[omega3]

> We pushed Russia to the breaking point, and now we get to see what plays out.

I wish this argument would just die - it's all on Russia. No one has forced them to have imaginary "safety guarantees" or influence spheres. What people in the west doesn't seem to understand is that nothing has changed in terms of Russian politics since the WW2 - it's the continuation of the same politics of threats of aggression and playing the imaginary victim card and imperialistic politics.

[coldtea]

>No one has forced them to have imaginary "safety guarantees" or influence spheres.

In which case, only the US gets to have them, as per the Monroe Doctrine, and pursue them anyway they like (including interventions, occupation, and war) all around the world? Or do exactly the same condemnations hold for that case too (after all, much more costlier in deaths and far more wide-reaching in countries and populations affected).

[swagasaurus-rex]

Yes invading countries is bad

[pydry]

They've got a 2000 km border of exposed flat plains that has been routinely invaded in the past. Theyve not got the benefit of a mountain range or an ocean buffering them in the west.

What people (non-elites) dont understand in the west is that geography dictates policy.

Even in spite of that the war probably wouldnt have happened had Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya not placed NATO firmly in the offensive alliance category while it pursued Russian encirclement. Putin started out friendly.

[omega3]

Do you really believe that Ukraine, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia are planning to invade Russia - is this a credible threat?

[Alenycus]

It's not just about now. Who knows what happens in the future.

Eastern Europe was fractured and weak following World War One. A huge invasion still came twenty years later. This is a game played out in centuries, not 20 years. The future is unpredictable. Russians leaders plan in that world.

[netsharc]

If I can read Putin's mind, if you're a respected leader, your citizens will probably be ready to let you stay in power, and in the event of an attack, to die for you, but if you're a corrupt grifting piece of shit, then, first the walls to your bedroom better be thick, next would be the walls to the Kremlin, and finally the walls around your country's borders, and then even beyond.

My guess is why Putin hates the "NATO sphere of influence" is that he doesn't like democracy, because democracy means his head will end up on a noose, or in the best case scenario, in prison with his wealth taken from him. But on the flip side, it's not like American or EU democracy is free of thieves and nepotism either. Special greetings to Jean-Claude Juncker and Ursula von der Leyen!

[pydry]

I think if NATO backed Lithuanian agents hadnt tried to foment an independence movement in Kaliningrad then Russia might feel a little more confident that NATO's long term goal wasnt the Balkanization of Russia.

If Russia does get trounced in this war and Ukraine joins NATO I would expect suspiciously well funded independence movements to start popping up in Russia. This conflict wont stop at their borders.

It'll stop and we'll finally lose interest when Russia breaks into 16 different poverty stricken polities.

[swagasaurus-rex]

Russia is already poverty stricken without any of that. Imagine being president of a country for 22 years (Putin) and its still an economic shithole.