Those are not arguments I can buy.
Where do you put the "he started first" line? How is it acceptable to draw lines based on third countries, colonial style?
Putin - again, not Russia but Putin, since he is an autocrat that cannot represent Russia - has no rights on Ukraine. It is irrelevant if Putin depends more or less economically on Ukraine. Interest which, by the way, he could only protect by propping up another autocratic regime in Kiiv.
Since he is an autocrat whse main victim are the actual Russian citizens, it's fair game to go after his interests. Attacking Putin is not attacking Russia, but exactly the opposite.
As I said, I don't particularly think that it's any of the business of the US to do so. But since there's nobody else around, since Germany has ever since Schroeder become Putin's leading bitch in Europe, it may as well be your business now. I don't care who does it -- it just needs to be done.
I don't particularly care for the welfare of the US tax payer, the Us economy or the primacy of the US dollar - just like I think it's perfectly legitimate that you Americans do not see how removing Putin is of your interest, and that you always tend to have this egotistic view of European affairs.
As a matter of fact, I'm rather inclined to see as a net positive that sanctions on Putin have started to undermine seriously the role of the Us dollar. Just like I see as a net positive the consequences of the terroristic reckless monetary policy of the US government.
And now the twist: I think the ethnic Russian regions of what is currently Ukraine should have the right to secede if they so want, just like any other people in a similar situation does.
That has nothing to do with any of what's happening though, since Putin himself has openly declared that the aim of the aggression on Ukraine was, precisely, regime change.
