In 40k, it’s not that “no sides are good” or “everyone is evil”, it’s that comparison of all the players on the stage is fundamentally meaningless when they’re viewed through a lens that reduces them to such a simplistic binary. When examined, the Imperium’s actions are usually rational (the Kryptman Gambit is a classic example) but undeniably horrible. It’s the dark comedy of the setting, that any actions can be justified given enough context or rhetoric or simple need. A similar issue occurs when reducing the Jedi as they are presented in the movie-canon to “statist cops”. They don’t perform law enforcement duties, they don’t police space. Their only role in the republic was as historians, until Palpatine insisted they be instated as Generals in the Republic’s war against the separatists, a role they themselves argued they were unqualified for and did not want. Thence they were branded traitors, hunted down to near extinction as a result. To brand them as ‘spacecops’ loses so much of (what passes for, in George Lucas’ mind) the narrative lore or nuance of the characters.

Few people judge the Russian people as anything except victims - certainly not as a monolithic group. That’s the classic tragedy of war, isn’t it. Young men die for the ambitions of old men. They’re being forced, through politics or propaganda or nationalism or even personal creed, to inflict horrors on another people. If some are enthusiastic participants, those individuals are especially guilty. But if you continue to support a regime that produces those horrors and protects the perpetrators, time and time again, doesn’t some of the guilt lay on you for their actions? Is it fair, then, to view Russia as a diverse tapestry of complex moralities? Of interplaying guilt and support?
Yes.
Absolutely.

This is the critical thing that I think separates a Tankie from “just someone I disagree with”. The concept that I don’t support the war in ukraine, that I don’t support those horrors, and yet that I am not afraid of accepting the guilt that comes with supporting the Ukrainian right to choose their own fate. The failure to grasp that concept, that’s the single defining trait. War is horror, but why is it the sole responsibility of people who’s land has been invaded, who’s homes are being destroyed, who’s children are being raped, stolen, executed en masse to accept the guilt for this war? Why would it be the sole responsibility of the invaders to accept the guilt for their captured soldiers being executed by the AFU?

My actions and choices during this war have lead me to carry far more guilt than yours have, I am willing to bet a great deal of money on that. I took those actions and made those choices with the full knowledge of what they would lead to, and I accepted those consequences readily. I don’t know if I’d make the same choices again, but that’s beside the point: I am not unique, nor special. Everyone fighting for their homeland with the AFU, or fighting for whatever reason they were told with the HPA or Putin’s so-called “new axis”, accepted that same burden and is being asked to make the same kind of choice. Reducing it to a binary, good vs. evil, either a warmonger or a peace-bringer, cheapens the sacrifices of people who have to make that choice, no matter which side you or they are on.

(I usually loathe to use the quote -> respond format, but I’ve been trying to figure out how to work in a response to this naturally and I’ve just failed. )

Every other war has also been heavily propagandized, including the Korean and Cold war, which is why you have the idea that something like Juche is cartoonishly evil rather than the product of its environment - I try to approach understanding any subject by reading what the people who believe in it actually say, as well as what criticism there is from people with a similar ideology, as often their enemies are often just preaching to the choir.

I think I do understand what you mean here, and I’m increasingly sure we’d get along quite well in person. And so I would like to express, and I say this with nothing but sincerity, that I am worried your approach to contentious or propagandized topics (while a genuinely laudable magnanimous outlook to have) may too easily lead you into unfairly restricting your sources of criticism. Extrapolated out to an extreme degree, it’s easily to extend holding internal criticism in the highest regard to the point that outside perspectives can be dismissed with “Ah, but how can he criticize society without participating in society?” While a good place to start on any topic is obviously those most familiar with the topic, and the entire discipline of academia is based on this principle, it’s a viewpoint which can be all too easily manipulated so that you are only shown curated, or propagandized, accounts of a system.

In the most exhaustively well documented example we have of the AFU executing prisoners, the executed prisoners had filmed themselves gang-raping a child. Extrajudicial killing is fundamentally wrong, and I condemn them sincerely for their actions, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t understand their choice. And to their credit, the AFU has not in any way attempted to cover up the actions or to excuse the prosecution of the soldiers that did it. Though, I doubt they’d be able to fill a full firing squad of men who would be willing to pull the trigger.