You insert subtle hints of USSR/Russia being benevolent or good. (“Left without blood”, “victorious at enormous cost”)
This context is not real. There was blood since ww2. And major part of that ww2 cost you mentioned, was actually paid by Ukraine itself.
Countries joining NATO, did so not because they want to conquer Russia. (Are you proposing that Estonia wants to conquer Russia?)
Up until recently, European defence budgets were laughable. If decisions would be done based on actual risk analysis, it would be clear that NATO was not threatning to attack.
> Even if you were right , is the risk you may be wrong acceptable when it comes to your national security?
Yes, for Russia it will always be beneficial that all its neighbours are weak puppet states.
I concede all events in history (incl. Ukraine invitation) do lead us to this moment. But this is a bit of nitpicking, everybody see who is the psycho and everybody must deal with it.
Context matters a lot.
You insert subtle hints of USSR/Russia being benevolent or good. (“Left without blood”, “victorious at enormous cost”)
This context is not real. There was blood since ww2. And major part of that ww2 cost you mentioned, was actually paid by Ukraine itself.
Countries joining NATO, did so not because they want to conquer Russia. (Are you proposing that Estonia wants to conquer Russia?)
Up until recently, European defence budgets were laughable. If decisions would be done based on actual risk analysis, it would be clear that NATO was not threatning to attack.
> Even if you were right , is the risk you may be wrong acceptable when it comes to your national security?
Yes, for Russia it will always be beneficial that all its neighbours are weak puppet states.
I concede all events in history (incl. Ukraine invitation) do lead us to this moment. But this is a bit of nitpicking, everybody see who is the psycho and everybody must deal with it.