[ChatGTP]

Many people don't seem to realize how existential this is for Russia

What was existential for Russia? If they had of just remained peaceful and sold resources to the rest of the world, nothing would've happened to them, there was nothing existential about it.

Maybe Putin is a paranoid lunatic and thinks people were out to get him, but there is no way there was some secret western plot to invade Russia or anything like this? In fact, Europe and the rest of the world was trading with them just fine. All we hear about on here was how Germany is completely dependent on Russia.

The truth is, countries side with NATO for a reason, because they have something to offer. If Russia had something better to offer, was trustworthy and Putin supported democracy, maybe less countries would be interested in partnering with the west and happy to form stronger ties with the autocracy. It doesn't mean anyone was about to invade Russia though.

Edit: Down voters, let's hear your counter.

[tsimionescu]

No one was about to invade Russia, not today. But NATO is by definition an alliance created against Russia, and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.

You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements.

If NATO was officially present if Georgia, do you think it would ignore any pleas for help from chechen separatists trying to defend themselves from the butcher running them? Or would we actively work to try to make Chechenia an independent country, over the next 10-20 years?

And Chechenia is far from the only vulnerable place.

Note that I am not saying this would be a bad thing for the people of Chechenia. It is quite likely what a lot of them want. But if Russia were funding, arming, and training the IRA, or Texas's secessionist fringe, would the USA or UK be happy to allow this? No, empires are fundamentally built out of people who try to maintain their empire.

[ChatGTP]

and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.

1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea.

2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?

3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?

Regardless it’s all failing spectacularly if the goal was to create distance between Russia and NATO. Finland is now in NATO and is on the border.

[yks]

It is not existential for Russia, it's just yet another barely consistent concept Russian apologists are throwing around in hope it sticks. I vividly remember how there were dozens of comments on this website defending the lunatic conspiracy theory about "NATO biolabs below Azovstal" during week 3 of the invasion, so HN is just another social media "zone" which Russians and their Western sympathizers try to "flood with shit", quoting one of their ideologues.