4 ms·

1) This is Russian propaganda - either from someone who doesn't understand the situation (i.e. 'Useful Idiocy' as Stalin himself coined the term) - or - arguin

1) This is Russian propaganda - either from someone who doesn't understand the situation (i.e. 'Useful Idiocy' as Stalin himself coined the term) - or - arguing in bad faith. It's ironically a very good example of the cynical, authoritarian, toxic 'bad faith' acting by the Russian government, and people. Foreign Minster Lavarov - literally just yesterday, was lambasting Israel for 'supporting the Nazi regime in Ukraine'. The word 'repulsive' isn't strong enough. 'NATO expansion' is - much like the public story of 'WMDs in Iraq' - a canard. It's as stupid as the lie about 'denazification' which Putin is using to justify a genocide. Russia has no real threat from NATO - there is 0% chance of NATO aggression towards Russia, and they know it. Concerns about 'not listening to Russian concerns for 7 years' is another lie - as though Russia had a material position to begin with. Russia created the problems in Ukraine, quite on purpose. In 2004 they poisoned Ukrainian Yushchenko, later, the GRU/FIS/FSB were all over, controlling and corrupting their stooge Yanukovich - who publicly declared he was going to focus on Europe, but after consolidating power, he indicated that Ukraine was going to 'Go with Russia'. A revolution ensued - and Putin invaded Crimea and invaded (yes, invaded) the Donbas where his forces 'not in uniform' were used to start a conflict between Ukrainians. Even the leaders of the Ukrainian ultra nationalists were on Putin's payroll - he was cynically playing both sides. If you want to understand Putin's genocidal motivations in Ukraine, read his own words [1] You can read Michael McFaul's (former Ambassador to Russia) great articulation of the situation [2] 2) Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian mass murderer who invaded Kuwait (Iran before that), gassed his own citizens. Saddam would call out members of Congress, ask them to confess to their failures ... and then have them executed on the spot. Saddam is responsible for situation he created for himself, American intentions and methods were overall in good faith, though obviously poorly applied. The 'WMD story' was an exaggeration of reality for reasons of populism, but it was not even false - WMD's were a problem for this regime, as was his ongoing antagonism. [1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 [2] https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears-most/ https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears...

fosk 4y ago
> Russia has no real threat from NATO - there is 0% chance of NATO aggression towards Russia, and they know it. I actually think that this is wrong. And that is the key to understand Russia’s behavior. Russia seems to have (legitimate I would say, given the past) fears that it will be attacked eventually like it happened in the past and needs to be - as a result of that - heavily defended.
- trasz 4y ago
  I actually agree about the legitimate fears, but this doesn't justify invading anyone. And the situation in Ukraine was manufactured by Russia on purpose. It's true that USA has done some terrible things in the past. And it's too bad the perpetrators never got punished. But it doesn't mean we should tolerate this behaviour elsewhere.
  - fosk 4y ago
    Just want to clarify that I am personally against invading any country. But Russia did indeed invade this country, so I am brainstorming as to what their equation may be. Russia is after all a rational actor on the world stage, and they must have thought the benefits are stronger than the cons.
    - jollybean 4y ago
      The problem with your line of thinking is that you are framing their 'rationality' as though they are a Western country. It is 'rational' in Russian to invade a former colony, because they should be dominated by Russia. 75% of the elite are good with that, 50% of the population and the rest will be mostly indifferent in the end. Russia obviously does not want NATO expansion but they are not afraid of it, and NATO 'on their borders' is not an existential concern. Much like Putin set the 'red lines' for intervention and is destroying a nation saying 'others cannot be involved but we can' - his propaganda has you in the same 'mental bubble' - thinking about 'NATO' while he does the unthinkable. Russia also has no interest in telling the truth - they lie, lie, lie. Their diplomacy is entire a function of leverage. Your taking the intellectual posture of an abused person, listening to the excuses of 'why he had to abuse you' etc.. Again - if you want to understand, just read Putin's own words [1]. He does not view Ukraine as a 'place'. He views Ukraine as basically part of 'greater russia' and that 'Ukraine' is not real. Also, read McFaul's thesis about NATO and Russia. [1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 [2] https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears-most/ https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears...

fosk 4y ago

> Russia has no real threat from NATO - there is 0% chance of NATO aggression towards Russia, and they know it. I actually think that this is wrong. And that is the key to understand Russia’s behavior. Russia seems to have (legitimate I would say, given the past) fears that it will be attacked eventually like it happened in the past and needs to be - as a result of that - heavily defended.

trasz 4y ago
I actually agree about the legitimate fears, but this doesn't justify invading anyone. And the situation in Ukraine was manufactured by Russia on purpose. It's true that USA has done some terrible things in the past. And it's too bad the perpetrators never got punished. But it doesn't mean we should tolerate this behaviour elsewhere.
- fosk 4y ago
  Just want to clarify that I am personally against invading any country. But Russia did indeed invade this country, so I am brainstorming as to what their equation may be. Russia is after all a rational actor on the world stage, and they must have thought the benefits are stronger than the cons.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    The problem with your line of thinking is that you are framing their 'rationality' as though they are a Western country. It is 'rational' in Russian to invade a former colony, because they should be dominated by Russia. 75% of the elite are good with that, 50% of the population and the rest will be mostly indifferent in the end. Russia obviously does not want NATO expansion but they are not afraid of it, and NATO 'on their borders' is not an existential concern. Much like Putin set the 'red lines' for intervention and is destroying a nation saying 'others cannot be involved but we can' - his propaganda has you in the same 'mental bubble' - thinking about 'NATO' while he does the unthinkable. Russia also has no interest in telling the truth - they lie, lie, lie. Their diplomacy is entire a function of leverage. Your taking the intellectual posture of an abused person, listening to the excuses of 'why he had to abuse you' etc.. Again - if you want to understand, just read Putin's own words [1]. He does not view Ukraine as a 'place'. He views Ukraine as basically part of 'greater russia' and that 'Ukraine' is not real. Also, read McFaul's thesis about NATO and Russia. [1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 [2] https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears-most/ https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears...