• PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean, honestly, the most anti-NATO position is “Russia shouldn’t have attacked Ukraine”, considering that there was an open question of “Why the fuck is NATO still around?” in some countries before Russia’s act of blatant imperialism.

    Russia’s attack on Ukraine revitalized NATO both in purpose and in popularity. Fucking insane what a self-defeating action that was in terms of international interests on Russia’s part.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Agreed, which leads me to believe that this wasn’t the primary motivation for Putin in the first place but just good bullshit for his gullible domestic base.

      As Naomi Klein spells out in The Shock Doctrine, such manufactured crises provide incentive to produce radical change. In this case:

      • Putin’s consolidation of power and proverbial nights of long knives (or high windows) as he kills off oligarchs and opponents.

      • Commiting ethnic genocide within his own borders by prioritizing minorities, prisoners, and impoverished to the Frontlines with no hope of survival.

      • Clamping down on domestic leftism and independent media.

      • Carrying out the playbook of neo-nazi Aleksandr Dugin and revitalizing the so-called might of the Russian empire.

      Putin did think and have fair reason to believe he could seize Ukraine for very little cost both economically and geopolitically.

      … But at this point it is all for saving face and legacy. Even if he took Ukraine in the next year (and he likely will never get more than 17% of the initial goals he had), it would almost never be worth it for the damage already done to Russia economically, intellectually, and geopolitically.