Why is it more important to listen to Russia than to listen to Ukraine, Sweden, and Finland? Or also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia?
Because Russia has 10k nuclear warheads that yankees are apparently ignoring, and the expansion of NATO is happening on european soil at european stability expenses, which apparently EU leaders are ignoring, you guys seem to think that I come here to say these things because I am a fan of Mister Putin, I am not, but I am aware that actions have consequences and if Hilary Clinton and Obama tell a guy that he is Hitler, when the guy is at the head of a state with 10k nuclear warheads, then Clinton and Obama need to fuck off a stay out of European soil affairs, because it is ultimately European states that border with this state. I understand this is not an issue for you, as you don't border with it and don't have business and energy and companies depending on it, but we are, the wellbeing and stability of the continent depends on talking and dealing with Putin at the moment, so we need EU leaders to stop being US puppet and start keeping in mind european interests and lives
The thing is, Russia invasion and occupation (again) is not in interest of European countries around Russia.
You know, Eastern European leaders are even harder line against Russia right now than the US is, let alone Western Europe. I guess having living memory of having been invaded and occupied by Russia makes you especially eager to sign up to, and enforce, a pact that will commit a much, much larger power to go to war against Russia if you get invaded.
I'm not worried about nuclear weapons, and this is why: nuclear weapons are the last form of escalation possible. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, there is nothing he can do to further deter NATO from invading Russia, and I strongly suspect that public opinion would be in favor of NATO doing so. I don't see any scenario where the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't harm Russian positions, let alone a scenario where nuclear weapons are actually helpful.
I don't know what you're talking about. Obama famously tried to reset the US relationship with Russia back to something more cordial and Vladimir Putin used that as an opportunity to spit at their feet, as if it were a sign of weakness. Because the only thing Putin seems to respect as a potential limit on his power are overt physical threats.
Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries?
Take Kazakhstan. It's a country which is in several bloc-like agreements with Russia: СНГ, ОДКБ, ЕАЕС. How are you going to listen to it? I will tell you how the West do it every time:
You are going to find some opposition crackpot who will badmouth Russia and crap on Kazakhstan regime, and you will ignore all other voices.
The one who may as well be on some Western "free press" aid program and therefore not really speaking for themself but for you. You are only going to listen to yourself.
> Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries?
Honestly, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth listening to, it just means we need to find someone who is capable of listening to them.
And it's equally worth pointing out that listening to Kazakhstan through a Russian filter is as dangerously misguided as listening to it through a Western filter.
I don't have to understand those countries to believe they should have the right to make their own sovereign decisions. Let Russia try to influence by diplomatic means, let the west do the same, let the country decide what it wants. You just seem to be arguing that these countries should be Russian proxies instead of Western proxies, which is absurd. Let them be neither. Russia's problem is that it's primary mode of influence is force. The west focusses much more on economic influence. And yes, lest you try for a simplistic "what about", they do use force too, but the focus is overwhelmingly on economic and diplomatic influence first.
Almost all of the countries that you have listed depend on Russia economically to the same extent as on the West, or in greater fashion.
"Let them be neither" does not work, as demonstrated by the NATO expansion.
NATO has always been a defensive alliance, a retaliatory deterrence against attacking any one member, especially weaker members that would be easy to pick off.
NATO expansion has pretty much always been a reaction to Russian aggression, including the most recent accessions following Russia's takeover of Crimea and now their invasion if the Ukraine.
Painting NATO expansion as an aggressive act that forces Russia to retaliate with their own belligerance is a reversal of cause & effect at best and a willful blindness or belief in propaganda at worst. The truth is that since the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has been free to participate in global affairs & economics as much or as little as it wants, and while geopolitical games are played on all sides there have been no efforts to prevent Russia's peaceful participation such things. The rest of the world has even turned a blind eye to some fairly brutal conflicts they waged to consolidate what power they could among former Soviet states. Such is that nature of realpolitik.
Russian leadership's desire to take that to an entirely new level right now is of course scaring the shit our of other close neighbors who rightfully fear that they would be next on the list.
US actions in, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant "whataboutism". If you have a problem with US actions then complain about them, advocate for US sanctions or a NATO-like alliance against US aggression or whatever you thing is appropriate. But none of it excuses Russia's actions and the very reasonable response from other countries that now seek protection from becoming their next target.
Complaining about NATO expansion as an instigator of Russian aggression is like complaining that a playground bully is justified in beating up kids just because a group of those kids decided they would defend themselves collectively if the bully went after them again.
I think whataboutism is just a very nice word that is being used more and more in order to retain some sort of moral superiority and no accountability for actions, like we need to use two weights and two measures just otherwise we are whatabouting
No it's not whataboutism it's just to make sure that when we say that Russia is crazy and US is some sort of holy state, we are trusting the wrong people to tell us what is just and correct and what is not
So I am sorry but when the US tries to tell us about criminals and that what it takes to be just, I think only that it is the most criminal country in the history of the world, the only one to drop nuclear bombs on cilivian target cities or killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan then jailing journalists or try to get them extradited, or spying on citizens of the world or backing israeli regime killing kids and journalists. Just as a way to remember who is telling us to give up everything we have and our stability, to be aware of the interlocutor, somehow.
So at this point, we realise that US is a criminal state pursuing his own interest at the expense of the rest of the world, once we've established that, and that they don't care about human rights and freedom of press, since they support countries against that around the world for their interests, would we give up that?
So when Biden speaks to Europeans saying you need to give up Russian gas for the track record of Russia, why Europeans don't reply that US need to give up its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel?
Because the world is not unjust but european leaders are now pursuing US interests at their own expenses, and that is not good
When you use bad actions by the US as justification for bad actions by Russia then you can call it whatever you want-- ditch "whataboutism" for you favored rationalization of choice, it's still a fundamentally flawed argument that avoids addressing the issue at hand in favor of hand waving non sequiturs and distractions.
It shows either a fundamental disinterest in or inability to argue the issue on its own merits, and you continue that flawed course of arguments in your above comment. By all means condemn the US for any actions you believe are wrong. Argue for the same sorts of sanctions or other measure that you believe are merited if you think the US should be held to account for those things.
But don't mistake your criticisms of the US or anyone else as coming anywhere close to a valid argument for why Russia is justified in its current course of actions. Don't mistake them for a valid argument against new NATO applicants fearful that they are next on Russia's hit list. No, instead you need to understand that you are defending Russia's actions as though they are a necessary response, when nothing could be further from the truth. In the wake of the Soviet breakup the remaining Russian Federation was extremely well poised to break out of its isolation and contribute significantly to the world with its rich culture & strong scientific tradition instead of just its commoditized natural resources. Instead it was coopted by oligarchical kleptocrats that stifled its vast potential. The world is poorer for Russian leadership's self-interests & self-dealing, and their short-sightedness now requires it to response with force to situations it could have managed to the net benefit of itself and its partners.
Russia is not the victim here. Russia is not justified in its actions. It's been outplayed in economics & geopolitics only because its leadership never considered cooperation as a first-line stance on the world stage. If it feels "forced" into violence now it is only because its leadership has always extended the mailed fist instead of trying the velvet glove first. So it is no surprise that countries would flee that approach in favor the velvet glove that offers prosperity through cooperation before it extends the threat of force.
The result is a military failure the will achieve every strategic horror it thought to fight against. It is severely weakened militarily, unable to defeat an enemy it should easily have bested even with the light weaponry aid provided to Ukraine, much of which only made it there after their initial failed invasion. This has shown the world how poorly prepared it is to project military power beyond its own borders, except by nuclear threat. From here on out, it can do very little militarily without resorting to threat of nuclear war. It now has almost not option in-between minor skirmish & nuclear bombs because its weak logistics and untrained troops are revealed to the world.
In the broader geopolitical game it has reversed a decades-long decline in the relevance of NATO, a long sought strategic goal of theirs, and instead injected new life into the organization making it more relevant and stronger than it has been for a very long time. Just a few years ago there was strong support among many in the US to dismantle NATO or at least gut it by withdrawing, but now you'd be hard pressed to find more than a slim minority who believe NATO has outlived its purpose.
Russia, by taking steps that you seem ready to support & justify, has weakened itself in every conceivable way. Point fingers at other awful things done by other countries all you want, you cannot get around this. You cannot avoid the fact that, even if Russia's actions were even minimally justified (they're not) they are a strategic disaster that will leave its unfortunate population worse off for at least a generation.
Countries can have a booming trade without being a client state. You are under the misapprehension that 1) A small country must make itself subservient to a larger more powerful one. And 2) It cannot have close ties with more than one large world power.
Germany for example has very strong economic interests with both the US & Russia, and until the Ukrainian invasion there wasn't too much of a problem with that. The US warned that Russia would use its fossil fuel exports as a political weapon (as it turns out, correctly, but the US wields economic influence in similar, if more subtle ways) but Germany was still free to enter into an agreement despite that, and it did so, along with many other European countries to a lesser extent.
Finland & Sweden were perfectly content to "be neither" for three quarters of a century! But now, faced with a belligerent Russian regime, they're driven to the extreme of knowing they could be next on Russia's list. Russia has brought this on itself, and if more countries are choosing a closer alliance to the west it is in no way through pressure or threats of violence by the west (or the US in particular) but instead due to fear of violence from a their neighbor to the east. Russia has created a situation where "we don't need to pick a side, we can be neither" is now a choice that risks annihilation of national sovereignty.