You agree with me there then.

If you're saying Russian response to NATO expansion was rational then we agree.

And I’m against that. Are you not? I don’t see what point you are making.

The point I've been making this whole thread is that Europe is the only entity in this equation that is not acting rationally in its own interest. Both US and Russia are pursuing their interest, meanwhile Europe is not.

Yes, that’s what NATO argues. NATO’s intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Similarly with NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim they were enforcing UN mandate.

Incidentally, Russia says that their intervention in Donbas is directly modelled on NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Just as NATO did, they waited for LPR and DPR to separate, then they recognized their independence, and then had them invite Russia to intervene on their behalf. So, Russia is enforcing UN mandate as well following this logic.

As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.

That's literally been my whole point here. However, the historical facts are important. It was NATO that refused to disband after the USSR dissolved despite the fact that it's entire mandate for existence disappeared. It was NATO that rebuffed Russia's offer to join it. It was NATO that broke its promise not to expand easier. It was NATO that played games with Minsk agreements. The history very clearly shows which side has been consistently escalating tensions since the 90s.

I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm.

If the threat was existential then there would be no choice. The same way Europe had no choice but to resist nazi Germany during WW2. However, this course of action only makes sense if there is a credible existential threat. In case where things can be resolved diplomatically, then diplomatic approach should absolutely be followed. We are in complete agreement here.

No. Why would you presume that?

Then why spend so much time talking about what you think is moral or justified. Your adversary does not care one bit about that. They have their own morals and their own justifications for what the do. This is why I keep saying that focusing on morality is not productive. What you have to focus on are national interests. What does Europe want and what does Russia want. You have to develop empathy to see things from the perspective of your adversary and to understand WHY they do the things they do. Then and only then can you start having meaningful dialogue and try to find common ground.

The reason this war happened was precisely because the west refused to try and see things from Russian perspective and to genuinely understand their interests and goals.

I think we are talking past each other… these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.

I'm not sure what I misinterpreted. You keep pointing to me saying that Russian economy has improved throughout the war as some sort of a gotcha in terms of the underlying reasons for the war. And I keep explaining that these things are tangential. Russia did not go to war to improve its economy, and had its economy suffered, it would have continued the war anyways because Russia sees this war as being existential.

I feel I’ve already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don’t think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don’t think it’s worth continuing.

I feel the same. Have a good day.