No clear villains in Ukraine war, forum users say

No clean side: The good vs. evil narrative in Ukraine cracks

Those seeking an impeccable side in the Russia-Ukraine war come up empty-handed. The suspicion that there are no good guys or bad guys, only interests distributed at the expense of those paying the bill, is the most common conclusion among those trinc the conflict without swallowing the official narrative. And it is not bar-stool skepticism: each side carries its own historical baggage.

The starting point is summarized by a blunt confession: some openly admit they have no idea who the good guys are, while others suspect everything is a farce and theater. From there, the conversation branches out, with each person focusing on what hurts them.

Why can't anyone agree on who is the good guy?

Because every answer starts from a different premise. One school argues that everyone is bad, that the issue is a split between friends, and that citizens only appear on the final invoice. Another considers taking sides to be the fundamental error: thinking in terms of good and bad is exactly what defeats those who do so. A third simply repeats the line broadcast by media chains, with irony included about who comes off worse.

In the middle emerge theories of the great reset. There is talk of an NWO—a supposed shadow world government—economic resets, and even extraterrestrial intervention to bring order to the yard. It should be said plainly: none of this is backed by evidence. It circulates as a joke, a provocation, or an act of faith.

From the USSR to 2014: The timeline each side tells differently

Here begins serious material. A widely repeated analysis reconstructs the sequence: the USSR collapsed and was dismantled in 1990, and the independent republics—Ukraine, the Baltics, Kazakhstan—took a huge part of Soviet territory. It is argued that many Russians lost everything overnight and that 30 years later the country has recovered economically and militarily. From there to wanting to regain influence is a short step.

The other pillar is 2014. Some claim that in Ukraine there was a coup d'état after its president refused to join NATO and the EU, and that pro-Russian separatists have been killed ever since. In that same reading, it is added that the Alliance had been expanding eastward for years despite having put it in writing, and that Ukraine is a state with artificial seams. These are claims made by those defending that version.

An older piece appears too: in 1944 Americans invaded France and claimed to be the good guys. The underlying idea is uncomfortable: the label of "good" is not earned, it is imposed.

Who decides who is the good guy? The one who wins the war

This is the most repeated and bitterest argument: the winner writes the story. No side exists that, after winning, admits it was the bad guy. It doesn't matter which country. If that rule applies, the correct question is not who is right, but who will have the capacity to tell it when it ends.

The counterpoint comes from the other extreme: between a bully and his victim, it is clear who is the bad guy. And two opposite sensibilities coexist there, because those who distrust Western policies of recent years also do not swallow the tyranny of the other side. That double disdain is the most honest portrait of what is brewing.

Who funds the show?

A recurring answer to the initial question is that the sides are just decoration and what matters is who pays for the production. Attention is drawn to particular interests moving behind the scenes and to a cynical conclusion: in the division of Europe, each piece acts on its own. Spain, in that reading, would be no exception.

The root problem: Nobody wants to be left without a side

There is a diagnosis that goes beyond Ukraine: we are so polarized that in every new issue one must take a side quickly to have a place in the discussion. It doesn't matter if one admits they don't master geopolitics. Those who don't choose a side are a nuisance.

From there come the ventings. The question of what to do when Russian tanks cross the Pyrenees is answered with turning on the television or playing host. It is dark humor, yes. It is also the recognition of a helplessness that nobody knows where to place.