The war between Russia and the Ukraine pits two groups of nationalists and two nationalist ambitions against each other. Russian and Ukrainian nationalism both have a long history and a great deal of blood behind them.

Much like the middle east, the entire region has been marked by centuries of war and population transfers, military colonization, and territories that shift back and forth over time.

Rendering all this complex history in the moment requires dumbing it down. Especially when trying to sell it to American audiences who care less about the history and more about how it affects them.

Suffice it to say that pretty much everything you hear from one side or the other is partly wrong, but has some truth to it. For example, there are indeed Nazis on both sides, whether it’s Ukraine’s Azov battalion or elements of Russia’s Wagner group. Likewise, Ukraine is incredibly corrupt, but Russia is even more incredibly corrupt. Some of our own special interests have ties to Ukrainian business interests, others have ties to Russian business interests. There’s a lot of money to be made in both places. Just ask the Clintons.

Ultimately, the question may come down to the scale of nationalist expansionism. Ukrainian nationalism is relatively limited in scope. Certainly in geographical scope. Russian nationalism, especially the Putin- Dugin flavor which imagines a Greater Russia that encapsulates much of the Soviet Union and incorporates Islam, it’s quite geographically threatening in scope. And considering Russia’s firepower, much of it a legacy of the Soviet Union, is far more able to enforce its territorial claims on a global scale.

Should the United States be involved? A good starting point would be to make that decision well before a war is underway. And yet the United States is an unfortunate habit of deciding whether to be involved in the war once the war is well underway.