[maharajatever]

The bit that you miss is that the people who had the misfortune to live in the Russian "sphere of influence" did not want, and will never want to be in it. The former Russian "spheres of influence" are very happy to be out of it, and terrified by the prospect of finding themselves drawn into it.

[roenxi]

I am the first person to criticise the Russian sphere of influence. They did a terrible job from the rise of the proletariat through to today. Even I could do a better job if left to administer the country.

However to call them aggressors is a total perversion of the word aggression. Their posture is backs-to-the-wall defensive in relation to Western powers.

[dreen]

They are absolutely aggressors, and the defensive posturing is something they (Russian leaders) have used for centuries to excuse aggression. Their armies never conquer, they "liberate". This is not a tactic unique to them, but one they excel in.

[toyg]

> They did a terrible job from the rise of the proletariat

They did a terrible job even before that, with "The Great Game" and all that. In fact, it was so bad even their own people had had enough.

[redis_mlc]

No, Russian doctrine is to occupy neighboring countries to fight outside their own borders.

Just because they're afraid of having their "backs-to-the-wall" doesn't mean their doctrine is legitimate.