[eyelidlessness]

I can’t speak to why you’ve been downvoted, but it might be worth considering the incentives to fight aren’t the same between the “sides”. One is fighting to survive an attack by the other. It’s difficult to maintain safety measures while people are trying to kill you.

[beebeepka]

What's there to understand? Cuba is still under embargo 50 years after the Russians tried to put weapons there.

[eyelidlessness]

Hey that’s a valid point and one I agree with. The way the US has treated Cuba is also completely indefensible and based in no plausible threat scenario.

[wyager]

> One is fighting to survive an attack by the other.

This statement, while true, changes denotation depending on the scale at which you view this conflict. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the existential threat is to Ukraine. If you view it as a conflict between Russia and NATO, the existential threat is to Russia.

[jazzyjackson]

I don't quite understand Russia's paranoia around NATO. Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia already border Russia (+ Poland if you count Kaliningrad). Why is it such a big deal for Ukraine to enter a defense pact, unless Russia wants to retain the right to invade when they see fit? Not trying to be rhetorical, this existential threat to Russia is news to me.

[nl]

Russia _hates_ that Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are all part of NATO.

But when they were accepted Putin didn't feel strong enough to do anything about it.

Russia has been advancing it's "sphere of influence" political theory, whereby independent countries with that "sphere of influence" don't get the right to make their own alliances. That "sphere of influence" includes all Eastern European countries that border on Russia at least.

It hasn't been widely reported on, but the initial demand that led to this war was that NATO withdraw all infrastructure install in post 1997 expansions:

Russia published two lists of demands — for Washington and for NATO — the latter calling for the removal of all NATO military infrastructure installed in Eastern European countries after 1997, effectively attempting to rework the consequences of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, which left Russia weakened for years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/17/ukraine-russ...

[jasonfarnon]

From what I understand of world politics, what is viewed by one as defensive is often viewed by another as offensive. Eg Monroe doctrine.

[Scramblejams]

It makes more sense when examining their history. This is probably a decent place to start: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ru...

[throwaway48375]

Don't forget Norway.

[gusgus01]

Did I miss something today? Did NATO deploy troops into Russia or Ukraine?

[dpratt]

If you want to achieve victory, you must understand your enemy as well as yourself. The Russian attitude towards NATO expansion into Ukraine can be roughly viewed from an American perspective as well equivalent as the old Warsaw Pact attempting to bring Mexico into their treaty. Or, at least, this is part of the explanation used to frame it as an ‘existential threat’ for Russia. This, combined with a somewhat precarious economy based largely on fossil fuel exports and the fact that in some sense Putin serves at the pleasure of the group of oligarchs, and only as long as they can earn. This combo of circumstance makes it pretty easy to guess at how we got here, and frankly how easy it was to provoke. Unfortunately for Putin, and fortunate for pretty much everybody else, at this point, it appears that outside of complete and total victory and annexation of Ukraine, it looks like he loses no matter what.

Putin is a ham-fisted dictator, and the world will be better off without him, but his motivations here aren’t mysterious.

[labster]

How would annexation of Ukraine further Russia’s strategic goals at this point? NATO expansion is getting more popular by the hour, as is joining the EU. Economic sanctions weaken Russia, and will continue for years to decades if Ukraine is annexed. Sure, the Russian army can get total victory given enough time, but winning the war doesn’t benefit Russia.

[ethbr0]

Moscow from Ukraine border: ~520 km

Moscow from Latvian border: ~620 km

Not to mention full control of a Black Sea (and therefore entrance to Mediterranean) coastline with multiple ports. As well as a major agricultural products. As well as a huge transit country for Russian energy pipelines.

[labster]

What does slightly more access to the Mediterranean get you when no European country will buy your goods? All of those things you mentioned are worthless without buyers.

Except the farm land. But it’s not 1444 — trade is vastly more profitable than agriculture nowadays.

[watwut]

I dont think this take advances understanding of Russia. This is how Americans sees the world. Americans are not trying to make America larger, therefore they will project same lack of wish to get larger on Russia.

[eru]

I don't agree 100%, but I don't think you deserve the downvotes.

I think you could say in the wider scale it can be interpreted as an existential threat to Putin's Russia?

[eyelidlessness]

They are literally doing total war without provocation. The theoretical threat of NATO has not been a part of this conflict at all. Treating that imagined threat as if it’s equivalent to the very real war is navel gazing excuse for a mass murdering fascist.

[eru]

First, yes, Putin's Russia has started a war of conquest.

Second, no, it is definitely _not_ a total war. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war for background.

Third, the theoretical threat of NATO is not so much to Russia: I agree that NATO is not a threat to Russia. However I do also see that NATO and EU are a threat to Putin's long term vision for a renewed Russian Empire.

To be clear, I agree that this vision is bogus and that a threat to a bogus vision is not a valid excuse for a war.

Please also be careful with accusing people of being fascists or Nazis. Putin and his predecessors in the USSR employed the same tactic. And whether anyone does or does not fulfill the textbook definition of a fascist is besides the point here.

[drran]

This is total war. RF targets infrastructure and kills civilians on purpose. More than 2000 civilians are killed by RF in one week on territory controlled by Ukraine. RF uses weapons of mass(1) destruction freely, to force humanitarian crisis, then ask for tactical pause, to let civilians escape, while using reinforces to fortify captured land. They are shutting at hospitals, gas pipes, power lines, humanitarian convoys, to make situation desperate for civilians, to force tactical pauses. We learned this tactic very well.

(1) Not WMD like chlorine, or nuclear, of course, nor biological weapons except coronavirus released by accident from Vector lab in Siberia on Sep 16, 2019, just conventional weapons designed to maximize damage to civilian infrastructure.

[eru]

You realize that Russia would kill way more than 2,000 civilians in a week in a total war?

[eyelidlessness]

> First, yes, Putin's Russia has started a war of conquest.

Glad we agree.

> Second, no, it is definitely _not_ a total war. See

It’s a total war.

> Third, the theoretical threat of NATO is not so much to Russia: I agree that NATO is not a threat to Russia. However I do also see that NATO and EU are a threat to Putin's long term vision for a renewed Russian Empire.

By this logic all conflicts are both sided. England is equally justified in bombing India because they “threatened” the British empire by rejecting being under its power.

> Please also be careful with accusing people of being fascists or Nazis. Putin and his predecessors in the USSR employed the same tactic. And whether anyone does or does not fulfill the textbook definition of a fascist is besides the point here.

I’m well aware of the importance of being precise and cautious with this term and I chose it carefully.

[eyelidlessness]

Whut