Without going into the merits of this war, NATO - which was supposedly a defensive alliance - did indeed attack Kosovo in an offensive.
So NATO has demonstrated they can be whatever they want when the right time comes. NATO intervention in Kosovo to “liberate it” is also being used to morally justify Russian’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, since from a Russian standpoint it’s exactly the same scenario and they are “liberating” the Russian population in those Ukrainian territories.
This is a very naive take, I think. When you are responsible for the security of a nation, you can't just remain passive to the potential threats that shows up on your doorstep. I mean, it would be irresponsible his people if Putin did that and trusted NATO/US blindly to not cross the line, one way or another. (I mean, US could always make up some cooked up justification for the attack, like it has done so many times in the past), So if US is putting missiles near Russian border, even if that is on behalf of NATO, I think Putin is bound to do something about it..
I don't understand what part of that is "Russian propoganda"..
The second video repeats the same argument: the "NATO's eastward march". Putin says Russia had to start the war in Ukraine to stop NATO from expanding too close (he failed as two more countries joined NATO). But when you dig one "why?" deeper you can understand that NATO is not a self-aware entity that expands and threats, it's an alliance of countries that realize that if Russia attacks them and they are alone, they are in the same situation as Ukraine: alone and doomed to begging for help. Whereas if they stand together, Russia will think twice before attacking them. That's why Putin hates NATO so much: he can't freely conquer the Baltics - he'd have done it already in 2008 or so. So he uses anti-NATO rhetoric that people in Russia buy. Maybe they are really afraid Estonia or Bulgaria attacks Russia? Who knows what's in their heads.
So here Putin says he had no choice but to attack Ukraine because NATO (a defensive treaty) was "expanding" into Ukraine. This is false. Ukraine wanted to be in NATO, but its membership request was rejected. And from the start of the war in 2014, it was never on the table - how would a country in a state of war could even dream of joining NATO (which at the time seemed a stable alliance)?
I know some Russians believe in this explanation, it seems very simple: Russia is not setting up nukes in Cuba so from the same PoV Ukraine should not host missiles hostile to Russia. Seems valid, right? The problem here is that Putin, as he admitted in his retracted victory piece[0], wanted to "solve the Ukrainian problem for the future generations" and basically make Ukraine part of his empire just as he did with Belarus. Ukrainians don't want to be his slaves so they chose to fight.
This is russian propaganda and it is important to know what it says, to be able to recognize it when you see it elsewhere, from the mouth of an influencer, a politician, a comment on the Web etc.
All you’re doing is taking facts and logic that hurts your side and trying to dismiss it with the shallow label of “Russian propaganda”. It’s not actually a response to GP, and it’s not a response to the arguments within his comment and the sources either.
Somewhat surprisingly they are OK with Ukraine joining the EU [1].
> Ukraine has a sovereign right to join the European Union, but this “sovereignty” does not apply to military alliances, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.
If NATO is threatening Russia, why didn't Russia invade a NATO country? Russia is a classic bully that chooses to attack the weak, this is the only explanation.
postingawayonhn|11 months ago
Also Finland just joined and Russia barley registered a complaint.
af78|11 months ago
fosk|11 months ago
So NATO has demonstrated they can be whatever they want when the right time comes. NATO intervention in Kosovo to “liberate it” is also being used to morally justify Russian’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, since from a Russian standpoint it’s exactly the same scenario and they are “liberating” the Russian population in those Ukrainian territories.
sras-me|11 months ago
This is a very naive take, I think. When you are responsible for the security of a nation, you can't just remain passive to the potential threats that shows up on your doorstep. I mean, it would be irresponsible his people if Putin did that and trusted NATO/US blindly to not cross the line, one way or another. (I mean, US could always make up some cooked up justification for the attack, like it has done so many times in the past), So if US is putting missiles near Russian border, even if that is on behalf of NATO, I think Putin is bound to do something about it..
I don't understand what part of that is "Russian propoganda"..
hdjjhhvvhga|11 months ago
The second video repeats the same argument: the "NATO's eastward march". Putin says Russia had to start the war in Ukraine to stop NATO from expanding too close (he failed as two more countries joined NATO). But when you dig one "why?" deeper you can understand that NATO is not a self-aware entity that expands and threats, it's an alliance of countries that realize that if Russia attacks them and they are alone, they are in the same situation as Ukraine: alone and doomed to begging for help. Whereas if they stand together, Russia will think twice before attacking them. That's why Putin hates NATO so much: he can't freely conquer the Baltics - he'd have done it already in 2008 or so. So he uses anti-NATO rhetoric that people in Russia buy. Maybe they are really afraid Estonia or Bulgaria attacks Russia? Who knows what's in their heads.
lukashoff|11 months ago
Expansion, colonization, power and wealth. Classic
hdjjhhvvhga|11 months ago
So here Putin says he had no choice but to attack Ukraine because NATO (a defensive treaty) was "expanding" into Ukraine. This is false. Ukraine wanted to be in NATO, but its membership request was rejected. And from the start of the war in 2014, it was never on the table - how would a country in a state of war could even dream of joining NATO (which at the time seemed a stable alliance)?
I know some Russians believe in this explanation, it seems very simple: Russia is not setting up nukes in Cuba so from the same PoV Ukraine should not host missiles hostile to Russia. Seems valid, right? The problem here is that Putin, as he admitted in his retracted victory piece[0], wanted to "solve the Ukrainian problem for the future generations" and basically make Ukraine part of his empire just as he did with Belarus. Ukrainians don't want to be his slaves so they chose to fight.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
af78|11 months ago
sras-me|11 months ago
blackeyeblitzar|11 months ago
eitland|11 months ago
The threat to putin wasn't Nato om his doorstep but a partially russian speaking country becoming a successful democracy and joining EU.
mmcnl|11 months ago
> Ukraine has a sovereign right to join the European Union, but this “sovereignty” does not apply to military alliances, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.
https://www.politico.eu/article/dmitrt-peskov-kremlin-ukrain...
kombine|11 months ago
bananapub|11 months ago
it is a very very dangerous time to be this naive.