I do not have a highly opinion about political sciences as sciences - in simple terms, if it needs an adjective, it is probably not really science. Not in methodologically rigorous sense that most people expect when hearing "science". For example, physics does not need an adjective, either it works or it does not, with no much room for opinionated fluff. 

However, from time to time, I do get pleasantly surprised with ideas from such "sciences". 

Once, I heard a following phrase from political scientist who has very different politics from myself: "All political actions can be explained by either interest (aka financial interest/ self-interest) or strong emotions."

This kind of stuck with me, and although, it would be remarkably hard to scientifically support such a statement, I keep finding it more and more true. 

I would like to encourage you to think in those terms about ongoing conflict in the Eastern Europe. 

For example, how many people around you are getting political about country they cannot even find on the map? Suddenly, they are upset, ready to protest, asking for the severe actions as repercussions for a conflict they do not really understand...

This is an example of political action that can be explained by strong emotion. This is also why we are getting snippets from the war, such as Russian soldier writing to his mother about his disappointments, images of killed children, an ordinary driver being squashed by the tank...None of these snippets actually teach us about true causation of the conflict or potential solutions; they simply tap into our emotional side, connecting our reality with misfortunes in the country far, far away. And so a lot of people act, politically, and more so - foolishly. 

And once again, such a propaganda is emotional trigger - by design. 
And design is as such because people who usually hold some kind of political power (presidents, MPs, senators, prime ministers...) do not seek a solution to the problem, but a solution to serve their interests. 

For example, why did Ukrainians agree to Minsk agreements (twice), but still choose not to implement them? Despite very obvious treat? 

Well, if you checked Barnes' analysis (previous post), you may noticed that Ukrainian politicians probably had several self-interests to prolong a conflict, to "poke a Russian bear": their access to Russian gas, financial benefits from Russian gas, millions and millions of "help" from American government...

Again, as per my previous posts, this does not justify Russian actions, but provides a context and explanation why Ukrainians did not choose solution to the problem. Instead, they provided Putin & co with excuses. 

Similarly, Putin & co are probably not about supporting Russian people in Donbas; as mentioned, this is solely an excuse. There are numerous self-interests that may be closer to the truth; self-preservation due to increasing dangers from the west, the pipeline, keeping away Western influence that may "spill" into Russia across the border...

And I could probably say the same about West (but checking Tucker Carlson's War Machine video about political elite in Washington would do). 

If bombs are not falling on your home, I would encourage you not get emotional and consequently, political. No sane, ordinary person wants war. Despite the media's outcry, there is nothing we can do to change what is going on - unless, you want to play the game of self-interest forced on us by politicians. 

Perhaps, the only thing we can do - if given the chance - is to help actual people who had to escape their home with the shelter, support etc.

And later on, try to vote out self-serving war mongers. 

Remember: "All political actions can be explained by either interest (aka financial interest/ self-interest) or strong emotions."