There are two competing hypotheses about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The first hypothesis is that the invasion was unprovoked, as Russia is another "Hitler" pursuing expansionism, and that the logical response of NATO is therefore to stop Russia and raise the costs. From this perspective, even diplomacy can be viewed as "appeasement." The second, competing hypothesis is that Russia responded to 30 years of NATO expansion, which it considers an existential threat, and thus considers itself to be fighting a defensive war. If the second hypothesis is correct, then NATO deepening its direct involvement and rejecting negotiations will only result in the destruction of Ukraine while taking further steps toward nuclear war. George Beebe, the former Director of Russia Analysis at the CIA, argues that the second hypothesis is clearly correct: Russia sees this as a war for its survival and therefore cannot back down. One does not need to agree with the analysis of Beebe, but this should really be at the center of the debate in the West, as our survival depends on it. My great concern is that we are not even permitted to discuss or debate these two competing hypotheses, because the narrative must be protected and all dissent is smeared as repeating Russian propaganda. youtu.be/HrgVTdBvSpI