There is a fundamental problem that this kind of thing, while critical that it is heeded, is presented exactly for its relevance to current events, and so, desp

There is a fundamental problem that this kind of thing, while critical that it is heeded, is presented exactly for its relevance to current events, and so, despite the author in this case explicitly stating that nothing here diminishes Putin's crime, the article's topic is inherently used as a tool for doing exactly that, in practice. E.g. I have already seen somebody use this article (not on HN) in an argument that Russia's actions are justified (I doubt they read the whole thing). Imagine how often writeups that are not so holistic are used this way. There are, very broadly, two closely related topics: 1. X, Y, and Z past events, vs the current attitude toward Russia, are specific examples of, more or less, hypocrisy in the West. More charitably, they are evidence of a cultural disconnect and inability to sympathize that has badly needed bridging for all of human history, but is especially relevant right now. 2. The West are hypocrites and therefore should not oppose, neither with words nor with actions, the idea of Putin attacking Ukraine's capital to coerce them into surrendering their land. I think if it's clear the article is not making the case for #2, we should really try not to bar them from rational discourse, despite their inevitable misuse in promotion of item #2.