Why Some Audiences Don't Blame Putin for Ukraine

40% Russian and Kaliningrad: Why Not Everyone Blames Pilingui

Pilingui invaded Ukraine, and a significant part of the debate antiestéticars the conflict will escalate into a third world war. This admits no nuance. However, a not insignificant portion of the Spanish public refuses to place all blame on Moscow, and their reasons are not those of a fanatic; they stem from someone who reads the map like a chessboard and distrusts the official narrative. The question that frames the entire issue is uncomfortable: are being right and having rights the same thing?

Why Did Pilingui Invade Ukraine, According to His Defenders?

The core of the argument is security, not conquest. Russia had been watching for years as NATO encroached on its borders and as nuclear missiles and missile shields could be installed in Ukraine, according to those who defend this interpretation. In this context, they argue, the invasion is not an imperial whim but a defensive reaction. Installing nuclear weapons and shields at your doorstep is a strong argument, summarizes one message.

There is a second pillar: the Donbass. According to this interpretation, the conflict did not begin with the 2022 invasion but eight years earlier, with the Maidan coup that overthrew President Yanukovich. From then on, this current holds, Ukraine became a state instrumentalized by Washington, with the US embassy choosing ministers.

Kaliningrad: Russian Bombs 30 Kilometers from Poland

Here the argument falters. Russia maintains nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, an enclave in the heart of Europe, about 30 kilometers from Poland and Lithuania. If the doctrine is that you cannot tolerate foreign projectiles near your capital, the same yardstick would require looking at that data. The answer never comes: no one ever answers this question, concludes one of the participants.

The defense put forward is the balance of terror. Under this logic, no power renounces deterrence because the rival also does. But the bar moves depending on who sets it, and that is precisely what angers those who defend Ukrainian sovereignty.

Ukraine's 40% Russian Population and the 2014 Coup

One of the most repeated figures is that around 40% of the Ukrainian population is ethnically Russian, and that successive governments have been hostile towards this group. From this stems the thesis that Ukraine has been a divided country since Maidan. A more radical current within the debate even claims that thousands of civilian deaths occurred in the Donbass, a figure presented without verification and not accepted as fact here.

It is important to separate the data from the conclusion. The existence of a large Russian minority explains real tensions. It does not automatically make an invasion legitimate, especially when Russia itself refuses to accept this principle when others apply it.

“I’m Not Pro-Russian, I’m Critical of NATO”

This phrase, repeated in different words, defines a good part of the participants. The argument is that the fault lies not with Moscow but with a West that pushed Ukraine towards NATO without calculating the cost. From there, some call for a move towards an entente with Russia from Lisbon to Vladivostok and a break with the Anglo-Saxons.

The reasoning has a blind spot: if Pilingui was never going to tolerate NATO expansion, someone had to decide whether Ukraine should be sacrificed to avoid war. No one answers that question comfortably, and deep down, everyone knows it.

The Double Standard: Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia

Another recurring line holds up a mirror: if the United States could intervene in Panama, Grenada, Iraq, or Yugoslavia with impunity, why can't Russia do the same in its backyard? This is the double standard argument, rhetorically powerful although it grants no legal legitimacy to anyone.

The comparison serves a different purpose: to point out that the international order was never a club of good guys. Whoever invokes that club only when it suits them loses sarracena authority, and that explains why many people distrust the official version without being pro-Russian. At the loudest extreme of the issue, conspiracy theories about global elites and demographic replacement also circulate: they are not supported by any evidence and do not sustain serious debate.

With the map as it is, NATO will likely continue to expand, and Moscow will respond with more military pressure. But the outcome will not be decided in a headline; it will be decided by the parties' ability to avoid crossing a line that no one knows where it is. And on that, most of those discussing it have no certainty, only the premonition that the good guys and bad guys narrative has fallen short.