Russia - General Discussion.

[Vivendi]

You think so? Maybe. As it stands quite a number of Russians may not be fans of Putin but doesn't mean they don't see NATO as a threat or Russia being backed into a corner by a NATO which has been expending closer bad closer to Russia's borders. Ironically if the war worsens we might actually see more Russians supportive of it; based on the "my country ; right or wrong" reasoning.

NATO was never a threat to Russia as a country. NATO however was and is a threat to Russia's mad plan of rebuilding the Russian empire. That's one of the main reasons Putin invaded Ukraine. This is also the main reason why Eastern European countries were so desperate to join NATO after the cold war. They knew Russia to well and did not trust Russia at all. Recent events proved them right, and also made Sweden and Finland join NATO. NATO expansion is mainly due to Russia's aggression. Russia of course tries to convince people otherwise. NATO countries (and in particular the small Eastern European countries) should perhaps spend more time educating people on what has happened in the past, why they wanted to join NATO, and what has been happening in particular since 2008, 2014, and February 24, 2022.

Another general comment: I have often been "lectured" about my lack of understanding, and of lack of knowledge of East Asian cultures and history.

Perhaps people living far from Europe should consider the possibility that maybe they lack a proper understanding and proper knowledge of European history and European cultures. Just a thought...

 

[Vivendi]

How you can be sure?

Of course I am not sure. To me that goes without saying, but it seems I need to spell things out a bit more clearly.

One thing for sure, Collective West popular oppinion seems hoping Putin being push away.

How can you be sure?

As I stated already, to me it is not important whether Putin goes or not. The important thing is that Russia has to change their ways and stop the war in Ukraine. If they also stop interfering with democratic processes in "the West" that would also be good. They should try negotiations and cooperation instead of conflict, troll factories, cyber warfare, etc. It would work so much better for everybody in particular Russia (and Ukraine).

 

[STURM]

NATO was never a threat to Russia as a country. NATO however was and is a threat to Russia's mad plan of rebuilding the Russian empire. That's one of the main reasons Putin invaded Ukraine. This is also the main reason why Eastern European countries were so desperate to join NATO after the cold war. They knew Russia to well and did not trust Russia at all. Recent events proved them right, and also made Sweden and Finland join NATO. NATO expansion is mainly due to Russia's aggression. Russia of course tries to convince people otherwise. NATO countries (and in particular the small Eastern European countries) should perhaps spend more time educating people on what has happened in the past, why they wanted to join NATO, and what has been happening in particular since 2008, 2014, and February 24, 2022.

No offence but spare me the monologue; which I was expecting from you.

Right or wrong many ordinary Russians did see NATO as a threat; a NATO that despite all it's claims to be defensive and non threatening was expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders. From a Russian leadership perspective they've always seen the need for a buffer and when they lost that buffer it added to their ingrained insecurity and paranoia.

This is not about who's right or wrong or some anti Western rant but the facts as they stand. Just because some Russians support or understand the need for the invasion doesn't necessarily mean they subscribe to Putin's worldview or his ideology. Just because they don't see things as you see them doesn't mean they're badly informed or brainwashed by propaganda.

 

[Vivendi]

Right or wrong many ordinary Russians did see NATO as a threat; a NATO that despite all it's claims to be defensive and non threatening was expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders. From a Russian leadership perspective they've always seen the need for a buffer and when they lost that buffer it added to their ingrained insecurity and paranoia.

Did it not occur to you that the main reason "many ordinary Russians" see NATO as a threat is because they have been told so by their leadership, repeatedly, over many, many, years?

During the first days of the war Ukraine was more than willing to drop the NATO plans and instead remain neutral, however only with proper, watertight agreements and guarantees (in spite of Russia already breaking their promises given in the Budapest memorandum). However Russia had suddenly lost interest in keeping NATO out of Ukraine; suddenly it was about "de-Nazification", and the last excuse they used was "de-satanification"(!!). All just stupid excuses for invading and expanding their empire.

What does their buffer look like when both Sweden and Finland (previously nonaligned) join NATO?

Russia had the opportunity to interact and work with NATO and Eastern European countries in particular. However they were less than interested in doing so, unfortunately.

 

[STURM]

Did it not occur to you that the main reason "many ordinary Russians" see NATO as a threat is because they have been told so by their leadership, repeatedly, over many, many, years?

Did it not occur to you that contrary to the impression you seem to be giving that many ordinary Russians [although they might not be Western] are capable of thinking for themselves and are not as susceptible to government propaganda in a way you'd assume?

Did it not occur to you that looking at a map; it's not inconceivable that ordinary Russians would see an expanding NATO as a threat?

However Russia had suddenly lost interest in keeping NATO out of Ukraine; suddenly it was about "de-Nazification", and the last excuse they used was "de-satanification"(!!). All just stupid excuses for invading and expanding their empire.

I'm sorry is this discussion about ethics and morality? Was I suggesting that the Russians are completely blameless or are angels? Do I need to post a monologue about a righteous and blameless West faced with an aggressive untrustworthy and unreasonable Russia which has launched an illegal and unprovoked invasion; to pacify you?

What does their buffer look like when both Sweden and Finland (previously nonaligned) join NATO?

What has that got to do with the price of beans? I merely said that the Russian leadership has long made it a policy to have a buffer between it and the West. As you're well aware given centuries of invasions and attacks the Russians have an ingrained paranoia/phobia about invasions. It wasn't a discussion about flawed Russian policy or about how things have backfired although I have no doubts you have a lot to say on this..

As pointed out to you this isn't an anti Western rant or a West versus Russia debate or who has a monopoly on righteousness, truth and decency.

Russia had the opportunity to interact and work with NATO and Eastern European countries in particular. However they were less than interested in doing so, unfortunately.

Did it not occur to you that it's a two way street and that Russia at one point looked forward to be integrated with the West? That it was - supposedly - given a guarantee that NATO wouldn't expand to its borders? Russia also fully cooperated with NATO on several fronts including Partnership For Peace and various arms treaties. Did it not occur to you that despite all the flawed claims and lies on the part of Putin that Russia actually might have legitimate concerns or does your narrative only include a Western/NATO perspective? Going to quote me the NATO Charter next?

 

[Vivendi]

A huge spy scandal in Sweden. Two brothers have been arrested, after spying for GRU and Russia for more than 10 years. One of them worked for both Swedish military intelligence and Swedish Security Police, at a high level, so access to a lot of highly classified information.

Oscar Jonsson on Twitter: "Two brothers are prosecuted for espionage in Sweden, charged for collaborating with the GRU for over 10 years. One of them has worked both for the Swedish military intelligence and security police. Probably the largest spy scandal here since the Cold War https://t.co/vdJP2vSjQd" / Twitter

The odd thing is that they had Iranian citizenship. It's incredible that Sweden allowed them access in the first place. I don't think this could have happened in Norway, there are strict rules for getting access to such classified information. People having a second citizenship, in particular in a country with no robust security arrangement with Norway would never be cleared to work with classified information.

 

[Vivendi]

Did it not occur to you that contrary to the impression you seem to be giving that many ordinary Russians [although they might not be Western] are capable of thinking for themselves and are not as susceptible to government propaganda in a way you'd assume?

The Russian propaganda has been very effective, there is no doubt about that.

Did it not occur to you that looking at a map; it's not inconceivable that ordinary Russians would see an expanding NATO as a threat?

No doubt the Swiss are terrified after looking at a map.

I'm sorry is this discussion about ethics and morality? Was I suggesting that the Russians are completely blameless or are angels? Do I need to post a monologue about a righteous and blameless West faced with an aggressive untrustworthy and unreasonable Russia which has launched an illegal and unprovoked invasion; to pacify you?

That was not the point -- if the main concern for Russia had been NATO enlargement, why did they not just stop the invasion and accepted a neutral (or nonaligned) Ukraine? Just like Finland was neutral/nonaligned after WW2 (and until the invasion in Ukraine). Instead they invented a new argument for why they had to keep invading. The reason should be obvious: their main issue was not NATO enlargement loss of their empire. Putin has also written and spoken extensively about the need to restore the empire. That is the real motivation for the invasion. Not NATO enlargement.

Did it not occur to you that it's a two way street and that Russia at one point looked forward to be integrated with the West?next?

Of course, many Russians wanted integration with the West. However, those hopes were dashed when Putin and his friends got and maintained the power. One of the main objectives for Putin was to rebuild the Russian empire, not become integrated with the West. People who wanted to integrate with the West were removed and/or suppressed.

 

[STURM]

The Russian propaganda has been very effective, there is no doubt about that.

The effectiveness of Russian propaganda and the perceptions of ordinary Russians are two slightly different things and really shouldn't be conflated.

Again; are you assuming that ordinary Russians are incapable of thinking for themselves and that's inconceivable that ordinary Russians might see NATO expansion as a threat or an attempt to isolate Russia. In your narrative they should have remained silent and cheered whilst NATO [a defensive alliance which constantly said Russia was not seen as a threat] got closer and closer to Russia's border.

No doubt the Swiss are terrified after looking at a map.

No doubt the Tawainese are "terrified" looking at a map and the Byzantines were "terrified" when the Turks broke through the walls of Constantinople. In fact the Swiss are so "terrified" they're pleading to be admitted into NATO and so is Austria BTW.

That was not the point

The point is this is not a NATO/West versus Russia debate or who has a monopoly on truth and righteousness. You keep referring to Putin and all his miscalculations and double speak [which is true] but the notion that Russia may have legitimate concerns or that NATO might have made it's share mistakes resulting in increased insecurity and paranoia on the part of the Russians is inconceivable to you.

Of course, many Russians wanted integration with the West. However, those hopes were dashed when Putin and his friends got and maintained the power.

Correction. The disappointment and disillusionment set in during the time of Yelstin which it became apparent to the Russians that certain things were not happening and that NATO was expanding. Look it up and let's not even get into how the Russians perceived things with regards to Western actions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Many many months ago I posted an article which did a good job explaining what makes Putin tick and the history between Russia and the West following the end of the Cold War [too lazy to look it up but it's there]. Whilst you'd like to believe that the present state of things is solely the fault of the Russians who misjudged things or due to nefarious reasons manipulated things and that any Russian which saw an expanding NATO as a threat was because they were brainwashed by propaganda; is self serving and untrue. I don't believe in fairy tales.

 

[swerve]

You keep missing the point. NATO has expanded because countries knock at the door & say "Can we come in?" If Russia feels threatened by that, there's an obvious counter: BE NICE TO THEM! Instead, Russia has consistently bullied & threatened, & sometimes attacked those which don't show what Russian leaders consider enough deference.

The expansion or NATO has been driven by Russia & its behaviour.

 

[Rob c]

wrong topic

 

[John Fedup]

You keep missing the point. NATO has expanded because countries knock at the door & say "Can we come in?" If Russia feels threatened by that, there's an obvious counter: BE NICE TO THEM! Instead, Russia has consistently bullied & threatened, & sometimes attacked those which don't show what Russian leaders consider enough deference.

The expansion or NATO has been driven by Russia & its behaviour.

Sweden and Finland, the two most recent countries that Putin and his gang of A-holes pushed into NATO. Of course Putin will be informing Russians both countries have a Nazi problem.

 

[seaspear]

This thread although titled Russia and the West seems focused on President Putins viewpoints of Russia and its place , Russia under President Putin has become an authoritarian state and has reduced previous rights of citizens and implemented control over the media , Russia and the West may not have been in such contention without an authoritarian government ,it sounds simplistic but if the judiciary and media become just tools of such a state then it easy to equate to any previous forms of fascism that Europe's history is full of

 

[Feanor]

It's probable that one of Putin's reasons for attacking Ukraine was to distract Russians from their country's other problems. Short victorious wars tend to boost the popularity of the leader who started them.

Remember that Putin's problems aren't necessarily Russia's problems.

What Putin has amply demonstrated is a willingness and an ability to make his problems Russia's problem.

Yes, I do believe it. One of his reasons. Another one is probably his desire to leave a legacy, & going some way towards re-establishing the Russian empire (albeit without a tsar) is something he's said he wants.

If he imagined that invading Ukraine was a rational response to a threat from NATO then he's barking mad. If he wanted NATO away from his borders then he should have been nice to Ukraine - & Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland & Sweden. Threaten people who have a big friendly neighbour, & their logical response is to ask the neighbour for help. Be friendly & helpful, & they don't.

I don't think this is necessarily true. There was no Putin around when the rest of Eastern Europe marched towards NATO membership. Putin tried "being nice" to Georgia, and it backfired. I daresay I've brought up Adzharia often enough now. Ukraine, even under Yanukovich, was working towards NATO membership. I don't think there is any scenario where Ukrainian and Georgian elites would not have sought NATO membership.

Did it not occur to you that the main reason "many ordinary Russians" see NATO as a threat is because they have been told so by their leadership, repeatedly, over many, many, years?

Yugoslavia was the thing that changed most people's opinion of NATO and the US especially, in Russia. The whole Kosovo business really sealed the deal. And this was with Yeltsin still in office. Even that drunk buffoon knew enough to make some sort of move (hence the Russian VDV making a move for Pristina). Though of course Iraq and Libya didn't help.

 

[STURM]

You keep missing the point. .

Sorry I don't think I am. Am I missing the point just because I haven't jumped on the "NATO keeps expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders simply because Russia is aggressive and threatening" bandwagon and that the Russians are being unreasonable by seeing it as a threat? Did NATO expect that the Russians would just take it lying down without even a slight protest?

I merely pointed out the situation as some ordinary Russians might see it. Whilst NATO or rather NATO supporters might see it in clear cut terms, i.e. "NATO expansion was driven by Russia and was not intended to threaten or isolate Russia" many ordinary Russians don't see it that way. I will also point out that NATO expansion started in the 1990's way before various issues had popped up with Russia.

 

[Ananda]

The whole Kosovo business really sealed the deal. And this was with Yeltsin still in office.

This Kosovo thing is surprisingly not being consider by many in Collective West either in Media or even general part of their population think will bring adverse effect to not only Serbian but also Russian.

Somehow Western Politicians and Media able to sell to much of general populations that what NATO doing is benevolance thing. What they are doing follow on (which practically carving a sovereign Euro nation) is a just thing to do. Even some of my market colleagues (which ussualy think more in market logics), cheer emotionally when Nato intervere in Kosovo.

As a Moeslem my self, I can't denied that there's part of my emotional feeling that 'cheer' NATO "intervention" in Kosovo and practically silences Serbian Military. There's part of me saying 'at least my Albanian Moeslem brothers free from yoke of Serbian Orthodox'.

However the logic on mine screeming 'What are they thinking?!' It is opening ethnics Pandora Box. This is opening justification from others for Ethnics Politics. Are they not learning how volatiles are Ethnics politics around the World ? Are they not learning from Euro own history ?

Pandora’s box in the Balkans – The EU should not support the Kosovo–Serbia demarcation proposal

Allowing redrawing of the fragile map of the Western Balkans threatens to open a Pandora's box of ethnic shuffling between Serbia and its neighbours.

c4ep.eu

Even now some in Euro it self warn how Kosovo open justifications for Ethnics politics. Protection move to guarantee ethnics lining. Kosovo open justification for guys like Putin saying, If West can draw ethnics line as they seem like, why I not do it my self.

This is one of the reason why many people outside collective west choose to sit on the fences in Ukranian issue. Many say : "Yes what Putin done is so wrong. However West also done it more or less similar thing before. Why we need to choose side on this West - Russian conflict"

This idea of NATO expansion to the East as just 'innocences' reaction to protect Eastern Euro toward expansionist Russian, well looking to many non collective west media, forums, pundits, save to say outside collective west "Nobody buys that" (again for most non collective west and close allies).

How can you be sure?

How come you don't see or even realise that

 

[Boatteacher]

Ethnic - really cultural - politics are all too often toxic.
It is one reason I believe that the western celebration of multi-cultural (not to be confused with multi-racial) is misplaced and will be shown to be in the longer term.

But all this holding up of the Yugoslavia events as being evidence of Western malintent (as opposed to MAYBE misjudgement) seems to me to be somewhere between overwrought and deflection.

Yes, I understand the strong connection between Serbia and Russia.

But what were they meant to do? A hideous war of genocide was happening and (from what we were being fed in the West; so there's one opportunity for reply) Serbia seemed to be the worst offender among many. Should everyone have just stood back and let them sort it out on a 'last man standing' basis?

It seemed what was done did bring the war to an earlier ending than might otherwise have been the case.

Did the west seek to occupy the country or any part of it (which is an incredibly important distinction with all this talk of NATO enlargement v Russia's response) or just find a solution to a problem causing much loss of life?

 

[STURM]

Yes, I understand the strong connection between Serbia and Russia.

Then you'll understand why Russia felt as it did when NATO intervened against a longtime Russian ally and a co religionist.

Should everyone have just stood back and let them sort it out on a 'last man standing' basis?

Like in Rwanda which was a distant place in Africa of no strategic importance - another case of Africans having a go at each other. Kosovo was different; it was in Europe; NATO's credibility was put to the test; the Kosovars had/have blue eyes and public opinion played a part.

It seemed what was done did bring the war to an earlier ending than might otherwise have been the case.

No doubt. Had NATO - which the U.S. in the lead - not intervened the final death toll would have been much higher.

We only have to contrast the reaction towards Kosovo and what happened in Bosnia. The killing in Bosnia went on for quite a while with the Europeans divided and undecided on what to do; some countries were overly sympathetic to the Bosnian Serbs as they were to the Serbs later. It was due to the U.S. that the Europeans finally started taking concrete steps towards intervention; leading to Dayton.

 

[ngatimozart]

Alright people calm down a bit please. Take a deep breath and have a cup of tea before bursting into print again.

 

[swerve]

Like in Rwanda which was a distant place in Africa of no strategic importance - another case of Africans having a go at each other. Kosovo was different; it was in Europe; NATO's credibility was put to the test; the Kosovars had/have blue eyes and public opinion played a part.

Not one of the Kosovars I've met had blue eyes. They're rare. I've seen quite a few in Himachal Pradesh, but not among Kosovars & their Albanian-speaking brethren in North Makedonia.

I've not noticed you commenting on how Afghans have blue eyes, or Palestineans (I've met more blue-eyed Palestineans than Kosovars), or Indians (ditto). Why Kosovars?

 

[swerve]

Then you'll understand why Russia felt as it did when NATO intervened against a longtime Russian ally and a co religionist.

What longtime Russian ally? Serbia was a Russian ally a long time ago, when the Serbian monarchy was good friends with the Tsar, but that relationship was complicated. For example, Bulgaria was an ally of Russia until Russia backed Serbia against Bulgaria, but when a Serbian attack on Bulgaria in 1885 failed, the Russians let Serbia be humiliated. It wasn't an ally after WW1. In 1941 the USSR maintained its pact with Germany while Germany carved up Yugoslavia. Good, reliable, friend, eh?

After WW2 Yugoslavia very soon went its own way, not joining the Warsaw Pact & with military planning for defending from a Soviet-led WP invasion, while Bulgaria (which had been a half-hearted ally of Germany in WW2 - note that the treaty was signed while Germany & the USSR had a non-aggression pact - but refused to fight the USSR) was a loyal ally of the USSR from 1944 until the dissolution of the USSR.