I’m Russian, but I don’t live in Russia, so I’m not exposed to “Russian propaganda” (you do seem to be exposed to the Ukrainian flavor of it though). I also commiserate with what happened on the Ukrainian side, and in every election where Putin ran I voted against Putin. I dislike the man, and think he will be harmful to Russia in the long term.
That said, you also can’t deny the involvement of the US Department of state in those events. The fundamental geostrategical priority for Russia is to maintain control (or at least good relations with, see Belarus) of the buffer regions around its densely populated regions. This stems from geography and topology: there are no mountains to protect the West of Russia from a land invasion. This is inviolable geostrategic principle that Russia, having learned the lessons of WW2, will just not let anyone touch.
That is why there are “tensions” when your neighbor begins discussions of entering NATO with a bit of USDS help. NATO means (eventually) foreign military bases and tactical nukes within 100km of Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog. This is fundamentally unacceptable to Russia, which they have been saying again and again to everyone who would listen years before things turned ugly. It’s not personal, it’s a question of national security for them. The US would have done the same or worse if Russia got Mexico to enter a military alliance with it.
Again, I sympathize, but I really can’t see how, given the progression of events, things could have turned any differently.
That said, you also can’t deny the involvement of the US Department of state in those events. The fundamental geostrategical priority for Russia is to maintain control (or at least good relations with, see Belarus) of the buffer regions around its densely populated regions. This stems from geography and topology: there are no mountains to protect the West of Russia from a land invasion. This is inviolable geostrategic principle that Russia, having learned the lessons of WW2, will just not let anyone touch.
That is why there are “tensions” when your neighbor begins discussions of entering NATO with a bit of USDS help. NATO means (eventually) foreign military bases and tactical nukes within 100km of Rostov-on-Don and Taganrog. This is fundamentally unacceptable to Russia, which they have been saying again and again to everyone who would listen years before things turned ugly. It’s not personal, it’s a question of national security for them. The US would have done the same or worse if Russia got Mexico to enter a military alliance with it.
Again, I sympathize, but I really can’t see how, given the progression of events, things could have turned any differently.