But it is the same argument that Israel would make. They would say Hamas provoked it by killing 1200 people on October 7th. Yet that was one day, and 1200 people. That is a horrific day. But now over a year of attacks and bombs and probably around 10-20,000 deaths of children. That's only the children number. Not sure that even includes all the victims of starvation, lack of proper healthcare etc. Israel has committed what I said was a horrific day, repeatedly for many days over the past year. The provocation argument doesn't hold up.
I agree with you re. Israel: there is no justification for their actions as they're clearly committing genocide. Russia aren't doing anything of the sort. They're fighting (what was) one of the best armies in the world - not deliberately killing civilians. (Yes, I accept that, tragically, civilians will be killed but, unlike Israel, that's not Russia's intent.) Indeed, one of the reasons for Russia's invasion was Zelensky's ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbas region - resulting in the death of of 14,000+ Russian civilians since the 2014 Maidan coup. So, there's no comparison to be made between Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Chalk and cheese. What is a fair comparison IMO is what Netanyahu/Israel is doing in Gaza and what Zelensky/Ukraine is doing in the Donbas - that is clearly comparable.
There is an almighty difference between what one side might see as provocation, and invading and destroying another country.
As for Ukraine's provocation, they didn't have nuclear missiles, they had previously given up the ones they had. They had said they are a non-nuclear state. They were not in NATO (yet) anyway. They didn't attack Russia to provoke this war. Not much provocation at all in fact when looked at.
There's looking at history through rose coloured spec's and then there's this, lol! ;-)
It's not Ukrainian nukes that Russia's worried about - it's U.S. nukes! And while Ukraine aren't yet in NATO, do you really expect Russia to sit back and wait before they officially join before taking action? By then it'll be too late - surely you can see that?
As for existential threat... that seems silly. There are several NATO countries that currently border Russia and have done for many years. Do you think it is ok for Russia to also invade Finland now? Then Estonia. Then Latvia. Norway maybe has a tiny border with Russia, them too? Turkey and Poland are pretty close as well, so you will be happy to see them invaded all because of a 'provocation' from NATO and an existential threat, despite none of those countries attacking Russia even though some of them were members of NATO for many years.
No, of course I don't think it's okay for Russia to invade those countries or anyone else for that matter: I've made my position on this matter crystal clear. Ukraine is different from the countries you mention because they're a de facto 51st U.S. state and they've been funded, armed and equipped to the hilt over the past decade by the U.S. for the express purpose of fighting Russia. The idea that Putin has nothing to fear from NATO or the U.S. is blatant western propaganda and it saddens me to my core just how readily people fall for such obvious BS.
Aside from all of that, Russia has great military strength and strong allies, and not much existential threat from any country right now. In fact invading Ukraine would actually promote more countries like Finland to want to join NATO.
Whether or not other countries like Finland join NATO makes zero difference to what Russia is doing now. Besides, NATO is toast. It's a relic from the cold war that only exists to feed the military industrial complex, make $billions and help to maintain U.S. hegemony. In terms of defending the west - it's not fit for purpose. Russia, pretty much single handedly, has taken on the might of the U.S. and the west and won the war hands down. And there's sweet FA that NATO and the west can do about it. The sooner NATO is gone the safer we'll all be.
Tim.
