5 ms·

Russia does everything they can to deflect and gaslight. It's their plan. Make aggressive moves in a sphere, change the facts on the ground or the game that is

Russia does everything they can to deflect and gaslight. It's their plan. Make aggressive moves in a sphere, change the facts on the ground or the game that is played, and then retreat into deflecting and gaslighting on the international stage until it becomes too complicated for countries to continue their sanctions or whatever. Their goal is simple, chip away at the spheres surrounding them and carve their own sphere. Classic zero sum.

refenestrator 5y ago
Worth noting that, over the last 30 years, their sphere of influence has shrunk inward by a thousand miles, all driven by the US encouraging their neighbors to join the EU or NATO. I'm not saying the USSR was great for eastern europe or anything but it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO.
- randomopining 5y ago
  Their sphere of influence shrunk because the USSR lost a lot on split up and became the smaller Russia, their economy was in the doldrums for over a decade, and most of what they had was a corrupt oligarchy centered on natural resources. Why should Western companies not be able to develop the countries bordering Russia if the countries want them to come in? The problem is that when Western companies come in to Ukraine etc with rules and audits etc, it makes it tougher for the corrupt oligarchs with ties to Russia to operate and extract their wealth through corruption. If these countries adopt western norms in elections/governance, and adopt western business practices, it leaves very little room for the old corrupt guard of Russia/Soviet origins to operate and squeezes them out of any piece of the pie. That's why Putin is at odds with it.
  - type0 5y ago
    I think your reasoning is too simplistic, it's about two agreements that are self contradicting. At least for Ukraine - they had an economic alliance with Russia, they wanted to have another economic deal with the EU which in turn would put Russia and the Eastern population at the loss, then the whole shitstorm broke loose. To cite Nuland - "Fuck the EU" - was exactly how the people in Donbass and Crimea felt. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
- Jonnax 5y ago
  There's a reason these countries leaving their sphere of influence aren't a fan of Russia. Russia did invade Ukraine.
- Svoka 5y ago
  I think that main reason Russian "sphere of influence" has shrunk is that they literally attacked and annexed parts of neighbours, supporting insurgents with their own military. Hundreds of thousands are dead over last 30 years because of Russian invasions. Millions are dislocated. Be it Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc.
- lykahb 5y ago
  The picture of Russia and NATO pushing against each other on the Eastern Europe is too simple. It denies the sense agency for the countries in the region. The smaller countries have a long history and aspirations for independence. Why do so many countries choose to partner with NATO? I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries?
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries? A large number. But then again not nearly as many as the Ottoman Empire, which enslaved 10 million Europeans and brutally occupied a large chunk of Europe. Yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-Turkish sentiment or anti-islamic sentiment in order to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece, which were all under occupation for centuries. And then we have Germany, with its own history of killing and brutality that makes its neighbors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, etc -- weary of German influence and yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-German sentiment in these nations for its own power politics. We could go on, with rivalries between different nations and ethnic groups throughout the region and hurt feelings of past oppression. So yes, the anti-Russian sentiment is real and has a real basis in history, but encouraging and benefiting from these historical animosities is still considered a hostile act.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      What are the odds that Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow? What are the odds that Germany invades France tomorrow? What are the odds that Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow? That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        All of the above are zero
        5y ago
- 988747 5y ago
  Countries join NATO of their own free will, mostly because they are afraid of Russia. So the reason why Russian sphere of influence shrinks is because Russia acts like an asshole. Russia is not entitled to any "sphere of influence" outside its own borders. Personally I would gladly cut Russia out from the rest of the world with 2000 feet tall wall made of ice, so that Russian zombies can't get out.
  - avmich 5y ago
    It's not entitled, but Russian government sees how it works in practice with others, and wants the same non-entitlement. It's complicated. Russian government is the enemy number one to Russian people, as it's common for autocracies.
    - agent008t 5y ago
      At the same time, as perhaps is the case in China, a significant part of the Russian population is afraid that without the autocracy, there will be disorder that will be worse than the autocracy, as various factions fight for power. They have numerous examples from recent history - including Ukraine. Yes, Russia was instrumental in making sure there was disorder in Ukraine, but who is to say that another power will not do the same thing to Russia should the people get rid of their autocracy? As I understand, the same sentiment is fairly popular in China, too.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  Those countries are not Russias to play with as Putin pleases and, if they can be encouraged to join NATO and the west, that is because of the way they were treated by Russia. If Russia didn't want them to be part of NATO they shouldn't have abused them. Russia is burthurt on this, that cannot and should not be the concern of the rest of us.
- timeon 5y ago
  > it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO. My country was occupied by USSR (aggressors). Now is free and it is not their business anymore. Complayning about that is bullying.

refenestrator 5y ago

Worth noting that, over the last 30 years, their sphere of influence has shrunk inward by a thousand miles, all driven by the US encouraging their neighbors to join the EU or NATO. I'm not saying the USSR was great for eastern europe or anything but it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO.

randomopining 5y ago
Their sphere of influence shrunk because the USSR lost a lot on split up and became the smaller Russia, their economy was in the doldrums for over a decade, and most of what they had was a corrupt oligarchy centered on natural resources. Why should Western companies not be able to develop the countries bordering Russia if the countries want them to come in? The problem is that when Western companies come in to Ukraine etc with rules and audits etc, it makes it tougher for the corrupt oligarchs with ties to Russia to operate and extract their wealth through corruption. If these countries adopt western norms in elections/governance, and adopt western business practices, it leaves very little room for the old corrupt guard of Russia/Soviet origins to operate and squeezes them out of any piece of the pie. That's why Putin is at odds with it.
- type0 5y ago
  I think your reasoning is too simplistic, it's about two agreements that are self contradicting. At least for Ukraine - they had an economic alliance with Russia, they wanted to have another economic deal with the EU which in turn would put Russia and the Eastern population at the loss, then the whole shitstorm broke loose. To cite Nuland - "Fuck the EU" - was exactly how the people in Donbass and Crimea felt. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Jonnax 5y ago
There's a reason these countries leaving their sphere of influence aren't a fan of Russia. Russia did invade Ukraine.
Svoka 5y ago
I think that main reason Russian "sphere of influence" has shrunk is that they literally attacked and annexed parts of neighbours, supporting insurgents with their own military. Hundreds of thousands are dead over last 30 years because of Russian invasions. Millions are dislocated. Be it Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc.
lykahb 5y ago
The picture of Russia and NATO pushing against each other on the Eastern Europe is too simple. It denies the sense agency for the countries in the region. The smaller countries have a long history and aspirations for independence. Why do so many countries choose to partner with NATO? I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries? A large number. But then again not nearly as many as the Ottoman Empire, which enslaved 10 million Europeans and brutally occupied a large chunk of Europe. Yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-Turkish sentiment or anti-islamic sentiment in order to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece, which were all under occupation for centuries. And then we have Germany, with its own history of killing and brutality that makes its neighbors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, etc -- weary of German influence and yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-German sentiment in these nations for its own power politics. We could go on, with rivalries between different nations and ethnic groups throughout the region and hurt feelings of past oppression. So yes, the anti-Russian sentiment is real and has a real basis in history, but encouraging and benefiting from these historical animosities is still considered a hostile act.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    What are the odds that Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow? What are the odds that Germany invades France tomorrow? What are the odds that Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow? That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      All of the above are zero
      - 5y ago
988747 5y ago
Countries join NATO of their own free will, mostly because they are afraid of Russia. So the reason why Russian sphere of influence shrinks is because Russia acts like an asshole. Russia is not entitled to any "sphere of influence" outside its own borders. Personally I would gladly cut Russia out from the rest of the world with 2000 feet tall wall made of ice, so that Russian zombies can't get out.
- avmich 5y ago
  It's not entitled, but Russian government sees how it works in practice with others, and wants the same non-entitlement. It's complicated. Russian government is the enemy number one to Russian people, as it's common for autocracies.
  - agent008t 5y ago
    At the same time, as perhaps is the case in China, a significant part of the Russian population is afraid that without the autocracy, there will be disorder that will be worse than the autocracy, as various factions fight for power. They have numerous examples from recent history - including Ukraine. Yes, Russia was instrumental in making sure there was disorder in Ukraine, but who is to say that another power will not do the same thing to Russia should the people get rid of their autocracy? As I understand, the same sentiment is fairly popular in China, too.
tomjen3 5y ago
Those countries are not Russias to play with as Putin pleases and, if they can be encouraged to join NATO and the west, that is because of the way they were treated by Russia. If Russia didn't want them to be part of NATO they shouldn't have abused them. Russia is burthurt on this, that cannot and should not be the concern of the rest of us.
timeon 5y ago
> it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO. My country was occupied by USSR (aggressors). Now is free and it is not their business anymore. Complayning about that is bullying.