Most of the pro Russia arguments don't stack up.
Nato has been on Russia's border for 18 years - just look at the damned map
Ukraine applied to join in 2008, but it was suspended in 2010 and then shelved by Yano guy. The interim gov allegedly kept the neutrality, and it was only after Russian involvement with Crimea that the Ukraine pivoted again to joining NATO. Quelle surprise that occurred huh. I bet Putin never saw
that coming.
To be honest, with Putin's drive to modernise the armed forces two decades ago; the provocation in Ukraine when it wasn't joining NATO... can't help but wonder if this hasn't been planned in the very very long term and steps taken to engineer this scenario. Who'd have imaged that breaking off chunks of the Ukraine would cause them to look to join military alliances -- something so dangerous and intolerable you'd have to invade them in response to.
You'd have to be a psychic to see that one surely (maybe too much sarcasm?
).
Whataboutery over "Well, USA bad so Russia should be bad" is schoolyard stuff - two wrongs don't make a right should be the stock answer; however, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones..." is a perfectly viable comeback. Neither of these
justify any incursion by Russia into Ukraine, period.
As for putting missiles in Cuba etc - get on with it, who cares. Europe has lived under "next door nuclear missiles" for 50+ years; Russia and USA are a pair of snowflakes.
NATO is the excuse, the smokescreen, the "but.. but... reasons!". The reason this is happening is Putin. End of.
I mean, if Ukraine did join NATO, what precisely do you think is suddenly going to happen? Whatever, lets just hope this all leads to nothing more than troop repositioning and a cooldown.
For those who support the Russian point of view you may enjoy Simon Jenkins article in the Guardian about this. For those who don't support that perspective, you may find it disturbing. Either way, worth a read (and the comments as for why it is so disturbing as plenty point out history, and also just how bad his opinion is
). It also contains links to other articles, which address/cover the falsity of the "promise not to expand to the East" as being part of any treaty. It wasn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... er-dispute