First, you shouldn't be so impressed that AI can scrape up articles that contain the word "unprovoked." Second, the author of that article basically says Putin kills civilians (and even brings up Syria) and is a very, very bad man. Nothing about NATO expansion, especially during a period of time (up to about 2004) when Russia was incredibly weak. Nor was there anything about the US pushing forward leadership for the new regime in 2014 which was another obvious provocation.
Finally, and to repeat, you used the term unprovoked. The definition has already been provided. There were provocations. That means your use of the term was incorrect, as noted. You're also conflating the existence of provocation with justification. I will repeat myself again- using the term unprovoked is as inaccurate as using the term justified. And I already gave you the proper term to use- wrongful. So, that's your answer.
You compounded all of this by reading Sachs' article poorly, specifically this "Recognizing that the war was provoked helps us to understand how to stop it. It doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion." You either wittingly or unwittingly (I would chalk it up to your brainwashing), don't understand one of Sachs' underlying points- the Biden administration wants to flood the public forum labeling the invasion as unprovoked for the self-serving purpose of burying their involvement in Ukraine.
I'll analogize for you. Let's say your dog craps in your neighbor's yard now and then. Your neighbor complains about it. After a few more dumpings, your neighbor knocks on your door, throws a bag of shit at you and punches you in the gut. Wrongful, but not unprovoked. In this analogy, you are Ukraine, the neighbor is Russia, the the USA is the dogwalker that feeds your dog a high fiber diet.
