4 ms·
Western Europe hopes that Russia is satisfied with taking over Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe doesn't care much about atrocities, in fact, they try hard to get
by xyzzyz 6y ago
Western Europe hopes that Russia is satisfied with taking over Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe doesn't care much about atrocities, in fact, they try hard to get in on some of them (e.g. Polish involvement in Iraq war was fourth largest after US, UK and Australia), to ensure that military alliance with US is strong. For them, Russia is a real threat, and they had recent proofs of that in Crimea and Donbas. Because of that, and unlike the Western Europe, they actually do meet their NATO obligations.
- fit2rule 6y agoRussia isn't taking over Eastern Europe. I work in the region and have friends all over the Balkan states, from Vienna to Pristina, and nobody in my circle has any misconceptions about what Russia is up to - its very generally accepted that it was all about Russia keeping its one blue-water port and protecting the nuclear base from the Ukraine coup d'etat, while providing support to the Russian population in the region. On the ground, its a VERY different attitude to the Wests' propaganda on the subject. Nobody expects Russia to invade any country anywhere near the scale that the Western 5-eyes coalition has done, catastrophically, all over the Middle East and Asia.
- xyzzyz 6y agoits very generally accepted that it was all about Russia keeping its one blue-water port and protecting the nuclear base from the Ukraine coup d'etat, while providing support to the Russian population in the region Sorry, is your argument "Russia invaded and annexed parts of Ukraine in order to further its geopolitical foals"? If so, how is it in any way reassuring to other countries in its vicinity, who soon might themselves find in the way of Russia's geopolitical goals?
- fit2rule 6y ago>how is it in any way reassuring to other countries in its vicinity Because Russia's nuclear base, that had been there for decades, is still in Russia's hands and was not taken over by Ukraine fascists. I mean, that's as good a reason as any. I don't see America invading other countries to protect its nuclear bases.
- xyzzyz 6y agoThere are plenty of former Soviet bases all around Eastern Europe. What if Russia suddenly decides that it wants them back?
- fit2rule 6y agoWhich ones are still operational and armed with nuclear weapons?
- Paradigma11 6y agoWhat would have prevented russia from moving the base 100-200km farther east? Sure, relocating is a hassle but annexing foreign territory seems somewhat disproportional a reaction.
- fit2rule 6y agoThe fact that they also had a navy base in the area to protect the nuclear weapons, maybe? Anyone who has lived in the area knows that it is a Russian stronghold, and has been for hundreds of years. Remind me again, when did America have a large population of its people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan? I mean, America absolutely demolished these states with its war fighting - by the same standard, shouldn't you be demanding that the world sanction the USA for its illegal invasions and criminal wars? The double-standards are astonishing!
- xyzzyz 6y agoUkraine did not have any nuclear weapons after it relinquished them all in early 90s.
- fit2rule 6y agoRussia certainly has a nuclear base in Sevastopol, Crimea. It is a base of the Russian Navy and the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Would Americans be fine with annexing Rammstein if Germany went through a coup d'etat and the fascist leaders of the coup decided they wanted to gain access to the nuclear weapons stored there? I'm pretty sure they would. So why is it not acceptable for the Russians to protect their weapons of mass destruction from mis-use?
- nec4b 6y agoOnly in your circle as you say, otherwise people are very wary of Russian actions also in the Balkans and sympathize with Ukraine.