> Russia has made themselves the enemy of the west
Well, either that or the west has decided that Russia is the enemy. I honestly don't buy the saying "Russia has made themselves the enemy of the west". Why would anybody want to be the enemy of the global superpower?
> Why would anybody want to be the enemy of the global superpower?
For the same reason that despots around the world "hate the west." [0] Because it takes the domestic population's eyes off of all the domestic issues such as rampant corruption and curtailment of basic freedoms.
[0] See: Iran & North Korea who non-coincidentally are both supplying Russia with arms which are used to kill Ukrainian grandparents and children living peacefully in their villages and cities.
They don't just "hate the west" because it distracts their citizens from domestic issues. That's ridiculous. They are resisting the global hegemony in defense of their autonomy. Just like we don't sign up to be slaves, as individuals.
What does "resisting the global hegemony" have to do with annexing neighboring countries, slaughtering civilians in their homes, and then kidnapping their children?
I'm not in support of war. Don't try to straw man me as a Putin supporter. This is just baiting me into an argument about "who is worse" when that's irrelevant to what I said.
To be clear, I'd much rather live here than in Russia, and I also would prefer that Russia wasn't slaughtering people in Ukraine, including their own.
"Why would anybody want to be the enemy of the global superpower?"
In the case of both the Balkan wars and the invasion of Ukraine, it was because staying friends with the global superpower meant that one wouldn’t get control of the lands one claimed.
They have though. They showed they don't care about borders and that if they're successful in Ukraine then they will just keep trying in the next nation over. Tyrants are never happy and always need more to conquer and to control. You can't just let them roll over other countries because they're a "super power" because evidently they aren't since Ukraine with help from the west is at least keeping them at bay.
Because Russian boomers and nationalists are hellbent on territorial irredentism to the detriment of Ukraine, the Baltic countries, and according to some of their "Greater Russia" maps even Finland.
You are thinking about it in too simplistic of terms. Countries don't "want" to be "enemies". Countries act in their own best interest to maximize resources, security, etc.
Well, I can tell you for certain that they can't make Russia declare war on its neighbor and commit atrocities against civilians. As long as that's happening, the US can demonize Russia free and clear.
According to François Hollande (who served as President of France from 2012 to 2017), the West has been pumping Ukraine with weapons since 2014. From my point of view, this is a provocation. If it's not for you, please explain why.
> According to François Hollande (who served as President of France from 2012 to 2017), the West has been pumping Ukraine with weapons since 2014. From my point of view, this is a provocation. If it's not for you, please explain why
Its not a provocation because it was a response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, which included the occupation of Crimea, and the introduction of Russian troops and Russian-sponsored PMCs (including Wagner), and Russian weapons and other support to Russian-allied local proxy forces into Eastern Ukraine, and which was the start of the still-ongoing war.
I appreciate your response. It sounds like you familiar with the topic.
You described the core of the problem as the response to a certain event (events in Crimea), meaning you answered the question of "why". Having said that, could you apply the same reasoning and explain why Russia occupied Crimea? What were the events that led to such an outcome?
Edit: as a side note, I disagree with you saying that was not a provocation. External military intervention IS a provocation. They could've tried to resolve the issue diplomatically, but they chose not to.
> You described the core of the problem as the response to a certain event (events in Crimea)
The 2014 invasion of Ukraine was not, and I did not describe it as, limited to events in Crimea.
> Having said that, could you apply the same reasoning and explain why Russia occupied Crimea
I will not pretend to explain the agressors’ reasoning, but the context was that it was immediately after the people of Ukraine drove out their former Russian-aligned leader.
> External military intervention IS a provocation.
It can’t provoke a war that starts before it occurs, and arms deliveries are not military intervention.
> I will not pretend to explain the agressors’ reasoning
Huh? That's strange. A deep dive is always important.
> the context was that it was immediately after the people of Ukraine drove out their former Russian-aligned leader
This is a media-like description of what happened there. From the perspective of the law, it doesn't matter (and therefore should not be even mentioned) whether the leader was Russian-aligned or not. You are not trying to understand the issue, but simply reiterating on what they say in the mainstream media. I'm Ukrainian btw.
Well, either that or the west has decided that Russia is the enemy. I honestly don't buy the saying "Russia has made themselves the enemy of the west". Why would anybody want to be the enemy of the global superpower?