There’s no denying that the US, UK, and others have made errors—Afghanistan and Iraq being key examples. However, I think there are critical distinctions in governance, accountability, and intent that differentiate democracies from regimes like Russia (and China).
One of the most significant differences is democracy itself. In democratic systems, public opinion and opposition matter. For example, the Labour Party became unelectable for years due to the Iraq War—a direct consequence of public backlash (Its estimated 6M-10M protested in Western countries). Similarly, the public’s disapproval played a significant role in the decision not to intervene in Syria, even when there were compelling arguments to do so. These decisions may not always be right, but they demonstrate that people in democracies have the ability to influence their governments.
Contrast this with Russia, where political opposition is systematically crushed, journalists critical of the government face persecution, and ordinary citizens risk imprisonment for expressing dissent. There is no free press or freedom to protest, and many live with a genuine fear of windows, radiation tipped umbrellas, or those going on holiday to visit cathedrals.
Another major distinction is intent. Western countries have undeniably engaged in wars of intervention, but Russia’s actions are more overtly about colonisation and territorial expansion. The invasion of Ukraine is not about stabilising a region or removing a dictator (as flawed as those justifications might be). It is about subjugating a neighbour to expand influence and territory, under the guise of reviving historical empires.
None of this is to excuse the West’s mistakes but to highlight that democratic systems, however imperfect, allow for a level of accountability, self-correction, and freedom that authoritarian regimes like Russia’s fundamentally suppress. That, to me, makes the two very different.
