What is it that distances Russia from the West?

[Hans Blaster]

Can the latter sometimes be a wiser path than the former?

A path the Russian Federation should take.

 

[mindlight]

So Russia has been condemning the West in it's state run propaganda machine apparently, where now, Russian civilians are saying they're ready to bomb London or Paris, in an allout battle against the West. Russia has also said that it is prepared to push back the borders of Poland.

...So my question becomes, *why* is Russia so hostile toward the West? Do they not consider themselves fellow Europeans? Can they not see that we all share the same religions, and culture? They have the same malls that we do, the same cars, and the same logic.

So what is it, exactly, that they feel they need to protect themselves from? Are they opposed to immigration, like a kind of racism? I don't think that's it. I don't think it's the LGBTQ dilemma - there's no need for an authoritarian regime to worry about that - they can easily outlaw it.

So what on earth are they doing..? Why would they want to hate their own kin (fellow Europeans)? What are they "protecting" themselves from?

The Russian self-perception is at odds with the reality on the ground. They feel entitled to a larger empire which previously subject nations have long rejected. This is the most dangerous time as reality hurts and they may not accept it and they are still armed with nukes.

Also, the West can quite easily be represented as decadent in the Russian media over which Putin has absolute control because of trans and LGTBQ issues and the growing acceptance of false religions.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Russian self-perception is at odds with the reality on the ground. They feel entitled to a larger empire which previously subject nations have long rejected. This is the most dangerous time as reality hurts and they may not accept it and they are still armed with nukes.

Also, the West can quite easily be represented as decadent in the Russian media over which Putin has absolute control because of trans and LGTBQ issues and the growing acceptance of false religions.

Russian has plenty of wierd religious sects and new age cults going on, so it's more about Putin trying to maniputale bigoted and ignorant gopniks, skinheads, and muzhiks, which are the basis for alot of his real support in Russia, besides wealthy oligarchs.

 

[USincognito]

NATO was a dead, meaningless organization prior to invading Ukraine.

That's a fascinating assertion given that the 9/11 attacks precipitated an invocation of NATO Article 5 and NATO sent troops to Afghanistan for 20 years.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

 

[USincognito]

Not when it threatens the security of their neighbors. The Ukrainians have found that out the hard way...

As yes, "the Ukrainians did this to themselves" argument.

 

[Landon Caeli]

That's a fascinating assertion given that the 9/11 attacks precipitated an invocation of NATO Article 5 and NATO sent troops to Afghanistan for 20 years.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

So you support Russia?

 

[RDKirk]

So you support Russia?

@USincognito disputed your assertion that NATO was a dead, meaningless organization prior to Russia invading Ukraine.

 

[USincognito]

So you support Russia?

Thank you for not only validating So's Law, but making it a twofer with the inclusion of a bizarre non-sequitur.

 

[Landon Caeli]

@USincognito disputed your assertion that NATO was a dead, meaningless organization prior to Russia invading Ukraine.

Well, what I originally meant was that regarding a unified front against Russia, specifically, it was dead...

...Why we're talking about Afghanistan now, I have no idea. And why it had to be a big *gotcha!* point, is a waste of time.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, what I originally meant was that regarding a unified front against Russia, specifically, it was dead...

...Why we're talking about Afghanistan now, I have no idea. And why it had to be a big *gotcha!* point, is a waste of time.

No, it was never dead...it simply hadn't been tested by Russia, and it still hasn't been tested by Russia. That is, no NATO member has been attacked by Russia. Yet, the last time a NATO member was attacked--on 9/11--NATO did, in fact, respond.

Maybe you think that the NATO accords were supposed to apply to trade and other diplomatic measures short of military action...if so, your understanding was in error.

So, your assertion has no basis.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, it was never dead...it simply hadn't been tested by Russia, and it still hasn't been tested by Russia. That is, no NATO member has been attacked by Russia. Yet, the last time a NATO member was attacked--on 9/11--NATO did, in fact, respond.

Maybe you think that the NATO accords were supposed to apply to trade and other diplomatic measures short of military action...if so, your understanding was in error.

So, your assertion has no basis.

Fine, I was wrong then. NATO is alive and well.

...I thought NATO was designed to protect against the Soviet Union, but I suppose we never blinked when they changed names then, apparently.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Does anyone here think we should have softened our NATO positioning after the collapse of the Soviet Union? For the sake of establishing more peaceful relations with the new Russia?

...Maybe this is where the conversation should lead now, after discovering that we didn't go that route... Considering I thought we did, but was shown I was wrong.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I think if we showed that we had no inclination to trust Russia, even 30 years after them having adopting *our* system of government, that this display of mistrust could have reestablished a bad relationship. No?

...They genuflected to us, and we loaded our weapons!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Does anyone here think we should have softened our NATO positioning after the collapse of the Soviet Union? For the sake of establishing more peaceful relations with the new Russia?

We did. See:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50090.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19572.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_68871.htm

It's only in the last decade (since Russia annexed Crimea) that NATO-Russia cooperative initiatives have ceased.

...Maybe this is where the conversation should lead now, after discovering that we didn't go that route... Considering I thought we did, but was shown I was wrong.

If you're referring to RDKirk's post here, I believe you've misunderstood yet again. We did soften our stance towards Russia and start working more closely with them in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that did not make NATO toothless, as you claimed.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Maybe I should just shut my mouth then and stop posting. Would that make everybody happy? Or have I made yet another mistake.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Maybe I should just shut my mouth then and stop posting.

I mean this in the kindest way possible, but that might be wise. I've noticed that your recent posts have been rather heated and combative, and you seem to be taking any criticism or corrections very personally. Usually when that happens to me, it's a sign that I've been spending too much time arguing on the internet and I need a break.

 

[Suomipoika]

This is straight-up, unadulterated, Russian propaganda. It could have been written in the Kremlin itself.

I hope you are compensated for your efforts "Soldier". It would be a shame to sell out to authoritarian oppressors and not get paid.

Yes. When a post starts with "the Ukraine", you know exactly what's coming.