Quote (fender @ Mar 15 2022 04:10pm)
they'd achieve exactly that with de-escalation, normalisation, and trade. no one in their right mind would attack russia, and pootin knows that. the nation with the most nukes on this planet is 100% safe from military attacks by NATO members. so you'll have to come up with something better to support your claim that russia HAD to go to war, because that talking point is comprehensively debunked.
you know what causes the exact opposite of "regional security"? starting a war. so please, try again, or finally admit that your silly narrative that war was "inevitable" is bullshit.
not buying it. pootin might be mad as a box of frogs, but even he did not think that the relatively small ukrainian market would be instrumental in transitioning russia from a resource focused to a manufacturing (?!) economy - not that that ever was his plan, no clue how you came up with this tbh. also, russia's foreign trade has continually increased - despite "the west" being aware that it's not a democracy, and despite the tensions in syria and ukraine...
russian weapon sales decreases as NATO grows hurts russia bigly.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/weapons-salesmost of the other aspects are fairly fringe, as their customers are addicted to the oil/gas/coal they sell. i'm sure they'll offset it somewhat by shifting sales to countries like India, as they did in 2011-2015, unless the US eyes that market as well to choke Russia out.
as an asside though you seem to be post after post responding as if my point is these are THE justification for invasion, which im not. i simply pointed out NATO expansion can be bad for Russian business, even if it's not a legitimate justification for invading Ukraine, and even if it's still mostly if not all a land grab for Putin while he uses the economics and attacks on "ethnic Russians" as excuses. but excuses work best with a tinge of truth to them just like all lies.
This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 16 2022 06:52am