If at all the trigger was the election of Selenski and his openly pro NATO stance. According to NATO rules no country actively involved in a war can join up. Selenski knew darn well that Ukraine had zero chance of NATO Membership yet he behaved as if he had it in the pocket. The question is even if he thought if Russia were to attack that NATO would let him in?
That is rather a Russian narrative. If Ukraine remained a USSR satellite, there would be no trouble. Of course… And much of “our” Europe was silently wishing the same – until they had no option but to support Ukraine. And still some don’t…
I would give Zelensky the benefit of the doubt i.e. he is genuinely interested in dragging Ukraine (often kicking and screaming, as the saying goes) into the civilised world and away from the universal mediocrity and corruption of the USSR.
He has just popped out to their hottest front line, at Bakhmut, to hand out some medals. If he is not genuine, what is he doing there? At the same time, Putin’s sidekick Shoigu visited the “front line” sitting in a helicopter which, as it turned out after the fake (fake, like most Russian propaganda) video came out, got to within 80km of the front line.
Not sure if that’s a real ad, but it is plausible
Those adverts are real. It is just hard to take in what kind of mentality the audience must have to respond to them. If you can understand that, you can understand a bit more of Russia. Not just today’s Russia but most of Russia as it has been in the last 100+ years.
A bit like how Brits define themselves by their role in WW2 and Americans define themselves by their attachment to freedom, I am told that the Russian psyche defines itself by its endurance of suffering. Just straightforward suffering, of any kind, for nothing at all. Not even in any cause one could attempt to define.
French literature: “I die for love”
US literature: “I die for liberty”
Russian literature: “I die”
All the others, Europeans at the forefront, denied it.
Not at all. The media is not “all the others”. Officials from every NATO country (and then some) was more or less heavily involved in the talks with Russia (and Ukraine).
Not just today’s Russia but most of Russia as it has been in the last 100+ years.
Is there any difference between those two Russias in terms of expansion politics?
No; it is fundamental ideology.
Communism will not be “safe” until it has expanded to every corner of the globe.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If at all the trigger was the election of Selenski and his openly pro NATO stance.
I think the whole affair way more complicated and perhaps quite different from what it appears now.
Remember, Zelensky was elected on the promise to stop the fighting in Donbas. And at the very beginning of his term he tried a bit of deescalation. But the nationalists did not let him, actually they threatened him several times.
Quick google search found this: https://rattibha.com/thread/1510082482288406530 , with better google-fu you might find better.
Even if you might suspect the site, there are links to western sources from there, and videos of Zelensky talking with nationalists, you can see by yourself (understanding Russian helps, but there are transcripts).
I don’t think the economies of the former Eastern block being redirected from Russia to West was a major factor – meanwhile Russia got access to a much bigger and wealthier market for its energies and other mining products in Western Europe. They were not really hurting.
What certainly crossed the red line was the prospect of losing Sevastopol and it actually becoming Nato naval base. That’s why Russians left Crimea be as it was while the regime in Kiev was friendly, and annexed it after Maidan in 2014.
And why attack in the beginning of 2022? There are well published statements by Zelensky in spring of 2021 that Ukraine is going to retake Crimea…
Frankly, Russian sources are saying they should have done it earlier … probably waited for NordStream 2 to have better leverage against Germany.
Of course, each_and_every western news about the war started by characterizing it as an ‘Unprovoked aggression by Russia’.
Agression by Russia … 100%
Unprovoked … hell no.
But, we need to push the narrative, otherwise people might start to believe the whole thing could have been avoided and look for those responsible. Way easier to say ‘bad, bad, mad Putin’, need to stop the new Hitler before he conquers the whole Europe.
Peter wrote:
No; it is fundamental ideology.Communism will not be “safe” until it has expanded to every corner of the globe.
You know, the same can be said about western ‘liberal democracy’. See Fukuyama ‘End of history’. Or just use a bit of introspection.
Graham wrote:
A bit like how Brits define themselves by their role in WW2 and Americans define themselves by their attachment to freedom, I am told that the Russian psyche defines itself by its endurance of suffering. Just straightforward suffering, of any kind, for nothing at all. Not even in any cause one could attempt to define.
I am sure there will be many Russians that will strongly object to that, especially to “for nothing at all”.
However, there is definitively a significant fortress mentality, as well a strange mix of pride and lack of confidence.
A saying one encounters quite frequently: “We tried to make it better this time, but it turned out as always”
But yes, the theme of enduring the insurmountable wall of stupidity, corruption and petty evilness is quintessentially Russian.
If you are more amenable to musical then literary media, this fits:
Ukraine is going to retake Crimea
Not “retake”; Crimea is and was Ukraine. A UN recognised country.
esteban wrote:
You know, the same can be said about western ‘liberal democracy’. See Fukuyama ‘End of history’. Or just use a bit of introspection.
Not to mention capitalism. All other comparisons aside.
