I'm also not interested in emphasising things over and over again. I will say however that there are 2 two sides to every narrative; that adopting the position that one side is solely or largely to blame and viewing things mainly from the narrow lens of one particular side provides a very convenient and appealing narrative but one which is distorted, inaccurate and simplistic.
You want to talk about policy; NATO's policy of slowly expanding closer and closer to Russia's border's and sphere of interests have not worked. It has not created a more stable Europe and has not deterred Russia - it has had the opposite effect. It has created a very annoyed and insecure Russia and that has consequences as Russia is reacting the way it knows how; in a way which it feels works for it.; in ways which I suspect NATO/the West are not really sure how to respond to apart from doing what they've long been doing.
What is NATOs/the West's ultimate solution to this problem? More rhetoric about how Russia is a ''threat''; is ''expansionist'' and ''destabilising''; followed by more sanctions and exercises to ''show resolve in the face of aggression''? If that does not work what next? Enlarge NATO even further? If Russia still misbehaves what next; any answers? Either NATO/the West maintains the present course or it genuinely makes an attempt to reach some level of common ground with the Russians. Then again some adopt the position that this is impossible because Russia is not willing to budge at all and that it wants the talks to fail in order to be able to justify a later invasion of the Ukraine.
We don't know what had happened, if Eastern European countries had not joined NATO, however Putin has made it clear that he longs for the old Russian empire. Thus it makes sense to assume that Russia would insist on not just having a buffer between NATO and Russia, but also have control of politics in Eastern European countries. That's what an empire is all about. This may be considered a "good thing" from Russia's perspective. However most people in Eastern Europe who experienced being part of the Russian empire in the past, would definitely not agree.
I strongly prefer the type of democratic, liberal countries that we see in Western Europe, and for the most part in Eastern Europe. NATO made this happen. If it is "uncomfortable" for some people in Russia, then so be it. Also keep in mind, not everybody in Russia is so concerned about rebuilding the Russian empire. Most people want to have a job, a house, and food on the table. Russia is a country very rich in resources, and with a quite well educated population, and with a strong culture. The problems of Russia are not from outside of Russia, they are from within. Some of the main issues are organized crime and massive corruption. This makes a lot of people that normally would have been well off, quite poor. Add to that restrictions put in place by Western countries, and the economy of "the common man" becomes even weaker.
Somebody talked about the importance of "capitalism" in building democracy. I don't agree. Norway was basically a poor, socialist country after WW2. We had democracy, but for decades after WW2 the Labour party dominated Norwegian politics. Most things were controlled by the state. This was far from optimal, however much more important was the lack of corruption in combination with a high degree of trust. People trusted each other, and for good reason. People did they job in an honest and good manner, whether being a carpenter, policeman, judge, or prime minister. People got their salaries, and paid their taxes, with a minimum amount of cheating. These simple but very important basic factors made Norway into a rich society, with minor differences between people.
To build a democracy, it helps having a number of things, in particular:
* educated population
* acceptable level of corruption (the lower the better)
* free press
* independent judiciary and police force
I would not even put "capitalism" on the list, although in practice most countries are capitalist these days.
I would also add one more thing: I believe that societies that allow females to work in any position they are qualified for in particular within politics, gain tremendously from this, for a number of reasons. One important being that those societies tend to be less aggressive, less focused on amassing power, and more focused on collaboration, and negotiating peaceful solutions, be it with internal opponents, or other countries. I think this is one of the important ingredients in the "secret sauce" that made Western Europe for the most part a quiet and peaceful place after WW2. Not the only one of course, but I suspect one that often is missed or under-appreciated by people.
Countries with a male-dominated political system include: Russia, the US, China, Turkey, Hungary. Just to mention a few. None of them are particularly quiet and peaceful these days I would say.
Get rid of the corruption & organized crime, stop suppressing democracy, get females into high places, and Russia will transform into a great and rich country, at peace with herself and her neighbors.
