People were not detained in the USA for using the wrong nomenclature to describe the Iraq invasion, and yet that was also an unspeakably cruel, venal war of cynical aggression knowingly perpetrated on laughably false pretenses. To this day roughly half of Americans think it was the right move - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co...
So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.
The thing is, there's vanishingly few "good invasions".
Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people.
The logic error you've committed above: Stifling dissent about the war with authoritarian measures may not be a necessary condition for an invasion to be bad, but it still can be a hint that the invasion is bad.
Rejecting the territorial integrity of the country invaded, similarly, can be a pretty good hint.
>"Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people."
As ugly as it sounds I would actually prefer that the US had annexed countries it had invaded. This way it would at least be responsible and people would leave in more decent place than before. Instead they came in, murdered and otherwise fucked people and then left without much remorse and repercussion.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be a gotcha. Are you assuming that everyone opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine think the USA invasion of Iraq was good? I think in both cases it's very easy to identify which side is in the wrong, and it's the one invading another country.
When McCarthy did it, it didn't show how strong McCarthy was; it showed how weak he was. When Putin does it, it doesn't show how strong Putin is, either.
To see Putin as a weak evildoer is falling for US propaganda.
The truth is more nuanced. Strong powers take advantage of weak powers and the US is no exception. We do it by expanding NATO territory. There are also arguments to be made that the US pushed Putin into the war. As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US. The war also greatly increased US natgas exports to Europe.
It's pretty immoral / weak to for the world's superpower to push neighboring countries into war for these reasons.
1. NATO expansion isn't driven by US imperialism. We aren't conquering countries and forcing them to join; they are asking to join - and not because we're tying a big aid package to NATO membership. They're joining because they're worried about Russian imperialism.
2. You say it's accepting propaganda to see Putin as weak. But you see him as being pushed into war by the US. That's not something that happens to someone who is strong.
3. "As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US."
Absolutely. More: It's to NATO's advantage to have Russia use up its arms fighting a non-NATO-member.
Sure, Putin is not a good leader for Russia, he's power-hungry and does not seem to have the best interests of the Russian people in mind. However by those same metrics you should consider US leadership as also being a weak evildoer.
Is it good or evil to push other countries into war knowing that thousands will die?
Is it good or evil to profit off the resulting energy crisis?
Is it even smart to risk a global nuclear war to destroy outdated arms and decades old tanks?
Is it good or evil to trigger economic collapse via sanctions causing starvation both inside the country and to export nations? Don't we consider Mao and Stalin some of the most evil people that ever lived for doing the same? Starvation is a terrible way to die yet it isn't even seen as collateral damage.
Putin will die anyway in the next couple decades. It made no sense to poke the bear and trigger all this. It ultimately just strengthens China and increases the amount of global suffering.
Dan Carlin has a great 'Poking the Bear' episode that goes into detail on the many ways in which the US provoked Russia/Putin. Of course Putin was the primary cause of the war but it is foolish to believe that the US is blameless.
So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.