4 ms·

From the Russia POV invading Ukraine was a response to NATO expanding there. An imminent invasion of Europe seems outside of Russia’s geopolitical goals. But E

by grafmax 11mo ago

From the Russia POV invading Ukraine was a response to NATO expanding there. An imminent invasion of Europe seems outside of Russia’s geopolitical goals. But Europe’s leaders on the other hand do seem invested in escalating this conflict, a lack of finances notwithstanding.

general1465 11mo ago
And NATO is expanding because Russia keeps attacking its neighbors. It is not like it expands on its own, countries are literally begging to be let in.
cthe 11mo ago
This is a fake news from Russia... Both Germany and France said no for Ukraine to join NATO several times, exactly to avoid poking the bear and starting a war.
- grafmax 11mo ago
  First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer, not just a view you (also) can find in Russian propaganda. Second my point is understanding the Russian POV, regardless of the correctness of that POV. Third, your comment is off base historically. The timeline is: 2007 Putin’s Munich speech warning against NATO expansion to Eastern Europe. Feb 2008 US ambassador warning that NATO expansion to Ukraine was a red line for Russia. April 2008 Bucharest summit Ukraine and Georgia were not given MAPs due to France and Germany objections but were promised NATO accession over their objections. August 2008 invasion of Georgia. Nov 2013-Feb 2014 Euromaidan protests overthrowing Russia-sympathetic Yanukovych 2014 invasion of Crimea Feb 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Besides this Putin has argued for the invasion of Ukraine as restoration of historical Russia as part of his nationalist ideology. And other examples of NATO expansion such as Baltics, Poland and Finland have not led to Russian attacks. Overall the concerns many European leaders have about Russia need to be tempered by a better understanding of Russia’s actual perspective (as I said not the same as advocating for that perspective).
  - mopsi 11mo ago
    > First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer, not just a view you (also) can find in Russian propaganda. They are Russian propaganda, Mearsheimer most notably. His books are financed by the Russian government. If these people are your primary sources, you will end up believing that the Holocaust is a lie, the Americans never landed on the Moon, 5G is for mind control, and vaccines cause autism. > Overall the concerns many European leaders have about Russia need to be tempered by a better understanding of Russia’s actual perspective Who do you think has a better understanding of Russia: those who had the misfortune of being born and raised in the USSR and saw Russian imperialism from the inside (this generation currently fills the top leadership positions in Eastern Europe), or "reputable scholars" from the other side of the world who cannot speak or read a word of Russian and know nothing about the country beyond what their handlers showed them during a conference visit? Do you think that Kaja Kallas, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, whose mother was deported as a six-month-old baby to Siberian labor camp after the Soviet invasion of Estonia, and whose father later became one of the four architects of the Estonian independence movement, needs to be lectured by Mearsheimers and Chomskys? If anything, the Anglo-American world has lived for too long in a fantasy land constructed by reputable and disreputable scholars from afar, instead of listening to those with lived experience and knowledge accumulated over a lifetime.
    - grafmax 11mo ago
      > They are Russian propaganda, Mearsheimer most notably. His books are financed by the Russian government. The closest thing I could find about this was that in one of his books he acknowledges partial financing of this one book from a small prize from a Russian internet forum. That’s all I could find. Chomsky and Sachs supposedly fall under this umbrella too, according to you. Presumably criticizing American foreign policy is equivalent to Russian propaganda in your view. Nor are any of the conspiracy theories you attribute to them something I could find evidence of. My point there in my comment about these three holding these views was that this isn’t simply Russian fake news. It’s held by some reputable scholars as well. Your response is to claim these scholars too are Russian propagandists, bolstering your case with outright fabrications. The US leadership openly refers to Ukraine as a proxy war. I do think it’s worth listening to critics of US foreign policy in that context, and not limiting our information diet to European politicians.
int_19h 11mo ago
From the Russia POV invading Ukraine was a consequence of a deeply entrenched belief that Ukrainians "aren't a real people" and that Ukrainian is "not a real language", and that Ukraine is basically Russian territory that was forcibly separated and "derussified". Putin pretty much spelled it out in the open before the invasion.

by grafmax 11mo ago

general1465 11mo ago

And NATO is expanding because Russia keeps attacking its neighbors. It is not like it expands on its own, countries are literally begging to be let in.

cthe 11mo ago

This is a fake news from Russia... Both Germany and France said no for Ukraine to join NATO several times, exactly to avoid poking the bear and starting a war.

grafmax 11mo ago
First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer, not just a view you (also) can find in Russian propaganda. Second my point is understanding the Russian POV, regardless of the correctness of that POV. Third, your comment is off base historically. The timeline is: 2007 Putin’s Munich speech warning against NATO expansion to Eastern Europe. Feb 2008 US ambassador warning that NATO expansion to Ukraine was a red line for Russia. April 2008 Bucharest summit Ukraine and Georgia were not given MAPs due to France and Germany objections but were promised NATO accession over their objections. August 2008 invasion of Georgia. Nov 2013-Feb 2014 Euromaidan protests overthrowing Russia-sympathetic Yanukovych 2014 invasion of Crimea Feb 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Besides this Putin has argued for the invasion of Ukraine as restoration of historical Russia as part of his nationalist ideology. And other examples of NATO expansion such as Baltics, Poland and Finland have not led to Russian attacks. Overall the concerns many European leaders have about Russia need to be tempered by a better understanding of Russia’s actual perspective (as I said not the same as advocating for that perspective).
- mopsi 11mo ago
  > First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer, not just a view you (also) can find in Russian propaganda. They are Russian propaganda, Mearsheimer most notably. His books are financed by the Russian government. If these people are your primary sources, you will end up believing that the Holocaust is a lie, the Americans never landed on the Moon, 5G is for mind control, and vaccines cause autism. > Overall the concerns many European leaders have about Russia need to be tempered by a better understanding of Russia’s actual perspective Who do you think has a better understanding of Russia: those who had the misfortune of being born and raised in the USSR and saw Russian imperialism from the inside (this generation currently fills the top leadership positions in Eastern Europe), or "reputable scholars" from the other side of the world who cannot speak or read a word of Russian and know nothing about the country beyond what their handlers showed them during a conference visit? Do you think that Kaja Kallas, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, whose mother was deported as a six-month-old baby to Siberian labor camp after the Soviet invasion of Estonia, and whose father later became one of the four architects of the Estonian independence movement, needs to be lectured by Mearsheimers and Chomskys? If anything, the Anglo-American world has lived for too long in a fantasy land constructed by reputable and disreputable scholars from afar, instead of listening to those with lived experience and knowledge accumulated over a lifetime.
  - grafmax 11mo ago
    > They are Russian propaganda, Mearsheimer most notably. His books are financed by the Russian government. The closest thing I could find about this was that in one of his books he acknowledges partial financing of this one book from a small prize from a Russian internet forum. That’s all I could find. Chomsky and Sachs supposedly fall under this umbrella too, according to you. Presumably criticizing American foreign policy is equivalent to Russian propaganda in your view. Nor are any of the conspiracy theories you attribute to them something I could find evidence of. My point there in my comment about these three holding these views was that this isn’t simply Russian fake news. It’s held by some reputable scholars as well. Your response is to claim these scholars too are Russian propagandists, bolstering your case with outright fabrications. The US leadership openly refers to Ukraine as a proxy war. I do think it’s worth listening to critics of US foreign policy in that context, and not limiting our information diet to European politicians.

int_19h 11mo ago

From the Russia POV invading Ukraine was a consequence of a deeply entrenched belief that Ukrainians "aren't a real people" and that Ukrainian is "not a real language", and that Ukraine is basically Russian territory that was forcibly separated and "derussified". Putin pretty much spelled it out in the open before the invasion.