[konart]

Depends on where people live, how much do they make etc.

The general sentiment in this country for the past few decades is "it's not for me to decide".

Many people do agree however that while this kind of solution is not really a great one and likely not in our best interest - something has to be done regarding the NATO problem.

[rectang]

A number of former Soviet satellite states joined NATO, but they chose to do so of their own volition. NATO does not prevent their self-determination. In contrast, Russia is denying self-determination to Ukraine.

[konart]

Sure, but what Russia was constantly telling NATO is that while Russia respects other countries' desire to join NATO - Russia believes that NATO should not allow those countries to join.

Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.

[reitanqild]

It is not about Nato I think. I think this Finnish guy writes it clearly:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/149604763196923...

[piva00]

I believe the take from John Mearsheimer after the Crimean crisis in 2015 [1] to be a bit more elucidating based on realpolitik than just the reductive take based off Russian imperialism, the issue is larger than just a madman trying to regain control of past territory.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

[newby]

I have to admit that this video made me extremely sad and angry. I grew up in one of those countries occupied by Russians that later joined NATO and what upsets me in this kind of argumentation is that it talks about countries like us as if we had no agency, no say in the matter, no right to decide about ourselves. Mr. Mearsheimer uses the same language ("expansion") as if there is no substantial difference between a country asking to join NATO and a country attacked and annexed by Russia. It seems to me that the logic he uses to argue that Ukraine is the West's fault is indistinguishable from "it is your fault that bully beats you up because you refuse to give him your lunch when he wants it".

[Moru]

In Swedish schools you get free lunch as much as you want. Though that didn't stop the bullies from finding some other reason to bully you.

[raxxorrax]

He is not correct though. I think it was 2003 when the US wanted to install a missile shield in Poland and Czechia. Obama did cancelled it again though.

[rectang]

> What we see happening in #Ukraine right now is, to put it bluntly, Russian (or more precisely, the Kremlin's) imperialism.

I read that thread and found it very persuasive. I took his advice and read some of the translations of Putin's rhetoric, and I found his characterizations accurate.

[throwaway_4ever]

That thread is the actual situation and it's a travesty we have so many on this very site and the American far right that are Kremlin war apologists.

We have fools believing the Kremlin is actually afraid of NATO, the defensive alliance, when Russia has NUKES. Kremlin isn't even afraid of NATO confrontation when they're invading another country, because of nukes. They're sure as hell not concerned about NATO confrontation in their own territory. The whole argument is schizophrenic.

Again, why would Russia be concerned about NATO imposing themselves on Russia, when NATO won't even defend a Ukrainian invasion?

[sofixa]

You're missing a small thing - NATO had had various plans for antimissile defences in countries in Central and Eastern Europe ( Poland, Czechia, Romania if memory serves me right). Those defences would potentially invalidate Russia nukes, and that's scary. ( Which is why there was a treaty limiting antimissile defences during the Cold War, to avoid one side thinking they can win a nuclear exchange). So Russia has plenty to be scared of, and then there's the imperialism, exporting problems, having a cause for the people to rally around, etc.

War crimes and abhorrent nonetheless. I hope at least this time the responsible end up in The Hague.

[hef19898]

Regarding the last part, Putin is trying to find out. Nukes or not, if the "defensive" alliance, that used to be your sworn enemy for almost 5 decades (Putin used to be a KGB Colonel) sets up shop right across your border I understand why you might get worried a bit. Don't forget, that defensive alliance was invading countries as well since the 90s. Usually under the pretext of spreading democracy.

Does that justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine? No, absolutely not. Does it mean NATO could have been a tad more cautious when it comes to Russians security interests? Yes. Now it's to late for that so. And as usual it is innocent people, just wanting live their lives in peace, that pay the price.

[OJFord]

Or in blog form (same author): https://jmkorhonen.net/2022/02/23/on-the-kremlins-imperialis...

[konart]

This is very simplistic view. People often try to shrug it off as if Putin (or Hitler) "just wanted to grab more land".

I don't really want to change anyone's mind and give a lecture. It's just that world is not as simple as it may seem.

[reitanqild]

You have to give it to the Finnish people that they have - what should I say - some institutional knowledge when it comes to Russia.

After all they still have around 200 000 Russian troops at their borders. (6 feet under the ground but still very alive in their memories.)

For anyone who isn't aware:

- The Finnish are the ones who said - as Kremlin sent a million poor troops towards them - we are only a small country, were should we bury them all?

- The "Molotov cocktails" started as a Finnish joke about their practical invention to stop Russian vehicles. Russian diplomat Молотов (Molotov) had started the wittiness by telling that their bombing raids were just friendly Russians dropping suppplies.

[hef19898]

That was the USSR under Stalin. Quite different story. Not to forget, Finland was part of the Russian Empire before WW1. Doesn't justify the Russian attacks on Finland, context usually does matter so.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

He doesn't really need to grab some land, physically. He only needs a puppet government like in Belarus, that's all. Once he knows he can control a country, he will leave it in peace.

Unfortunately, this means misery for the citizens, and nobody sane wants that. Ukrainians want to have an independent modern country, not to be Kremlin slaves.

[mopsi]

> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.

NATO does not have "systems". NATO is a cooperation office between militaries of member countries, despite relentless Russian propaganda that makes it sound as if tanks and missiles magically pop up after signing the membership agreement.

[throwaway894345]

Russia can’t respect other countries’ desire to join NATO while holding the position that they shouldn’t be allowed to join NATO. That’s patent nonsense.

[CRConrad]

> Sure, but what Russia was constantly telling NATO is that while Russia respects other countries' desire to join NATO - Russia believes that NATO should not allow those countries to join.

It's funny how hard it is for Russia(ns) to get their head around the concept of self-determination: It's none of Russia's fricking business what alliances other countries join; and it's none of Russia's fricking business which countries other alliances accept as members.

See? It's not really all that hard.

> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.

Russia obviously does not care about anyone's self-determination except their own. (And even that only if "self" is defined along the "one man, one vote" principle: The dictator is The Man, and The Vote is his. The only people with any appreciable degree of "self-determination" are the dictator's cronies, and even that is fraught with risk.)

[hef19898]

Putting myself in Russia's shoes for a moment, I understand why they are worried about NATO expanding East. Would be like, Mexico maybe, joining a revamped Warsaw Pact under Russian leadership. NATO, naturally, wouldn't be that thrilled by that prospect. Depending on leadership, war would definitely be on the table. We, as in the West, went to war and invaded sovereign countries for all kinds of reasons since the 90s. Some of those reasons were also completely made up.

All that is water under the bridge so. I think if the "free" West (I mean that non-ironically, just to acknowledge that there are various ways to define freedom, not all of which are compatible with Western views. And that the West usually doesn't have problems ignoring those freedoms when needed (Saudi, China, UAE, Turkey,...)) doesn't act now, we will have to either roll over later against an aggressor or react much harsher then we would have to now. If Putin can redraw the maps now, China will be next to try. Followed by any other large country that has territorial interests against a smaller one.

[rectang]

The prospect of China invading Taiwan suddenly became a lot more real today.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-says-must-...

> Speaking in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying dismissed any link between the issues of Ukraine and Taiwan.

> "Taiwan is not Ukraine," she said. "Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of China. This is an indisputable legal and historical fact."

That's exactly what Putin has been saying about Russia and Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus...

> In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation. To support the claim, he describes in length his views on the history of Russia and Ukraine, concluding that Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage and destiny.

> The essay denies the existence of Ukraine as an independent nation...

[sofixa]

There's no need to imagine, look at the treatment of Cuba, including the Cuban Missile crisis for daring to join "the other side". It's still under sanctions, decades later, for that..

[hef19898]

Iran comes to mind as well, for disposing the Shah. A couple of years ago there was the risk of an US invasion of Iran as well.

[throwaway894345]

I don’t understand “the NATO problem”. Even if Ukraine became part of NATO, all it would mean for Russia is that there will be consequences if they invade. How hard is it not to invade other countries, unprovoked?

[chefkoch]

It's the same reason why the US didn't want sowjet missiles in Cuba in the 60ies.

[beachy]

The US never invaded Cuba though.

Well, not officially and certainly not effectively.

[woadwarrior01]

Umm… Bay of Pigs? Which is what led to the Cuban missile crisis, along with the installation of nuclear capable ballistic missiles in Turkey.

The US would have invaded Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, if Khrushchev hadn’t backed down.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

[beachy]

Bay of pigs was not an official invasion and it certainly was not effective, hence my comment.

[hef19898]

Well, they tried. And botched it. And almost started an nuclear war over a sea blockade of Cuba back then.

[1024core]

But the US did put a blockade around Cuba. Any ships going to/from Cuba could be searched by the US.

[catlikesshrimp]

Ukraine gave up its working russian-inherited nuclear warheads. So, no. This is not the same.

Putin is just another authoritarian ruler, a dictator. He will use any excuse he wants to invade; in this case he is using NATO membership and separatist movements.

[chefkoch]

Ukraine gave up their nukes almost 30 years ago.

[select-all]

In the practical sense, the "NATO problem" is that Ukraine is not going to give up on Crimea, and once it becomes a member of NATO that will lead to direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

[fxtentacle]

I thought this is about access to the biggest port in the region, which is in Ukraine.

[throwaway_4ever]

Yes, the "NATO problem". The "problem" that is actually defending countries from invasions instead of letting their people, in a country that is not even close to being in NATO, die at the hands of tyrants.

[p1esk]

What would US do if Russia decided to build military bases in Mexico or Cuba?

[HWR_14]

To make the metaphor correct, what would the US do if Mexico or Cuba asked Russia to build a military base just after the US took some of their territory and Russia continually said no.

Because Russia just took Crimea a few years ago and NATO refused to allow them to join. And Russia has agreed Crimea was part of Ukraine as recently as 1994.

[throwaway894345]

Fair enough. How many bases has the US built in Ukraine anyway?

[hef19898]

Ukraine? No idea. Poland, the Baltics, the southern former Soviet republics (most of which end at -stan) to support the invasion of Afghanistan, a lot.

[unilynx]

Last time they set up a naval blockade.

[ethbr0]

The US tried to invade Cuba (with CIA-supported Cuban rebels). It's not a hypothetical.

[xyzzy_plugh]

You'll be happy to learn that you can find that answer in any number of history books.

[konart]

That's the view from one side of the fence, sorry.

[throwaway894345]

The side of the fence that’s being bombed for no reason. Good luck justifying that.

[konart]

>no reason

Again. Reason is something one has in this mind. You may find no reason where a different person sees one.

[michaelmrose]

If you can't supply one the logical conclusion is that there is no good reason and all the reasons that flow from simple observation are terribly unsupportable morally and legally. You know that. You are vague because giving a better answer is impossible and the actual answer is unpalatable.

[avmich]

Yet the reason is an important subject, and in questions like that different reasoning lead to lost lives. So it's a serious, justifiable subject to discuss.

[throwaway894345]

I don’t find abstract philosophical arguments convincing.

[hef19898]

Everyone bombs everyone, it seems. NATO bombed Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq,... Sent "peacekeepers" to loads of African countries (funny enough those countries sit on tons of raw materials). Russia bombed Georgia (not the US state of Georgia), Ukraine. China isn't bombing as much with actual bombs for now, money seems to work just fine it seems. Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, Israel is bombing Palestine, while Palestine is bombing Israel.

No need to justify any of that, because it all sucks and is ultimately utterly pointless. It does help so, to understand the other side. Because it makes it easier to find a solution that doesn't lead to all out war between nuclear powers. And no, I don't consider just handing Ukraine to Putin to be that solution. Or Taiwan to China, as far as that is concerned.

[abliefern]

Differences matter. Details matter. Stop constructing false equivalence.

[qw]

NATO did not go to war in Iraq as an organization. That was done by an independent coalition. After Saddam's fall, they did however take part in training the new Iraqi military.

[bryanrasmussen]

thanks, I suppose the NATO problem is that as the sole purpose of the forming of NATO was to act as a deterrent and implicit threat to the Soviet Union having a possible NATO country next to Russia itself, as opposed to having some buffer is seen as aggressive in itself?

[catlifeonmars]

Pure speculation, but maybe it’s calculated aggression based on an assumption that the west doesn’t have an appetite for war [with Russia] and will avoid doing so if possible.

[leobg]

That’s what Hitler counted on when he invaded Czechoslovakia.

[dotancohen]

And it seems that both were not incorrect.

[leobg]

How so? Hitler got away with it. The Allies declared war on him only nine months later when he also invaded Poland.

And even then, they only did it half-heartedly, and the French pretty much threw away their weapons when the first German panzers arrived. Hitler knew that he had the stronger will to fight. Had it not been for a few other factors (Churchill, Russian winter, and the Hitler's obsession with the jews), he could have taken the whole of Europe.

[dotancohen]

Exactly, Hitler was not incorrect in his assumption that the West did not have an appetite for war. He got away with it.

[konart]

See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30450987

[cdelsolar]

what is the NATO problem

[mc32]

The NATO "problem" wasn't the continued existence of NATO after the collapse of the USSR, but rather the expansion into traditional USSR/Russian areas of influence (Slavic areas). That's what they resent. Of course, given economic realities, many of those areas would prefer to have better ties with the West than the kleptocratic alternative, but that's neither here nor there.

[int_19h]

Not just Slavic. The entirety of ex-USSR (a good half of which wasn't Slavic), plus countries in Eastern Europe such as Romania.

[mc32]

Sure, but two things. No one is contesting their Central Asia client states that's in their pocket --we're not trying to expand NATO there... and two they have a special affinity to Slavic peoples due to culture. (they treat them like an "ex-" with a certain amount of jealousy.

[int_19h]

Central Asia, no (although China is actively making inroads there).

But there's still Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to consider. These aren't Slavic, but they are of interest to both NATO and Russia. Well, Armenia is pretty firmly aligned with Russia for historical reasons and some semblance of security against Azerbaijan and Turkey. But the other two are already Western-oriented, and Georgia has applied for NATO membership in the past.

As far as Slavic affinity, it's a bit more complicated. For example, Bulgarians are Slavic, and Eastern Orthodox even, but being on the wrong side of WW1 and then WW2 vis a vis Russia/USSR overrides that. OTOH with Ukrainians, many Russians outright deny that they even are a separate nation or ethnicity, and claim that it's just a sub-branch of Russians who speak a dialect of Russian. From that perspective, occupying Ukraine is described as "re-unifying" Russia.

(Source: am Russian)

[hef19898]

I wouldn't make it about ethnicity. Making it about former Soviet republics and members of the Warsaw pact is the problem, from Russia's point of view. A problem that, in hindsight maybe, is so obvious and so guaranteed to come (Russia complained about NATOs eastern expansion for decades) that it seems surprising that NATO doesn't seem to have an answer. Hell, when Russia annexed the Krim and tried to annex parts of Georgia one would think NATO would have gotten a clear wake up call.

[krzyk]

Well, the problem is even worse in EU.

Germany makes deals with Russia to get their gas (NS1 and NS2) and only recently they declined NS2.

Basically we (EU) are giving Russia money to create army, instead of ditching their gas, oil etc. and buying one from Scandinavia and US (now when Russian gas prices are higher than the ones form the mentioned countries). And destroying NS1 and 2.

[konart]

Russia considers NATO's presence at its borders a national threat.

On one hand - NATO protects its members from our possible aggression, on the other hand Russia sees NATO's assets (lets say AA systems) as means to degrade country's capabilities to respond in case of attack from the West (no matter how are the chances of such an attack).

[throwaway894345]

So basically NATO limits Russia’s ability to attack other countries, and that’s a problem?

[kbart]

Propaganda aside - yes.

[konart]

To counter attack in case of possible attack from the West.

[Valakas_]

Russia is a like an abusive man with PTSD - always expecting an attack that doesn't come and victimizing himself while abusing others.

Has Russia perhaps thought for a moment why are countries making an alliance to defend against Russia? Why aren't countries in NATO worried about being attacked by other countries in NATO? Because *all the countries there don't want war*.

NATO is not to attack Russia, but to defend against it. The idea of protecting against counter attack from the West is like saying "I can't leave my house to protect against the possibility of a meteorite against my head."

[kelnos]

> Has Russia perhaps thought for a moment why are countries making an alliance to defend against Russia?

Yeah, there's a lot of rhetoric coming from Russia denouncing "NATO expansion". NATO isn't some belligerent expanding force, annexing territory; countries are actively asking to join NATO. Perhaps Russia should ask themselves why all these countries feel safer being aligned with NATO and the West than with Russia.

[avmich]

What Putin actually considers casus belli isn't important for the moment - it could be anything, reasoned or not. Can we, here, present arguments that the desire of Russia to be able to attack neighbor countries should be honored? Do we extend MAD doctrine to non-nuclear matters - that is, everybody should refrain from defense, as defense reduces their neighbors' abilities to fight back in case those neighbors are attacked? Is it reasonable - for the moment - to think that countries, improving their defenses, actually offend neighbors?

[throwaway894345]

Why would the West ever attack Russia? The West doesn’t initiate aggression.

[Thorrez]

Does Russia really think the West will attack them? Russia has nukes. The West doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia.

The West isn't even defending Ukraine from a Russian attack. Did Russia think the West would defend Ukraine? If so, why did Russia still attack? If not, then why would Russia think there's any chance the West will attack Russia unprovoked?

[labster]

NATO is too effective at ensuring peace in Europe, thus preventing Russia from becoming a great power again.

[chii]

so the bottom line is that russia (or more correctly, putin) is unable to accept that their state cannot and would not be allowed by the west to become a superpower.

I think the inevitable result is war. I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, and prevented this, but instead, the optimism that an autocratic state would not do so is the true reality. But of course, it doesn't have good optics at the time to do this. I guess the future will tell if this war escalates.

[rectang]

> I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart,

That wouldn't have been feasible given military realities (nukes, the total impossibility of invading and occupying Russia), and even if it had been what would it have achieved? The age of imperialism is over. The west has won allies by respecting the right of their populations to self-determination. (And when it hasn't respected self-determination, it has often lost ground.)

[hef19898]

The West (I live in a Western country by the way) did not respect self determination of people when it didn't suit the Wests interests. Not before WW1 (when there was no West), not between WW1 and WW2 (Austria wanted to join Germany and wasn't allowed to, the whole former Russian Empire as engulfed in a civil war over that very question, not to mention the colonial empires) or after WW2 (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab Spring, Syria,...).

The war that is on the horizon is not about the "good" vs. the "evil". It is about one revisionist, power hungry leader going toe-to-toe with another power-hungry block over territorial dominance. And about those people just wanting to live in peace caught in the middle.

[rectang]

You're thinking of all the times the West waged war, while I was thinking of the times that it didn't. First in my mind were the countries joining NATO after the end of the Cold War: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Albania.

Those countries became allies, not through force, but because we were able to devise a mutually beneficial relationship.

[labster]

In what way did the West not decisively defeat the soviets? Communism died, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, and several former Russian client states joined NATO. The current crisis is a revanchist attempt to revert that defeat.

Cold war is much more likely than hot war, I’d expect.

[chii]

> In what way did the West not decisively defeat the soviets?

The way imperial japan died, replaced by a semi-client state. I would say they're more prosperous today because of it!

[jltsiren]

The root problem is that Russia is afraid.

Russian grand strategy is defensive. Their primary threat is a large-scale invasion. It happened once in the 19th century and at least twice in the 20th century. Maybe three times if you count Russian Civil War.

To counter the threat of a potential invasion, Russia tries to maintain a buffer zone of friends, puppets, and occupied territories. This is a continuous process, as politics change. Today's friends may be tomorrow's enemies, revolutions may overthrow puppets, and the costs of military occupation may prove too high. Russia fights wars and organizes coups to maintain the buffer zone. The rights of their neighbors don't matter to them when national security is at stake.

Russia fears NATO, because NATO has the capability to project power. They fear that NATO could be the next invader. The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of.

If there is going to be a change, it must come from inside. Russia must stop being afraid and become a member of the international community connected by trade. There was a chance of that in the 80s and 90s, but the chance was lost. Another chance may come after Putin, or the next leader and the next regime could be more of the same.

[newby]

Why would a country that has so many nukes be afraid of invasion? Genuine question, maybe I am missing something but I see this kind of explanation (Russia afraid of massive land invasion) often and it does not make any sense to me. It feels like applying pre-WW2 logic to world that has fundamentally changed after WW2. Also, if I am mistaken, before Russia attacked Georgia, NATO had like 4 battalions close to Russia and military spending in Europe was going down to ridiculous levels.

[hef19898]

Nuclear powers are afraid of invasion because there is a lot of territory between conventional war and the use of nuclear weapons. And because they know that the only real threat of invasion comes from other nuclear powers, meaning once the nukes are fired, the other side fires back and all of a sudden there isn't anything left to defend anymore.

NATO had the local armies of the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia and so on the Russian border (by definition). NATO had the US forces in Germany reasonably close to the Russian border. NATO had the forces supporting the war in Afghanistan on Russians southern border None of that was, as far as anyone not informed about secret NATO planning, can tell geared against Russia. If your neighbor patrols his fence with a huge axe while your children are playing in the backyard, so, you would be worried I assume. Even if it was just to cut wood. Especially if you have bad history with that neighbor.

During the cold war, both NATO and the Warsaw pact conducted war games about invasions of the other side. War Games, because they needed something build their defensive strategies on. As it turned out, both sides, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, never had any real invasions plans for Europe, instead both side focused purely on defense against such an invasion. Turns out that this fear of the other side never died.

Since all that lies in the past, the question where we (as in the West) draws the line. NATO, and the US, kept a ton of unresolved territorial disputes in check since the end of the cold war. Most of those conflicts have the potential to turn really, really bad. If Russia gets away with their attack on Ukraine, others will, potentially rightly so, think they can do the same. And then the World-as-we-know-it might pretty much just end. Well, it might as well if NATO goes to war with Russia over Ukraine as well. Only bad choices it seems.

[jltsiren]

This is the difference between strategy and grand strategy. Russia is planning not only for 2025 or 2030 but also for 2050 and beyond. Who knows what the world will be then and whether nuclear weapons continue being an effective deterrent. They are falling back to the rules of thumb empires have used for ages. Having a potential enemy at your doorstep can be a bad thing, while having some space between you and potential enemies is probably a good thing.

[newby]

I am no strategist but I would estimate that right now Russia is generating incredible amounts of hate and fear and turning even those who were kind of indifferent into future enemies. If I naively estimate the probability of this being some rational grand strategy vs probability of this being a move of an old dictator possessed by his ego and some imagined grievances behaving in an irrational way that will damage Russia... I am leaning towards the later one. Of course this is just one example and there are certainly other scenarios/explanations.

[jltsiren]

I wouldn't make this too much about Putin as a person. Russia has had plenty of leaders with similar ambitions, both in Soviet times and in the empire before it. If leaders like Putin persistently arise in Russia, there must be deeper institutional issues behind them.

[trashtester]

That is not how I read Putin. Instead what I'm seeing, is a person who is inherently nationalistic having experienced that his pride was hurt.

I see this tendency within many, if not most countries that have seen a decline in national power over some period, and were nationalists wanted to "Make <their country> Great Again".

Examples: - Germany under Hitler - Italy under Mussolini - France after WW2, when they were quite nationalistic for decades, and certainly did NOT like that English had become the "Lingua Franca" - Britain under Margaret Thatcher - Russian under Putin - MAGA - And most important of all: China under Xi Jinping

Some of these movements were relatively harmless, some were (and are) very dangerous

[throwaway2037]

This post is strictly personal. I feel like when Dmitry Medvedev was leader of Russia (during the "Putin swap period") that tensions were much lower. Privately: I am such a big fan of him. He is such a geek! I sincerely wonder when Medvedev and (Sergey) Lavrov think about the Crimea and Ukraine situation.

When I look long term, I cannot wonder how Russia will ever leave Crimea. Does that mean that Russia is the next Iran with "forever" sanctions? I cannot see another story, unless Putin leaves and the next leader is more centrist, like Medvedev.

[avmich]

> The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of.

The change is not in politics - for decades post-Soviet Russia wasn't worrying about NATO. Actually, no - even the point that Russia is afraid isn't correct - it's Putin who's afraid. NATO problem doesn't really exists.

[konart]

This, thank you