What does "surviving" mean to you? The moment the west stops its funds, Ukraine's economy will collapse.
> Russia loses if Ukraine survives
Russia has no problem with Ukraine's existence, as long as it remains a neutral State that doesn't undermine Russian security.
> If, by treaty or exhaustion, the lines freeze where they are, then Ukraine has won and Russia has lost
And do you really believe that will happen? I don't. There is absolutely no way Russia will sign any treaty allowing a "freeze" or a "ceasefire", especially with EU and / or NATO peacekeepers. (It would lob nukes on Ukraine before it agrees to such a treaty). That Russia isn't advancing at a fast pace in the frontline, to capture Ukrainian territory, doesn't mean it can't. As a former Ukrainian general said, "Its [Russia's] strategy increasingly rests not on rapid advances but on exhausting Ukraine economically, militarily and psychologically. Russia still possesses deeper reserves of manpower and industrial capacity in several critical sectors, including ballistic missile production. Air defence alone cannot fully offset that advantage". While the western media obsesses on the capture of territory in Eastern Ukraine, it isn't the only military goal of Russia. Even as it fights on the frontline, it is also focusing on crippling (or even decimating) Ukraine's economy and military capabilities. Sure, Russians are suffering heavy loss in terms of manpower. But that doesn't matter in the short-term against the Ukrainians as Russia has a bigger population (it will however matter in the future against a stronger foe).
> Russia, OTOH has a barren, parched wasteland earned at a ruinous cost. All the industry in the Donbass is destroyed, and the fertile wheatfields of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson can't be irrigated ...
> The current occupied territories have a long history as Ukraine’s industrial motor ... Important parts of the former Soviet military-industrial complex are still situated in the southeastern provinces of Ukraine, and the Zaporizhzhia region constitutes an important producer of metals and machinery. Prior to the conflict, the Kherson region played a vital role in the production of vegetable products, vegetable fats, and oils, but with the occupation of the southern regions, Ukraine has lost about 20 percent of its farmlands ... The macroimpact of this occupation is not to be neglected. As illustrated in Figure 1 (visualizing regional contributions to Ukraine’s GDP prior to the conflict), the current Russian occupation of the majorities of the Luhansk (1 percent of prewar GDP), Donetsk (5.2 percent), Kherson (1.6 percent), and Zaporizhzhia (4.2 percent) regions results in a combined loss of 12 percent of Ukrainian GDP. Moreover, these losses need to be added to the economic losses Ukraine already suffered following the 2014 annexation of Crimea (3.05 percent of GDP in 2013) and the occupation of portions of Donetsk (a drop from 10.83 percent of Ukrainian GDP in 2013 to 5.78 percent in 2015) and Luhansk (a drop from 3.62 percent in 2013 to 1.2 percent in 2015) oblasts ... Studying these regions in detail shows that Russia succeeded in occupying key infrastructure of importance to the rest of the Ukrainian economy. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, for example, accounted for almost half of Ukraine’s nuclear power production prior to the conflict, whereas 40 percent of Ukrainian steel was produced in Mariupol. Furthermore, the Russian offensive in southern Ukraine resulted in the occupation of several of Ukraine’s major maritime ports (most importantly Mariupol and Berdyansk). This further facilitated Russian efforts to impose a maritime blockade. This confronts Ukraine with severe logistical challenges, since 75 percent of its foreign trade took place through sea routes prior to the war.. economic perspective also illustrates the rationale for Russia to have fought so hard, and at such cost, for control of Bakhmut—and for it to continue its war efforts in neighboring eastern regions, like Dnipropetrovsk. This region is almost absent from discussions as a strategic objective, despite its important and longstanding role as a center of metallurgy and military industry. During the Cold War, this region was the world’s biggest producer of nuclear missiles. The economic importance of this region comes to the fore when we look at the 2021 regional GDP contributions. As demonstrated in Figure 1, Dnipropetrovsk accounts for over 10 percent of Ukrainian GDP, serving as an important contributor to the Ukrainian economy.
> What's telling to me is that you're unable to discuss Ukraine's future as anything but a pawn for western interests. You don't think Ukraine has agency to chart its own course, military or politically.
Yes, that is true because I view it as a conflict of superpower politics. While I don't fault the Ukrainians to strive to be free of foreign influence in their politics, in their political naivety they've overplayed their hands and just traded Russian influence for western ones. The only difference is that the west offers golden political cages ... (As its economy has been devastated due to the war, Ukraine is now 100% dependent on its foreign masters for the next decade at least).
> Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic.
Talking about security of the largest violator of security in Europe is oxymoronic without the oxy part. Europeans still have Russian soldiers beating their heads with sapper shovels and driving tracked vehicles over people in fairly recent living memory (1991) while "We can repeat it!" remains a popular Russian chant and Russian state TV can't stop fantasizing about nuking major European cities, and we should be worrying about Russian security? Why?
> It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine.
Completely untrue. The USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship run by people from the upper ranks of military and security services. They lost their grip on the country when they ran it economically into the ground in the late 1980s, but quickly returned to their positions by the mid-1990s by outmaneuvering political parties, big business, criminal gangs and all other challengers of power. By the late 1990s, when Clinton was still in the office and the western world was singing kumbaya about the end of history, the old KGB-military clan had solidified power in Russia and had become openly hostile to European integration and globalization to maintain their privileges in a hermit kingdom. The pivot to antagonism in Russia far predates the Ukraine war, Ukraine's attempt to enter NATO, and many other events. The earliest sign was Russian conduct in the first Chechen war and the genocide against Chechen population in 1994-1996. That was a key moment that showed that nothing had fundamentally changed in Russia, and contributed to the first wave of countries joining NATO to isolate themselves from the prospect of falling victim to the same kind of violence.
Regarding Ukraine specifically, important events that led to the changing perception of Russia were the 2003 Tuzla island conflict, in which Russia violated the territory of Ukraine, along with constant Russian meddling with the internal affairs of Ukraine, peaking with the spectacular poisoning of Ukraine's president Viktor Yushchenko. The before and after pictures speak for themselves: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2009/09/28/ukraine-pm-t...
When a neighboring country violates your territory, intimidates your voters and supports electoral fraud, and poisons your highest representatives, then no shit that you're going to orient more toward the countries that treat you better. Don't throw shit around if you don't want people to turn away from you. Not a very novel idea, is it?
> The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?
The entire premise that European security cooperation "undermines" Russian security hangs on the expectation that Russia is destined to violate European security, in which case organizations like NATO would be activated to counter it and would present an obstacle. And that such unified European front against Russian aggression would be unsporting and unfair. It's the "burglars dislike neighborhood watch" argument.
Andrei Kozyrev, who was the Russian minister of foreign affairs 1990-1996 and the leading man in rebuilding Russia's post-USSR international relations, offers a different perspective. Instead of having ten little post-breakup Yugoslavias on its borders, mired in endless civil wars that are overspilling crime and refugees into Russia, European security cooperation has instead lead to Russia's neighbors becoming some of the most prosperous, stable and predictible countries on the planet. The Germans, French, British, and Americans have poured billions upon billions into transforming Eastern Europe's rickety people's militias into modern first-world militaries, led by professional civil servants and held to the highest standards of accountability. Solving disagreements through cooperation frameworks like the EU (instead of guns) has become the established norm. Russia has reaped immense benefits without having to pay anything for it. Kozyrev, bluntly, calls this "free-of-charge security for Russia". According to him, Russia has gained spectacularly in terms of security from the cooperation, and it's a total disgrace that the Russian state has spent decades trying to destroy it.
Let's not lose track of the truth in the hubris. The Iranian strategy to immediately target all the alliance partners of the US ("peace and prosperity for everyone or no one") in the region has lead to a stalemate in the war, with both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost. (And as you noted, the US has only used a quarter of its firepower yet). But, just like the Ukranians, Iran shouldn't forget that they are fighting a superpower, with a stronger economy and military than them, and neither Ukraine or Iran can defeat them in a conventional sense, if at all. Any nation can survive against a stronger enemy, as both India and Iran have proved with their civilisational heritage. However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.