4 ms·
I was also talking about Russian soldiers. You can exclude conscripts because at the moment the Russian regime seems to want to avoid civilian unrest. > And as
by libertine 2y ago
I was also talking about Russian soldiers. You can exclude conscripts because at the moment the Russian regime seems to want to avoid civilian unrest.
> And as far as I know, defending mother russia from NATO aggression is a major motivator, as well as money is.
This is very confusing, and a lot of Russians are also confused by this by the way: what NATO aggression are you talking about?
> just that the world is not as black and white as fantasy often is
The Nazis crafted a narrative to start WW2 at a time when information didn't have the same freedom. This narrative seem to have heavily inspired the Russian regime: "ethnic russians are under threat in Ukraine!" instead of "ethnic Germans are under threat in Poland".
So the whole casus beli does seem to be a dark fantasy, and people are aware of this, to the point of completely dismissing that reality.
That's why I don't understand your point, nor do I see the logic of it.
- lukan 2y ago"This is very confusing, and a lot of Russians are also confused by this by the way: what NATO aggression are you talking about?" It is not my point of view, I am not a fan of empires in general, but the "NATO aggression" is obviously the expansion of the NATO to the east .. And from the point of view of empire logic - it is aggression. The old empire was shrinking and in decline - Ukraine, which was formerly completely integrated in the empire, now on the brink of switching sides and aligning with the west. It is the logic of power. And I doubt you can find many russians living in russia who are confused by this. They understand. Luckily not everyone shares that logic(way too many do), but they do understand it.
- libertine 2y ago> It is not my point of view, I am not a fan of empires in general, but the "NATO aggression" is obviously the expansion of the NATO to the east .. I mean, it is your point of view, which is shared by the Russian regime narrative as you know, hence why it's confusing. Once again when you say "the expansion of the NATO" you're framing it like an army marched into the east seizing territory and enforcing themselves onto sovereign states that wanted nothing to do with NATO. Or that NATO threatened countries to join them "or else" like Russia does. And my question is why are you framing it like that? Because NATO is a defensive alliance, which countries can apply to join. No nation was threatened into joining NATO. In case you didn't know both USSR and Russia signed agreements, memorandums and charters that stated Sovereign countries are entitled to choose their own economic and defensive alliances - ALL SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES, no exceptions here. By your logic, the WTC is an imperialist project, which is nonsense. Or agreements Russia had with Western countries, would be once again "imperialist western expansion"... very confusing and illogical stuff. Gorbachev himself clearly stated so, when he said that there was NO such thing as promises of non-NATO integration of eastern countries (which the Russian regime continues to try to spin these lies when the man himself denied any such promise). And by the way, former soviet states applied to join NATO when the world witnessed Russia restarting expansionism through war in case you didn't know. So once again, it isn't very clear. > And I doubt you can find many russians living in russia who are confused by this. They understand. Clearly, they don't understand, why do you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young and educated Russians fled Russia when the war started?