Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms.
It's been truly incredible to see them grow and prosper.
Young, educated, motivated population with western values and a strong will for democracy and freedom. An economy that can only grow and prosper. And unlike Syrian and Afghan "refugees", there's a strong desire from Ukrainian refugees to return and rebuild.
But there were many who really wanted to learn the local language, and even if the life at the "asylum seekers centers" was not luxury, they were grateful that they had a place to stay where there was no immediate risk of death.
Some of these people had their families with them, though most of them were young, healthy males, since this segment is most likely to survive the trip. E.g. riding a bicycle in the -30 C/-22 Fahrenheit for 50 kilometres was one common way to entry Finland during this episode.
And regarding Afghanistan, for many, there is not much to be rebuilt. The country was first run over my Soviet army, then the US revenge. The minorities like Hazara have been persecuted during all the previous regimes. These people have no place to go back to.The people I know have instead build careers here, and are vocal against fundamentalist Islam.
Though it's good to remember the Soviet Union did even worse things to Russia.
Which if true, means that Russian civilian victimization by the Soviet Union is something to hold Russia accountable for rather than a point of mutual past victimization for past Soviet Union states to commiserate together with Russia on.
That's never mind the fact that Russia is committing some of those same crimes now along with waging an expansionist war. The past suffering of an abuser doesn't matter while he's actively abusing someone else.
The people that were sitting in Moscow however were from all around the Union.
The Soviet Union was still ruled by Russians [0]… “ From 1919 until 1991, 89 members of the Politburo were Russians (which makes up 68 percent). In distant second were Ukrainians, who had 11 members in the Politburo, making up 8 percent. In third place are both ethnic Jews and Georgians, who had 4 members respectively.”
It was less than the population since by population , 80% are Russian [1], but still shows that the USSR was ruled by Russians.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Par...
It's the same thing in Communist China. Nobody can displease the Han.
And he happened to be Georgian.
And Moscovite is indeed a bad word in many parts of the old Union.
Have you heard about Stalin? Where was he from?
Moscow.
Hitler was from Austria, but he still ran things from Berlin. And Berlin is where the power structure was, and still is.
It's always more than one man, even if the man is a dictator. The dictator is just the one who survives the power structures environment in a way to be 'the top'. And that power structure exists in a place.
The vast, vast majority of everything that actually happens under a power structure is done by everyone who ISN'T the dictator. And those folks don't just disappear when the dictator dies.
As to if a countries power structure represents a people or not, meh. It always says it does, and it draws resources, taxes, and conscripts from them. So regardless of any individuals take on if they are 'represented' or how that power is acquired, 'it is the people' near as I can tell.
And many of them are happy to murder anyone who says otherwise to prove it.
And just because it has to be pointed out, Stalin didn't do his reign of terror from the Kremlin in Moscow, but from his dacha in Kuntsevo.
Hitler also spent most of his reign of terror from Wolfsschanze and Obersalzberg. He definitely had his own power structure, completely independent of the city of Berlin.
And Kuntsevo is in Moscow. Literally.
And if you’re asserting that Hitler didn’t need, or use, the Wehrmacht or other organs of state power (including the Gestapo, which was consolidated out of the prior Prussian Secret Police), and didn’t spend most of his time in Berlin, then I don’t know what to say.
Yes it is, but it's not in the Kremlin, where the official seat is.
Both Stalin and Hitler were independent of their capital cities for conducting their rule. Dictators and emperors are not mere symbolic heads of state, and their network of people means much more than where they sit to conduct their business. This network is not necessarily connected to the capital.
I think we're maybe debating semantics, but I strongly disagree with the idea that the capital cities are more influential than the dictators and emperors. As in my example of Roman emperors who hardly even went to Rome.
Politics is much more about abstract human connections, than brick and stone buildings. We are a very mobile species after all.
But anyway, I would encourage reading "The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going? Преданная революция: Что такое СССР и куда он идет?" by the exiled Soviet Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky to get perspective whether the peaople (Narodnost народность)were really represented in the Soviet nomenklatura (номенклату́ра). At least almost every Finnish speaking representative from Karelia were "neutralized", leaving the previously most prosperious part of Finland in the state as it is now. Finland would not take it back even it was paid for it.
My point, I guess, is that they happened. And the power structure that did it, did it from Moscow.
I prefer to see the Russian invasion as the delayed violence from the Soviet Union's breakup. Russian politicians were very much in control of all of Eastern Europe, and the Moscow political class was going to build a political case to try and retake Ukraine by force. That the violence did not happen in 1989 probably prevented nuclear war, and the fact it is happening now and not in 2032 is probably also preventing nuclear war.
Did Tsarist Russia really do anything that competes with that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katorga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
The Soviet Union also made extensive use of slave labor, where millions died.
Let's not pretend it's surrounding is really any better, especially if we start looking at the past.
Someone might think that Russia is opposing a genocidal culture, that had bourne fascism and nazism, enforced apartheid over the world and now breeds it elsewhere to achieve its geopolitical goals.
But I have been grateful that Finland has been independent. As a child, I visited the Soviet Baltic countries since church choirs were allowed entry. I remember it clearly because I saw for the first time the fear of speaking about certain topics.
Defending the country’s independence took a whole generation, as all men who could be drafted were sent to war and women participated as volunteers. My other grandmother worked behind enemy lines as an underage girl, delivering messages. The other grandmother volunteered to work in prison camps.
When Finland was last attacked by Russia (formerly known as the Soviet Republic), Finland did not receive much help apart from thoughts and prayers and socks knitted by housewives in the UK and US. In the first round, Finland defended its independence but lost a significant portion of its most prosperous areas, including its second-largest and most international city, Viipuri/Vyborg. What happened in the second round of the war was not glorious for Finland, who allied with Nazi Germany since they were the only ones that offered an alliance against Soviet Union aggression.
I have not thought of myself as a nationalist, but I am concerned about the safety of my family and this thing we call Finland. And I don't want us to face again the situation as Ukraine is facing now.
Exactly, Russia was invaded long ago by Harry Potter, McDonalds, Dua Lipa and other global culture and values that the majority of Russians have soaked up. Ukraine joining the EU is of far more consequence.
Amusingly, that status quo is enforced via the USA’s supposed overwhelming force of arms. Which in turn suggests your analysis is deeply deficient in its consideration of higher order effects.
See also: Georgia, Armenia vs. Azerbaijan, Belorussian & Kazakh internal protests and revolts, or Ukraine c. 2014.
Russian arms have been used on or by all of those countries. In the case of Armenia, support meant they kicked he shit out of the Azeris before... and not the case now, where Russian can't or won't help them, but the Turks are backing the Azeris.
Force of arms has made a big difference for all of the states around Russia. And not necessarily in a good way.
As a Lithuanian... If we weren't in NATO, we'd either have a very very serious problems now. Or be a vassal state like Belarus.
Small countries will and sovereignty also matters.
But somehow Russia thinks master-slave relationships are better.
It was a mistake for NATO to do it without Russia. It's not a matter of "influence", but a matter of military risks and perceived threats.
If there was a political will towards pushing Russia to NATO any similar to what has been going on with Georgia or Ukraine, we'd be living in a different world.
But now (really far more than a decade already) Russia is alienated from NATO, perceives it as a threat and a bad actor. And people will be making all kinds of moralistic arguments, but point is that all of this is a consequence of geopolitical natural laws. Fact is, politicians and leaders were clearly aware of those laws and all the cause-effects and general outcomes, but nevertheless had stirred the world towards it.
Srsly, how do the "United democracies" expect to be taken seriously when their whole attitude to literally everything is "bad guys don't like us for being good boys"?
Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course.
> democracies represent the biggest power.
> Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course.
Eh, but that's the point: a bunch of countries with a shady history of global power dynamics (genocidal colonialism, fascism, etc) that now declared its current political establishment as a universal virtue, all while invading other countries around the globe.
I just feel like "democratic" don't notice at all how they're slipping into antagonism with almost every other culture except their own, up to labeling the forming west-skeptical alliances as "new axis of evil" or claiming everyone who doesn't politically align to them to be dysfunctional (see Hungary)
What's the coping strategy for the fact that so many diverse regions of the world that share nothing in common assess a very tight (geographically, economically and culturally) circle of countries as a threat?
Secondly, here are the values of the european union: respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. Can you tell me which values you don't agree with?
Hungary is part of EU with all benefits and responsibilities. If they don't align with these values then they get penalized, simple as that.
I don't know about right now, but not long ago UK forces were in Syria, that Syria government never asked for. Should we call it invading? If not, what's your definition of invading?
That's more or less definition for annexing, not invading.
> That or installing a non-democratic dictatorship and subdue the local population.
That's a regime change or may be a coup.
What I am talking about is how everyone outside Europe starts rolling their eyes as Europeans claim that the mere reason why their super advanced, super civilized society has bad blood with someone else is because Europeans just too advanced and democratic and only bad boys don't like good boys.
One of NATO’s founding members was Portugal - under the Salazar dictatorship. Both Greece and Turkey went through periods of military dictatorship while NATO members-did NATO have any problem with that? The idea that NATO was formed to be a “club for democratic states” ignores its own history
This is a historically inaccurate slogan.
> Unless Russia adopts democracy and human rights it's a bit impractical for it to work with or join NATO.
Are we still talking about 1990s-2000s? Russia was no less democratic and adoptive of human rights than other ex-Soviet states pushed to NATO. Do you actually consider 2004 Georgia to be more in line with western view of human rights and democracy then 2004 Russia, really?
Poland and other CEE countries lobbied aggressively to join NATO in the 90s, and by far their biggest asset was their diaspora communities in the US. The GOP had taken the House in '94 and were pushing for NATO expansion leading up to the '96 election. In order to head off this threat, Clinton promised NATO expansion eventually, to which Dole ended up promising a definite date for CEE's entry. Said Clinton at the time:
'I face a difficult campaign, but I have a reasonable chance. The Republicans are pushing NATO expansion. Wisconsin, Illinois and Ohio are key; they represented a big part of my majority last time—states where I won by a narrow margin. The Republicans think they can take away those states by playing on the idea of NATO expansion.'
https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/how-much-did-us-elections...
What does this even mean?
If that isn't defeat, I don't know what is.
It is correct a demobilized Russia had difficulty taking Karelia in 1940. However in 1945 the USSR could push the Wehrmacht and its allies back to Berlin, I don't know any historian who thinks taking Finland would have been a problem once mobilized.
It just sounds like the Soviets didn't want Finland that badly.
Big difference.
They could do it anytime. They just chose not to.
You truly believe this? Remarkable.
And the Soviets were nowhere near running out of resources or people at the end of the Winter War, as shown by their ability to defeat a much more powerful enemy a few years later.
It was the pure will of the Soviets which led them to their, and only their victory.
I don't even know what to say. It must have been a lack of will, surely. /s
(edit) Look, I know what you're trying to say. But if we put it that way, we're implying that they could've surpassed the will of the Finns in some way, if they wanted to. And I firmly believe that to not have been the case.
They didn't do it, and you know why? Because they tried, and couldn't. That's what happened.
I'm sure you mean well, but even though they killed more than 5.5 million Nazis, they couldn't kill more than 70k Finns. And that's history, not some alternative possibility.
Making it seem as if Finland is but a vassal for the U.S. for this move is disingenuous at best. After Georgia, Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine, anyone would make such a decision. Out of their own will. In order to survive.
Hah, yeah, that's not a big deal at all, neutralizing Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors, through threats of aggression. Who's scared of Russia and their threats, these days? They're just empty threats. I'd like totally bet my life on it, just empty threats.
Ukraine?
Putin and Co. really hasn’t done much for Russia or it’s people lately.
They looked stronger when they were a less aggressive bully and were poisoning people.
Russia doesn't have to win in order to be scary to their neighbors—they just have to persuade their neighbors that they're irrational and have no sense of self preservation.
Also,I felt your comment was not nice towards all the minorities and "divergents" in the Russia and elsewhere. Just Google Grozny, Aleppo, or Anna Politkovskaya if you want to know why your comment could have been interpreted as something else than just a joke.
In my view, to say that Russia’s actions are just empty threats is an undervaluation of the price the Ukrainian people and military are paying now. Whole cities have been wiped out of existence, and both the military and civilian population have faced extensive casualties as Russia has resorted to “brute force” attacks, showering bombs wherever in Ukrainian land.
We in Finland have been building bomb shelters for the population that can withstand even nuclear attacks, and we have universal male conscription and voluntary female drafting. About 80% of Finnish male citizens complete the service, which makes Finland have military resources unlike any other European country. This tradition is more than a hundred years old. If someone wonders why, just search for the term “The Great Wrath.”
Well, possibly China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing...
Probably somewhere in Beijing and Moscow on the same day when bombing started, they were opening bottle of champagne because they got "excuse" to do same later when they need it.
Finland joining means it becomes part of a defense pact. It's not like suddenly the "US sphere of influence" expands, or that there are somehow US military bases in Eastern Finland.
"Threat" can be interpreted in many ways and it doesn't have to be a military threat. It could be an economical threat. A political threat. You name it. Late Russia has been aggressively anti-NATO expansion since Putin's 2007 speech in Munich. Russia keeps saying that for 15+ years, but the global response is basically the same: "No, NATO is not a threat. You are lying. We'll keep the expansion". I find it weird and a direct provocation, eg the creation of the enemy. Wouldn't it be smarter to actually listen to what Russia is trying to say?
> NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors
Agreed. At the end of the day, isn't that what politics is? IMHO (and I'm not an expert), the irony is that the expansion of NATO gives the US ability to force its will upon NATO members and its neighbors - the ambitions are not different from the ambitions of Russia.
Listen Andrey. Russia has invaded its neighboring countries repeatedly during recent history. I think that's more than enough to explain why anyone near Russia would like to be in a defensive pact.
I also don't think anyone should be concerned whether Russia finds that "weird" or "a provocation". At all.
> the ambitions are not different from the ambitions of Russia
The ambition of Russia to invade foreign countries and basically include them in the Russian state? is that the ambition of any NATO country? Which part of a country has been invaded and annexed by a NATO country?
Uh, if you have to go back 15 years to find a point where a country isn't invading it's neighbors its going to be super understandable that in the past 15 years countries have wanted to join a defense alliance.
Keep in mind, the USSR only collapsed in 1991 so the question you're asking is what aggressive actions has Russia done in the first 26 years of it's existence to make other countries scared of it.
Of which you have Chechnya (~1999), Georgia (~2008), Ukraine (~2014).
Before that, it was the original WW2 formation of the Soviet union with invasions of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithunia, Czechoslovakia and so on and so forth (which was obviously the whole reason for the existence of NATO).
The WW2 and postwar period wasn enough to sway e.g. Sweden to join NATO. Nor were the Afghan, Chechen or Georgian wars. It took the Ukrainan war to really see the veil come off.
But in this entire period I don't think there is much in terms of annexations by NATO countries, or countries currently in NATO but before the formation of NATO?
Not sure what your comment above really tries to say? Is it "I don't understand how countries in Russias vincinity can be afraid of annexation by their imperialist neighbor, they only invade a country every 5-10 years that's not so bad"? Are you hearing yourself?
Russia says a lot of things, often contradictory, but what really speaks is their actions. Invading Ukraine wasn’t about denazification, or nato threat, or anything except naked imperialism.
1. Denazification
2. Demilitarization
The first point is about suppressing the Azov Brigade and its allies. The second point is directly connected to NATO. If a country does not have enough military power, then such a country cannot join NATO by definition. I'm not seeing naked imperialism, but the pursuit of goals publicly shared in (and post) 2007.
Ukraine is not celebrating Stalin the way Russia is celebrating Stalin. Ukraine was not forcibly closing organizations studying communists crimes or Stalin crimes, Russia did.
Ukraine did not moved to make gay or trans materials illegal. Meanwhile, arrests and violence against gays in Russia became quite a serious thing in Russia. Practically, being gay is criminalized.
Ukraine did not started wars with countries around it the way Russia repeatedly did.
------------------
I am not saying Ukraine is country of saints, but Russia is waay worst then that.
When Hitler invaded Poland, at least he didn’t claim he was actually fighting fascists and stopping Polish militarization. Today’s propaganda operates on levels of post-truth that Goebbels couldn’t have imagined.
In a morally consistent world, both the Azovs and aggressive Russian regime should be countered, without any need for loss of innocent life. No one should use the existence of Azovs as an excuse to invade a country and murder innocent people.
Why does russia openly support Alexey Milchakov and it's openly nazi Rusich organization then? Maybe because it's a non point and invented reason? Putin loves nazis that support him.
To Russia, everyone who opposes them is a Nazi.
I agree. An additional reason AFAICS is that a slavic country, similar to Russia in many ways, making moves towards becoming a liberal democracy was seen as a threat to the domestic power of Putin and his inner circle. The Maidan revolution spreading to Moscow is surely a nightmare scenario for Putin.
I doubt that, unless Putin is completely delusional. The guy has, at best, almost no time left before he either dies, due to age, or dies, due to age/decline + the perception of weakness, and therefore assassination.
If Putin is still running Russia in 6 months I'll be surprised, and if in 2 years, astonished.
I guess maybe he was concerned a decade ago, but he's all short term thought now.
It's likely why the whole Ukraine thing seems a bit nutty, but if you know you have a very short time, and you think you're the only guy to do something, caution to the wind!
IMO, this is what makes Putin dangerous. He knows he is checking out.
I think it's important to bring nuance to these things and not just use a lazy label like "imperialism" to describe what's going on, even if imperialism maybe does play a part too.
Even dismissing the Nazi stuff - yes Russia has overblown it, but there were literal pro-Nazi military units of Ukraine fighting in that civil war that terrorized pro-Russian citizens.
Last I checked countries apply to join, and the alliance is free to leave. And of course like in any organization if you want to reap the benefits you may want to also accept some of the drawbacks. The most obvious one for a country like Finland probably isn't somehow being under the spell of the US, but rather being in an alliance with Turkey and Hungary, which can be pretty problematic for democratic countries these days.
I think in terms of arms deals Saab will benefit a lot from joining NATO. Gripen would likely have sold a lot better the last 15 years if it had been a NATO built plane.
I also think that dispersed deployment and simpler operation like 20 minute turnaround with a 3 man crew like the Gripen will be something all air forces including the USAF will master. Finland has always done this with their F-18s and they’ll continue to do it with F-35. It’ll be a bit more demanding no doubt, but they’ll make it work.
No, they blew that chance when they attacked Ukraine, and when they massacred civilians in Bucha (and Mariupol, and in other places).
Now nobody cares what the Russian propaganda is trying to say anymore, what difference does it make? Their actions speak for themselves.
What is Russia trying to say?
They want to install their own people in other countries regardless of the locals choice?
Is that what they were publicly saying since 2007 or is that what you interpret it as perceiving Russia as the evil because big media pumps ad revenue on it?
I’m asking, what is Russia trying to say?
Stop the expansion. Watch the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44
That doesn't sound like it's a message worth listening to.
[1] https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-biden-putin-sanctions...
russia had no chance but go in and bomb maternity wards, genocide away freely, poor-poor russia, they had no chance of just not doing any of that?
/s
> Russia made the last attempt to stop the expansion
you even use the word expansion here
What really happens is Russia targets military objects as part of their demilitarization goal. Ukraine shots down a rocket and then debris strikes into civilians buildings. This is happening daily. Example: today's night. My family is in Ukraine right now. Russia was bombing a military base which I used to walk around when I was a kid. Not a single civilian was harmed, but the base is on fire.
> So russia tried really hard to NOT invade a sovereign country and US made it impossible?
US made it possible by declining Russia's ask. That's how I see it.
That's a strange question. There is very little common sense when a war is in progress. What legitimate business US had in Afghanistan? Such questions make zero sense.
> Let alone you just lying about russia only targeting military.
30 minutes ago I jumped off a call with my parents in Ukraine. That's what they told me. That's what they've been telling me pretty much every day since the war began.
Ukraine did not attack russia. Russia attacked Ukraine and is killing Ukrainians. This war may just be the least morally ambiguous war out there.
Ukrainians are fighting for SURVIVAL. What are russians fighting for? So their pathetic muppet can live out his delusional fantasies? And what do you get for for trying to whitewash genocide here?
No. Nobody should care what Russia has to say about another country voluntarily wanting to (and joining) NATO
> the irony is that the expansion of NATO gives the US ability to force its will upon NATO members and its neighbors
All NATO members joined voluntarily. None of your business.
> the ambitions are not different from the ambitions of Russia.
I won’t even attempt to refute this.
I'm sorry, but Russia's concern is not out of thin air - you can only join NATO if your membership is not a threat to your border countries. This is one of the rules of NATO itself.
NATO members states, as members of the OSCE, are expected to adhere to the OSCE's Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security.
The 3rd aspect of the document says, quote:
3. They remain convinced that security is indivisible and that the security of each of them is inseparably linked to the security of all others. *They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. They will pursue their own security interests in conformity with the common effort to strengthen security and stability in the CSCE area and beyond.*
FYI, Russia is also a member of OSCE.
At this point I'm convinced you're either trolling or so high on Kremlin's propaganda that you're beyond saving.
Is there no world in your head where someone other than Russia does something wrong?
I live in the US for 10+ years and give zero shits about Russian / US / Ukrainian propaganda. There are rules and I'm not seeing "good" (according to conventional wisdom) countries following these rules. But who cares, right? The United States is like the biggest, most powerful country in the whole world, hands down. And if you think we're living in a unipolar kind of world, what you're saying is that we're the only major player on the global stage. And what that means? With all that crazy amount of power we've got, we can pretty much go out and do all sorts of wild and reckless stuff, and the crazy part is, it doesn't come back to bite us in any. major. way.
What's really interesting is that before the Ukrainian crisis happened, the US didn't have any reason to believe that Putin was acting all aggressive. And there's nothing showing that the US was considering making NATO bigger just to keep the Russians in check. We just didn't see Russia as being all pushy and aggressive. But then, when the Ukrainian crisis kicked off on February 22 2014, that's when the US changed its mind. That's when the US decided, "Hey, Russia is being aggressive". And the US started thinking Russia wanted to make itself bigger, like a "greater Russia" or something. This change in perception occurred post facto.
It would be odd to have such a rule, because NATO is a defensive alliance that is of no threat to any of the bordering countries.
Russia’s concern is out of the thin air, because if NATO really wanted it to, with how incompetent the russian army is, I estimate it’s 3 days to take Moscow.
The only people afraid of the Russian army are Russian men of military age.
I mean, read their rules.
https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html
Those are the minimum requirements for new members, everything else is negotiated in the accession process.
This is, of course, complete nonsense. It is as much a fact as the oft-cited claim that NATO promised not to expand (another lie that is true only to rubes).
NATO has a requirement that you settle any ongoing border disputes before ascension: If you have a simmering feud with a neighbor country about who owns a pile of rocks, it's such an obvious flashpoint that you need to resolve it first. It has zero requirement that you don't threaten the tyrannical empire building pursuits of the neighboring madman.
Russians defending Russian aggression is something that I find just impossible to believe. Putin has sent tens of thousands of Russians into a meat grinder for a futile, ego-driven war that has zero outcome that isn't negative for Russia for decades to come. And he's going to keep grinding those bodies into corpses and you'll keep talking about deNazification or whatever nonsense you're fed.
This is not a complete nonsense simply from the fact that if a joining country has conflicts with a bordering country, then such a member would trigger the "attack on one shall be considered an attack on all".
> Putin has sent tens of thousands of Russians into a meat grinder, ego-driven war that has zero outcome that isn't negative for Russia for decades to come.
I agree that this war is stupid, but it could've been avoid entirely had the US conducted a constructive dialog with Russia.
Ukraine is grinding Ukrainian males the same way Russia is grinding theirs. People with cash has already bribed to leave the country. Those who haven't bribed yet get caught on the streets and sent to the war the very next week. Military folks don't care whether you are a software engineer who has never held a weapon in your hands or a 58 old guy who's about to retire.
Whatever is happening today is the result of something. That something has been brewing for years. The root of that something are the ambitions of NATO. Some countries simply do not want NATO to be around. And I don't get why it's so hard to understand that.
Edit: I'm a software engineer who has never fired a firearm. Had I been in Ukraine right now, they'd sent me to the war as well, because they mailed my parents all the papers. Luckily I left the country many, many years ago.
Stop smoking Kremlin's propaganda. The war has got NOTHING to do with NATO or the US whatsoever. It's 100% over resources. Russia simply wants to deny Ukraine the oil and natural gas rich regions of the Donbas and Black Sea.
Russia is a gas station pretending to be a country. They simply couldn't allow competition, lest Europe might choose a different supplier for their energy needs.
> The root of that something are the ambitions of NATO. Some countries simply do not want NATO to be around. And I don't get why it's so hard to understand that.
Ah yes, and this would be the reason why Russia is bullying their non-NATO neighbors and wouldn't dare to touch a NATO member state.
And yes, it was obviously NATO that forced Russia to invade Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014.
In 2014 Ukrainians simply made the democratic choice to get rid of their Russian-puppet tyrant and elect a pro-European president.
Imagine taking even a cursory look at post-WW2 world history and coming to this naive conclusion. NATO deployed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, offensively, did they not?
The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.
NATO did not deploy offensive forces into Iraq as an organisation. Some NATO members did on their own accord outside of NATO, but the organisation itself only ever had a non-combat training and advisory mission.
Putin's decision lit a fire on that, now NATO has a purpose again.
I mean, yeah, but the reason is probably just "we need more shit to shoot at civilians in UA" rather than "we don't fear NATO invasion"
Putin may have been hoping to Finlandize NATO. Instead, he NATO-ized Finland.
Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months.
NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggression).