> Having internal divisions does not justify an external invasion at all. Of course not. But comparing the Balkan to Norway doesn't really help you a lot, beca

> Having internal divisions does not justify an external invasion at all. Of course not. But comparing the Balkan to Norway doesn't really help you a lot, because they're very different. "Ukraine will become the next Afghanistan" is nonsense. Who are the warring tribes that will wage a civil war in Ukraine? What ethnic groups will vie for control of the country? Who are the Taliban? Which neighbor that isn't involved in the invasion will afterwards stoke the flames and support their ethnic group with training and weapons? That assertion was simply nonsense. When Russia stops the invasion, Ukraine will not sink into civil war because they're not like Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a majority minority country that never really had a modern-ish republic and only knows oppression of other ethnic groups. The largest ethnic group are the Pashtuns ("Not all Pashtuns are Taliban but all Taliban are Pashtun", I know, I know, they now have fighters from some other Muslim countries, but it's still generally true), but they don't even make up 50% of the population. Compare that with Ukraine where Ukrainians make up almost 80% with a single sizable minority: Russians. And the Russians have mostly not been traditionally living in Ukraine, but have been settled there in the last century to increase Russia's control during the previous Russian imperial project, the Soviet Union. The two countries are not alike. "But they were both invaded by the Russians" isn't enough to be comparable beyond the immediate invasion: they're both supported by the US in response, they're both paying dearly for Russian imperial aggression. But that's where the similarities end, we will be seeing neither civil war nor a theocracy in Ukraine. And to suggest otherwise is silly at best and Russian propaganda at worst.