Speaking as an educated Westerner, the article is ridiculous on its face.
Reading between the lines of the article the answer is clear...kayfabe or pretend incompetence.
The author portrays Western diplomats as well intentioned but happless paragons of virtue while portraying Russia diplomats as venial automatons captured by shadowy corrupt interests.
Here are the facts, politicians on all sides have diverse interests that drive them. They are rarely simple or pure.
Specifically the American interest in keeping Europe in its economic orbit and even purchasing LNG underlies British and American motivations.
The Russian interest is also economic, Eurasian integration, and even more so, nationalistic, wounded pride.
Talking about supporting regime change in Russia would be received as well as it would be if Russia supported in in the USA. Both Russia and the USA are proud nations and think themselves exceptional. So is the UK.
The way out of this is for everybody to recognise other nations have legitimate interest and to recognise nobody is exceptional.
Thus the west wants failed diplomacy with Russia because it wants to limit Russia's competition in the European market for things like fuel.
> The way out of this is for everybody to recognise other nations have legitimate interest and to recognise nobody is exceptional.
I'd be fine with this except that Russia is ruled by a unscrupulous dictator who assassinates his political opponents, as well as his oligarch cronies.
The Russian government's interests don't represent the Russian people's interests, and that makes them less legitimate.
Putin is a dictator because he doesn't allow free, democratic elections. Asking for a citation that Russia is a democracy is ridiculous. You need to cite sources that it is a free democracy (if you even think that) because it's by far the more outlandish and fringy position of the two.
Fortunately the USA and Russia aren't the only two countries (or models of "democracy") out there, but in any case, the USA managed to have a change of presidency and ruling political party after a competitive election, and Trump didn't try to send Biden (or Hillary) to any gulag.
Actually if you want to get technical during the campaign trump did threaten to send Hillary to prison. Then after Trump won and probably even now democratic operatives threatened to impeach and or imprison Trump on unsubstantial grounds. So it does appear that politically motivated prosecutions exist in America too on both sides. This arguably goes back to Monica Lewinsky if not Nixon.
The media frames minor or non existent crimes to go after politicians to meet the obscure agendas of the elite that funds the media...
Even if you think that the accusations against Trump (and Hillary) are as illegitimate as the ones against Navalny, you surely have to accept there is a vast difference between impeachment (and lying about the prospects of someone being locked up) and actually sending someone to a gulag and nearly killing them?
In any case, I don't judge Putin's actions based on the standard set by Trump (which would, coincidentally, give Putin a big incentive to encourage Trump to break all the norms of good governance). Other democracies manage to have more than 2 parties, and have none of their parties campaigning on a platform of "lock [the opposition] up".
Focusing on the worst examples of America specifically to try to excuse Russia's crimes is textbook whataboutism, as I'm sure you're aware.
The legitimate government of Ukraine was toppled in a coup in 2014. Russians would argue they are defending the interests of Russians in Ukraine. The split of Ukraine from Russia is like Scotland or Wales splitting from the UK. The name Ukraine literally means borderland of Russia, like Wales means borderland of England.
Thus there is a strong case to be made that the conflict, particularly in eastern Ukraine, is more like a civil war or intervention in a civil war following a coup of the legitimate government than an unprovoked act of aggression.
If the January 6 protests seized the capitol in 2020 and declared themselves the new government would that be seen as legitimate? If Canada assisted northern states in opposition to the January 6 movement would it be considered an aggressive foreign invasion?
It is true Hitler was also a nationalist. However the comparison of every subsequent conflict to 1930s Germany is trite and tired. It doesn't make sense when you look at the facts. For one thing Putin's Russia is not motivated by a theory of ethnic superiority. Many peoples divided by artificial or arbitrary political boundaries have sought to be re-united or established as an independent nation at various times. The partition of India, the Kosovo conflict, and the re-unification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall all come to mind.
It is unclear why nationalism in Western Ukraine is portrayed as legitimate but nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is not.
> The legitimate government of Ukraine was toppled in a coup in 2014.
And there was another legitimate government formed immediately afterwards, based on the results of the subsequent 2014 election, and then again in 2019. Or were those governments not legitimate, because Russia stopped people in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk from taking part in the election process? Hopefully you can see why that is a very self-serving definition of "legitimate".
> is more like a civil war or intervention in a civil war
Without wanting to introduce any whataboutist tangents, I will agree that foreign nations picking a side in a civil war is a very ethically and legally dubious form of military policy, but Russia hasn't said it wants the side it's backing to invade Kyiv and reinstate the "legitimate" government. This is more like the American South deciding to secede over "states' rights" and Russia giving military support to the Confederacy.
> It is unclear why nationalism in Western Ukraine is portrayed as legitimate but nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is not.
Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation, and even Putin used to accept that fact. What you call "nationalism in Western Ukraine" is just a sovereign nation wishing to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is almost the defining characteristic of what a sovereign nation is.
By contrast, the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine are not, and have never been sovereign, so their "nationalism" is only legitimate up to the internationally accepted right of "self-determination", which specifically does not include independent sovereignty, and certainly doesn't include a right to wage a civil war against the sovereign government whose territory they want to claim.
That would be a good analogy, if Canada had already invaded and annexed part of US territory in the past 10 years, and Canada was supporting one side in an American civil war, and Canada was making threats to stop the US signing international treaties, and Putin was sending troops to countries that used to live under Canadian domination, and Canada had the world's biggest nuclear arsenal, and if everything else was completely different.
Also, Canada conquered Washington State in 2014, has been sponsoring a violent separatist movement in Vermont since 2014, and is openly massing troops near the rest of US border.
Yes, maybe the world would distrust Canada and think of them as filthy lying warmongering scumbags who need to be dealt with the hard way, if all of this was the case.
Putin is evil. There is no question that obstructing his evil plans is a desirable goal. The only question is tactics and cost benefit analysis.
> That is exactly what Biden is doing in Ukraine right now.
Imagine if Putin, absent any proof, declared "Canada is going to invade the U.S.".
Then Canada said "no we aren't" and the US agencies said "Yes, we are seeing a significant build up of troops and materiel along our northern borders with Canada plus we have caught several Canadian intelligence operatives, some with weapons and explosives, operating in the disputed regions, plus Canada invaded and still holds significant border regions including both regions claimed as parts of Canada, and other regions which are being held by US Separatist groups." - and then the US requested assistance and Putin moved his troops to "help" by working with neighbouring countries who have offered to house Russian troops.
This is exactly what Biden is doing in Ukraine right now.
Reading between the lines of the article the answer is clear...kayfabe or pretend incompetence.
The author portrays Western diplomats as well intentioned but happless paragons of virtue while portraying Russia diplomats as venial automatons captured by shadowy corrupt interests.
Here are the facts, politicians on all sides have diverse interests that drive them. They are rarely simple or pure.
Specifically the American interest in keeping Europe in its economic orbit and even purchasing LNG underlies British and American motivations.
The Russian interest is also economic, Eurasian integration, and even more so, nationalistic, wounded pride.
Talking about supporting regime change in Russia would be received as well as it would be if Russia supported in in the USA. Both Russia and the USA are proud nations and think themselves exceptional. So is the UK.
The way out of this is for everybody to recognise other nations have legitimate interest and to recognise nobody is exceptional.
Thus the west wants failed diplomacy with Russia because it wants to limit Russia's competition in the European market for things like fuel.