4 ms·

The Russians say: It would not have happened when Ukraine was not turned into a potential NATO country. The Russians genuinely see it as a security issue. Ukra

The Russians say: It would not have happened when Ukraine was not turned into a potential NATO country. The Russians genuinely see it as a security issue. Ukraine is becoming a threat once part of the NATO. In some ways understandable. In the end we are talking about two enemies ,the west and Russia having a pretty serious conflict. Neither is good or bad. Unfortunately propoganda is extremely efficient these days. Either side have full support.

watwut 5y ago
Nah, it is pretty clear that Russia goal is control of Ukraine. The only role membership in NATO play is that if that theoretically happened, it would be harder to attack Ukraine later on. And there was no immenent threat of Ukraine entering nato anyway. This is just Russia using it as excuse.
- holoduke 5y ago
  Of course they want to control Ukraine. They did for 100 years. Only recently they start losing market to western companies. That is the reason why there is a war now. Russia is losing ground. NATO is gaining ground. It is that simple. The ignorance to think that the west doesn't want Ukraine being member of NATO is beyond strange. Of course they want. It brings enormous market to NATO land. all large businesses would vote yes to get Ukraine inside their sphere. Same for Russia. For them it is exactly the same.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Yeah, they suppressed their attempt to have state in 1917 and when communist regime and it's USSR ended, Ukraine finally had its independence. Nothing obvious about Russia needing to annex surrounding countries again.
  - janto 5y ago
    It's up to Ukrainians to decide if they want to join NATO. Not businesses in another country.
    - holoduke 5y ago
      If only the political level of corruption would be normal. Yes then I completely agree. But it's not. Nevertheless I agree that the people of Ukraine want no Russian control.
- achikin 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relatio...
jacobolus 5y ago
> The Russians say [...] NATO Putin in his speech blamed Lenin for giving away the territory of the Russian empire in creating a Ukrainian Republic, and claimed that Ukraine is not a real country so does not deserve sovereignty. He later said its leaders are drug dealing Nazis, presumably including the Jewish Russian-speaking president. Nothing the Russian state says about the origins of the conflict seems very credible. A more plausible origin is Putin’s megalomaniacal imperial ambitions and paranoid fear of being eventually displaced by a homegrown pro-Europe, pro-democracy movement in Russia.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > Nothing the Russians say about the origins of the conflict seem very credible. A more plausible origin is Putin’s megalomania and paranoid fear of being eventually displaced by a homegrown pro-Europe, pro-democracy movement in Russia. Ideology seems to be part of it but Russian security concerns are part of it too. Suggesting that NATO expansion was a mistake is not the same thing as blaming this war on NATO. Anyone who does blame NATO should ask themselves why Ukraine wanted to join in the first place (because the Ukrainians know the Russians won't respect their sovereignty).
eezurr 5y ago
This comment is getting down voted pretty hard. Im not pro-Russia by any means, but I did take a minute to imagine what it would be like to live with (more?) missile silos pointing at me at the boarder of my country. I didn't have to think too long, you can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis This pushes the justification for Putin's response away from "unprovoked and savage". IMO I think the US is partially responsible for this crisis. We've never stopped expanding our influence, for better or worse. Perhaps we pushed a little too hard here. </armchair> (edit: changed pro-russia to pro-Putin. E2: Flipped again)
- janto 5y ago
  Your change from Russia to Putin is key here...
  - eezurr 5y ago
    Is it? I didn't want to blame the whole of Russia when Putin has more authoritative powers over the countries decisions, quite unlike the US. I'll fix it regardless since this is a nuanced difference.
    - janto 5y ago
      I actually liked your change from Russia to Putin so apologies for me not explaining and causing confusion and another edit. My point was that you were more accurate to say that Putin is feeling threatened, than Russia is. And this change has further implications on the validity of his stated reasons.
jacquesm 5y ago
Russia feels the same way about Poland, the Baltics and any other country that joined NATO after 1993 or so. But none of that matters, it's just a figleaf to justify an attack, if not for 'NATO' then for some other bullshit reason.
vmception 5y ago
The reasons why there isn’t actually another perspective like this: Everything you said was true years ago as well, a form of it was even true during the Cuban missile crisis, as the US had missiles at the border of the soviet union too, there is nothing unique or newfound geopolitically about the timing here to support this “security issue”. Russia creates contexts for invasion. It hands passports out to pro-Russian residents in parts of Ukraine, and then invades to “protects its citizens” so that it could theoretically be judged the same way as other countries that do interventions. Adding all of that to an ideological retcon from 100 years ago, and all you have left is an irrational madman who wants to be in the footnote of a history book as attempting empire rebuilding. Putin’s own advisors are afraid of him and cant give him a straight answer about anything, they're afraid of the international consequences of this as well. None of this supports the idea of a leader doing anything in the interest of Russians or the concept of a Russian empire. We’ll never even get to know what an independent Donetsk and Luhansk even means. Microstates? Districts of Russia? This is just all way off and a mess. Its come down to just choosing a side and watching the results unfold.

watwut 5y ago

Nah, it is pretty clear that Russia goal is control of Ukraine. The only role membership in NATO play is that if that theoretically happened, it would be harder to attack Ukraine later on. And there was no immenent threat of Ukraine entering nato anyway. This is just Russia using it as excuse.

holoduke 5y ago
Of course they want to control Ukraine. They did for 100 years. Only recently they start losing market to western companies. That is the reason why there is a war now. Russia is losing ground. NATO is gaining ground. It is that simple. The ignorance to think that the west doesn't want Ukraine being member of NATO is beyond strange. Of course they want. It brings enormous market to NATO land. all large businesses would vote yes to get Ukraine inside their sphere. Same for Russia. For them it is exactly the same.
- watwut 5y ago
  Yeah, they suppressed their attempt to have state in 1917 and when communist regime and it's USSR ended, Ukraine finally had its independence. Nothing obvious about Russia needing to annex surrounding countries again.
- janto 5y ago
  It's up to Ukrainians to decide if they want to join NATO. Not businesses in another country.
  - holoduke 5y ago
    If only the political level of corruption would be normal. Yes then I completely agree. But it's not. Nevertheless I agree that the people of Ukraine want no Russian control.
achikin 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relatio...

jacobolus 5y ago

> The Russians say [...] NATO Putin in his speech blamed Lenin for giving away the territory of the Russian empire in creating a Ukrainian Republic, and claimed that Ukraine is not a real country so does not deserve sovereignty. He later said its leaders are drug dealing Nazis, presumably including the Jewish Russian-speaking president. Nothing the Russian state says about the origins of the conflict seems very credible. A more plausible origin is Putin’s megalomaniacal imperial ambitions and paranoid fear of being eventually displaced by a homegrown pro-Europe, pro-democracy movement in Russia.

slibhb 5y ago
> Nothing the Russians say about the origins of the conflict seem very credible. A more plausible origin is Putin’s megalomania and paranoid fear of being eventually displaced by a homegrown pro-Europe, pro-democracy movement in Russia. Ideology seems to be part of it but Russian security concerns are part of it too. Suggesting that NATO expansion was a mistake is not the same thing as blaming this war on NATO. Anyone who does blame NATO should ask themselves why Ukraine wanted to join in the first place (because the Ukrainians know the Russians won't respect their sovereignty).

eezurr 5y ago

This comment is getting down voted pretty hard. Im not pro-Russia by any means, but I did take a minute to imagine what it would be like to live with (more?) missile silos pointing at me at the boarder of my country. I didn't have to think too long, you can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis This pushes the justification for Putin's response away from "unprovoked and savage". IMO I think the US is partially responsible for this crisis. We've never stopped expanding our influence, for better or worse. Perhaps we pushed a little too hard here. </armchair> (edit: changed pro-russia to pro-Putin. E2: Flipped again)

janto 5y ago
Your change from Russia to Putin is key here...
- eezurr 5y ago
  Is it? I didn't want to blame the whole of Russia when Putin has more authoritative powers over the countries decisions, quite unlike the US. I'll fix it regardless since this is a nuanced difference.
  - janto 5y ago
    I actually liked your change from Russia to Putin so apologies for me not explaining and causing confusion and another edit. My point was that you were more accurate to say that Putin is feeling threatened, than Russia is. And this change has further implications on the validity of his stated reasons.

jacquesm 5y ago

Russia feels the same way about Poland, the Baltics and any other country that joined NATO after 1993 or so. But none of that matters, it's just a figleaf to justify an attack, if not for 'NATO' then for some other bullshit reason.

vmception 5y ago

The reasons why there isn’t actually another perspective like this: Everything you said was true years ago as well, a form of it was even true during the Cuban missile crisis, as the US had missiles at the border of the soviet union too, there is nothing unique or newfound geopolitically about the timing here to support this “security issue”. Russia creates contexts for invasion. It hands passports out to pro-Russian residents in parts of Ukraine, and then invades to “protects its citizens” so that it could theoretically be judged the same way as other countries that do interventions. Adding all of that to an ideological retcon from 100 years ago, and all you have left is an irrational madman who wants to be in the footnote of a history book as attempting empire rebuilding. Putin’s own advisors are afraid of him and cant give him a straight answer about anything, they're afraid of the international consequences of this as well. None of this supports the idea of a leader doing anything in the interest of Russians or the concept of a Russian empire. We’ll never even get to know what an independent Donetsk and Luhansk even means. Microstates? Districts of Russia? This is just all way off and a mess. Its come down to just choosing a side and watching the results unfold.