So... Recent events have kept me glued to my phone/screen continuously. What a shame, I had other plans for the weekend...
My take on this is quite grey. No side is 100% right or 100% wrong. Much like everything else in the world. I know people have strong opinions in such events, and it's near impossible to be impartial. But here's my take:
NATO & "west" in general:
After winning the cold war, they've become a circle-jerk organization living in extreme hubris. Instead of making the world a safer place, they did the opposite. Opened up lots of legal/moral/geopolitical pandora's boxes by recognizing Kossovo (much like Putin recognizing DNR/LPR, Transnistria, etc), invading Iraq and turning that region into a bigger powderkeg, exceeding its no-fly zone mandate in Libya, trying their best to overthrow Assad, to name just the major ones. From Russia's perspective, they were very upset with all that. Because morals aside, they made the entire world less stable. Putin was fairly pro-Western in the early 2000s. But NATO's greed and hubris made them incredibly arrogant, thinking they can pull off unconditional victories everywhere, and no one can do anything about it. But more importantly, NATO expanded eastwards. Which was one of the major points of West/Russia negotiations after the fall of the USSR. No Russian regime ever, democratic or otherwise, will ever let that happen. You have to understand Russian strategic thinking. They are a product of their geography, much like everyone else. But NATO expanded regardless, expecting Russians to just huff and puff like they often used to do (and little else). When it comes to understanding Russia's frustrations, irrespective of the nature of the Russian regime, I totally understand it. Even Gorbachev has stated he regrets how things ended up. He assumed Westerners were reasonable trustworthy people. But the west was just overly drunk on hubris, the worst of human deceases. They even undermined the economic growth of one of their greatest allies (Japan), at least to some extent. Because the thought of an Asian country overtaking the Anglo-Saxon world in an international context was too unbearable for our Anglo-Saxons. The idea that the western world would let some Asians or Slavs replace their 500 years (which in human history terms is pretty short) economic/cultural/military/scientific dominance unopposed is just moronically naive. This isn't a thing exclusive to westerners. This is just the no1 rule of civilization. No dominant civilization will ever let its successor replace them unopposed. But coming back to the RU vs NATO discussion, NATO just expanded eastwards like it couldn't give a **** about RU's opinion. Despite winning the cold war, despite containing the epic rise of (peaceful) Japan in the 1980s, I think Westerners should really start to think about the possibility that they will no longer be the center of the world. It'll most likely be Asia, with China at the helm.
Ukraine:
It's a young Nation. We Bangladeshi's should know a thing or two about young nations. But unlike BD, it's culturally not very homogeneous. They have a large pro-Russian population, mostly to the east. But the % of the Pro-Russian populace has decreased drastically over the 30 years. Thanks in part to Russia's incompetence to offer them anything good. Thanks to them propping up a bunch of mobs to rule Ukraine. It's really easy to see the appeal of the EU from a Ukrainian perspective. Russia's "influence" gave them the likes of Yanakovitch and men of his ilk. Every single one of the ex-East-Block countries ended up better economically than present-day Russia.
In terms of corruption/incompetency, Ukraine is way worse than even Russia. So as much as I understand Ukraine blaming RU for a lot of their problems, they had 8 years of a free government to get their arse together. But they haven't. The quality of their politics is incredibly poor, arguably worse than even Russia. Zelensky was democratically elected. Russia accuse UA of being Nazis, but no far right-wing party ever won any seats in parliament. Zelensky himself is a Jew. They were about to pass a law forbidding anti-Semitism, and outlawing organizations like AZOV. Nonetheless, Ukraine did have a Neo-Nazi problem and they have used them to achieve certain political goals (like Maidan). But being a young state, and having Russia hold its balls for the last 30 years, Ukrainians were not allowed to evolve naturally. Which gave more power to extremist groups. But Zelensky, for all his faults, at least showed these groups will disappear organically due to the political/social/cultural evolution of a young nation. But it isn't completely incorrect to say he still relies on them to an extent. And they still have armored units in the Ukrainian army. Not "loan fruitcakes" he wants others to believe
Putin & Russia:
I think Putin saved Russia in the 2000s. But he's in power for far too long. Russia has stagnated as a result economically. There's a discussion to be had about the impact of sanctions, oil prices, PPP (their PPP per capita has been growing consistently, despite nominal per capita declining). But just observe the RU economy on a micro-scale. Russia tried to encourage innovation and private enterprise. Take a look at the techno-parks built in Moscow, Petersburg, and other regions. All those investments, yet the outcome was pretty underwhelming. Why? Corruption. Ask yourself why Chicoms, whose auto industry started off copying some soviet UAZ jeeps now have an auto industry that can threaten the likes of Tesla, while the Russian auto industry is only targetted at one type of customer (a bunch of low earning babushka and vatniks living in Russia's 3rd world like cities). Russia is not a meritocracy like China. I think they will give us South Asian's a challenge when it comes to nepotism and corruption. Putin, despite appearing to be anti-corruption, ended up exploiting corruption for his gain. He was naive enough to think he could get corrupt people to work in the interest of the country. But it hasn't really worked. The Russian elite is a bunch of hand-picked mob/mafia mentality groups picked by Putin and his inner circle. And Russia stagnated as a result. There was a time and place for strongmen like Putin to keep Russia forever. But the problem with Strongmen is they refuse to leave. And there's little you could do about that. Right now, Russia has a lot of domestic economic problems. Poverty is rising at an alarming rate. And this will erode Putin's popularity, which used to be pretty overwhelming only a few years ago. Putinism should've been replaced at least 10 years ago. Having been in power for this long, I think there is a possibility he is starting to go a little mad.
The biggest tragedy is, despite understanding Russia's perspective, Russia's complete failure to keep UA out of NATO by peaceful means. One has to understand the UA perspective. From their shoes, they only have to look to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic, even Romania, and Bulgaria, and see their economic prosperity. And then look at strongmen paradise-like Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and finally, Russia, which is poorer than Romania now. Regardless of whether western integration will actually transform them into economic prosperity (judging by the last 8 years, it didn't). But the appeal is very obvious. Russia, I'm sorry to say, cannot offer anything useful. There's a reason it hand selects a bunch of corrupt mafias/mob-like strongmen in its bordering countries. They only understand force, not prosperity. All talks about the Eurasian Union, economic integration of CIS countries, all of them were dismal failures delivering poor results.
TLDR: Nato pushed eastwards, forced RU into a corner. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a symbol of violence being the tool of the incompetent
Sorry for any typo's/mistakes
)
)
