Ok folks, I see there is some lacking information and arguably understanding with regards to the quite complicated issues at hand. I would like to present a neutral and informative explanation out of my own personal curiosity and need to understand the current situation, given my location and history I think (to the best of my ability) I understand the Russian side fairly well (both the propaganda part and the truth part) please before replying to this make sure to see the linked papers and articles and read them, it is important for a neutral and meaningful conversation.
The famous talking point about NATO expansion which is one of the main Kremlin objections with regards to Ukraine invasion, is actually somewhat valid geopolitically, for many reasons some of which I already talked in my post #197
but from a purely geographical perspective , imagine yourself in the Kremlin, then look at this map
View attachment 297604
If Finland at some point decides to join NATO (Sweden is already "allied" friendly and would lend their airfields for NATO fighters if need be) and if Ukraine does too (Ukraine is by far the largest European country besides Russia) then geopolitically the whole Russian western side including it's exit to many seas is effectively shielded by NATO bases and troops on ground, missile defenses, air defenses, sea, land, etc
I think it is fair to say USA for example has no real Russian controlled lands in it's vicinity, it is shielded by natural factors like Pacific and Atlantic ocean as well as Canada to it's north and Mexico in the south. Pretty much the only thing Mexico can endanger US with geopolitically is too much cheap drugs...
A good take on this in the link below
https://www.pressenza.com/2022/02/t...-invisible-people-in-the-conflict-in-ukraine/
And speaking of false promises, the one given by "west" to Ukraine that it will safeguard it in exchange for it's leftover Soviet nuclear arsenal was the first lie in a series of lies from both west and Russia. Sure enough if Ukraine now had some of those older Russian hydrogen bomb tipped MIRV ICBM's the whole specter of an invasion would seem much different. (One could also argue that such a massive thermonuclear arsenal in the hands of regional oligarchs and inexperienced serviceman could be a lethal weapon and a terrorist threat)
Anyway for sake of accuracy let me post just some of the "promises" that were given over the years but not kept.
They basically were 100x as strong as North Korea would ever be in terms of nuclear weapons and they gave it all up, for ... nothing.
Now here comes the part I bet none (some?) of you know,
Back in 1990, due to the inevitable prospect of German reunification Gorbachev was given many assurances to how far NATO would go and how should the situation look.
I suggest reading this link , George Washington Universities national security archive, an in depth article with tons of supporting documents, history before your eyes
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...on-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
A slightly different take by Radio Free Europe, Gorbachev here downplays any western assurances given for NATO expansion to him back then, sure enough his prestige in Russia has always been very low as he is associated with the personified "destroyer of the USSR", so his personal "memory" of the events might get foggy on purpose...
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html
With NATO in former republics such as the one I'm writing from , western troops are at their closest, some 350 miles from Moscow center, for modern weaponry that is essentially "pissing distance" away.
Now back in 2004 when NATO took in new member states (last NATO expansion) including all Baltic states, I think Putin was mad as hell, but due to historical reasons he got over it, then in 2008
This was when I think they decided in Kremlin to eventually do something about it,
fast forward to 2014 and "Maidan" and the Ukrainians ousting the pro- Russian government, this I think was when Moscow started drawing up real plans realizing Ukraine is a "Titanic" from their perspective that is heading fast pace towards the iceberg of NATO.
A good explanation of how Moscow thinks
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-todayOn top of all this, it doesn't help much that some of the historical troops in Baltic states have been known to be associated with Nazi regime and SS legion, there are complicated historical reasons for why that happened but since I know that background, even as a non Jew myself I can safely say that there were antisemitic sentiments back then and during the German occupation a certain number of people did commit war crimes here together with the Nazi regime, Moscow has used this ever since as a blanket statement to point out racism and antisemitism as reasons for why we - the Baltics cannot be trusted.
Now why do I say this? Because Ukraine has also had problems with certain movements having antisemitic tendencies and Moscow uses that well for their propaganda and incorporates into it. Sure enough the Ukrainians are themselves to blame for not being able to get their sh!* together and not let dangerous radicals join their ranks among good patriotic people.
For example see here , the Azov battalion that helped the Maidan 2014 revolution, their members have had problems with Nazi affilliation
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-...ome-ukrainians-contemplate-guerrilla-war.html
Even their logo incorporates some Nazi related symbolism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
And they happened to make some war crimes along the way when the conflict started to unfold back in 2014, does that make Russia innocent? No but it gives the "fuel and ammunition" and legal right to claim what they claim is true.All in all Moscow uses this for it's gain, I don't mean this as a blanket statement that Ukrainians are nazi's because clearly they are not in general (historically Ukraine has had a large Jewish population) but loose governance and wrongly calculated moves play into the hands of the Kremlin.Now the reason why Putin did not attack the Baltics before we joined NATO, although he knew years before we were doing it and it was no secret is because we historically have been further away from Russian influence both culturally as well as politically, even though we share the same past of being in the USSR.
Ukraine is much much closer to Russia in every way imaginable, ethnically, culturally, politically, socially (one could argue with a straight face Ukrainians would blend in easily if they wished in the already large ethnic diversity of slavic people living inside the borders of the Russian federation [not to say they have to but in theory]), and they share a large inland border with Russia while also being a strategic point militarily, folks, make no mistake, losing Ukraine to NATO and the west would be the dumbest thing from a "chess" and military standpoint Russia could do, given it's past losses and current NATO position, rest assured there was no other way but for this to happen, and now let me say the harsh words for which I will probably get critique, --
It is partly the west's fault!
There were multiple avenues that NATO could have used to leave Ukraine neutral with some mutual assurance treaties between all involved parties, but I won't get into that because that would be current politics as opposed to past one and that would become too heated most likely so I already have given a quite vast information to think about those that are interested.All in all the US has bit overcalculated their influence as they did with Afghanistan and it has backfired as it did many times in the past, just like with the "Mujahideen" and giving them weapons and investing too much in the middle east which then came back as the "thank you" by the Saudi funded and Iran, Afghanistan militia backed terrorist groups calling US "great Satan" and 9/11 among other things.
This might sound selfish but from a personal point of view as someone who is located at the front lines of NATO, I don't think pushing eastward more was a sane idea from the beginning,
Just to end this on a cautious note, I will quote a man known personally to me who worked for my countries security service at some point, "Russia will face NATO in a hot war sooner or later given the course for the past 30 years"
@fresh_42 I really fail to see how you can claim the "insanity" part for Putin given all this comprehensive political strategy that is laid out before our eyes to see, well for those of us who understand it.
Let me just repeat my opinion, he is not insane unlike the Islamic radicals of 9/11 and ISIS etc, who could arguably be insane, Putin is simply very angry and he has been somewhat cornered over the past decades, again this is not my wish or opinion, just mere political reality.
You can bet on it, Russian special forces and intelligence has countless plans calculated throughout these past years for every possible scenario and the pros and cons all written down.
The reason for striking now is because of the pandemic, while the world is still busy relapsing, Putin will try to clean up his backyard, it's as simple as that.