I don't think Putin is an honest actor at all, as I've stated over and over.
If that is true, then I'm not sure why it is so important to you to push the narrative that Russia and Putin are not responsible for the invasion of Ukraine, and whenever they don't like something about western diplomacy then the outcome is
our fault.
If your intent is not to justify and whitewash Russian aggression by shifting blame to everyone but the invader, then I'm not sure what it is.
Perhaps your intent was to imply that a dishonest actor like Putin was likely to overreact to western diplomatic missteps leading to unnecessary war meaning that the west should have been more careful in how they handled interactions with Ukraine, but if so that is not remotely close to what you've said.
The only thing Putin has said, that I actually really believe, is that Russia has drawn a red line at NATO in Ukraine and Russia's access/control of Sevastopol.
This significantly overstates how likely Ukraine's NATO membership actually was. Ironically, Russia has strongly pushed the Ukrainian public into supporting NATO membership. In 2000 only 30% supported NATO membership. In 2008 when they were denied a Membership Action Plan, 40% of Ukrainians considered NATO to be a threat. In 2013, 29% of Ukraine considered NATO to be a threat, and 44% considered it to be neither a threat nor protection. After Russia's invasion of Crimea, a majority started to support joining NATO. In 2022, 64% supported joining NATO, and in 2023, 89% supported it.
You pretend this is not a chicken and egg scenario, but Russia has clearly done more for making Ukrainians want NATO membership than any western marketing ever has.
At the time of the invasion of Crimea, Russia had already secured long-term access agreements to Sevastopol. Could those have been rescinded at some point? I guess, but not easily or without significant consequence.
All the rest is just noise.
Except it's absolutely not. Just because something falls outside your very narrow narrative doesn't make it "just noise".
There's been a lot of gunboat diplomacy all along, by both sides.
Can you provide some examples? If you're using the term "gunboat diplomacy" in its typical sense, I definitely see how it applies to Russia's interactions with its weaker neighbors. I do not see western gunboat diplomacy against Ukraine at all.
If you're talking about US and Russian saber rattling against each other, then I don't think that's what "gunboat diplomacy" means.
If the goal is Ukraine joining the western economic sphere and military alliance with a restoration of their lost territory then it appears there will be war.
First of all, there already is war, but I assume you meant that there will be war between the West and Russia. I do not want or support that war. That does not mean that I need to pretend that Russia isn't the aggressor here.
I personally do not see restoration of lost territory as a likely outcome. Russia's invasion was far from just or efficient, but their willingness to throw bodies and materiel at the conflict regardless of cost has bought them a lot of occupied territory. I doubt they will lightly surrender what they've conquered. As far as military alliance, if Ukraine escapes this war with any kind of sovereignty intact, they are going to need something, and I imagine will be interested in all the alliances and support agreements they can get.
I'm not invested in Ukraine being integrated into the western sphere of influence, and so find the march to war wrong.
I largely agree.