> In contrast to Nazi Germany, the days of the Soviet Union are not a point of national shame; former communist dignitaries are not banished from public life, streets and entire towns still bearing their names. Nostalgia coupled with bitterness continues to define Russian politics.
Actually, Nazi Germany was filled with nostalgia coupled with bitterness over the treaty of Versailles. They felt hard done by in WW1, and wanted to reclaim their rightful place as rulers of Europe. And of course xenophobia, genocide and atrocities come along for the ride when you put your trust in a strongman who goes to imperialist war.
Poorly worded, I suspect. I think the comparison is how modern Germany treats the nazi part of their past to how modern Russia treats the Soviet part of their past.
What I mean is: Russia today is more akin to Germany in the 1930s, bitter over their past failures and humiliation at the hands of allied states a decade or so earlier, and eager to get back to conquest to show the world how great and powerful they are.
Often the dark actions are wrapped in good words. So we either read "we Russians stand for the world peace" and understand we need to prepare for war, or don't read nothing at all, except intelligence reports about increasing military forces on the borders.
> Otherwise, this is just agitprop.
On whos side?
Will anybody honestly argue about Russia's expansionist policy? After events which can be interpreted as a solid confirmation of that? Will anybody honestly willing to twist words and images as much as to question this? If so, what's the dictionary which can be agreed upon, so the dialog is possible at all, at the level of "citation requested"? Where's the evidence that if a picture is presented which describes the events the discussion won't move to the critique of the description, not to the conclusions the picture was meant to illustrate?
This is about preventing the circumstances whereby yet more war and calamity are foisted on the world.
Western public love to pontificate that they 'know' (telepathically?) what the Russian state 'wants'. But they can't point to a single policy document to support their argument - just more agitprop.
>Or, in other words, who's doing agitprop here?
Those who profess to know what official state policy is, without actually having read any.
I think I am confused. Isn’t invading another country and annexing their territory an expansionist policy? Are you saying that is not happening or that the Russian military is operating without Kremlin approval?
The author (who grew up in Poland while it was a puppet state of the USSR) offers examples literally in the same paragraph that you quoted. The full paragraph is:
Russia’s expansionist policy, on the other hand, continues to cast a long shadow across Europe. The country has a long history of conquest, but for centuries, its vast dominion resembled a loose federation of fiefdoms, not a single state; it wasn’t until the emergence of the USSR that a cohesive national identity — along with a renewed focus on global expansion — started to take hold. Through various machinations, the USSR soon ended up annexing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and seizing military and political control of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and other neighboring states. For decades, the residents of these lands suffered repression and economic hardships — and were barred from leaving the Soviet-controlled world.
> Point to the Russian documents with the same clarity and direction that one can, for example, point to the PNAC policy statements [1], which resulted in Iraq losing 5% of its population.
Current Russian regime knows that it cannot clearly explain the invasion of Ukraine. And yet, they invaded, occupied territories, quickly annexed them etc.
Something something "actions speak louder than words".
>Current Russian regime knows that it cannot clearly explain the invasion of Ukraine.
How do YOU 'know' that? This is supposition and not based on any evidence.
Show me where a representative of the Russian Federation states, with clarity, that they know they cannot clearly explain the invasion of Ukraine.
This is just coffee-shop psychology, weaponized. You don't actually know anything. Read more official state policies - especially those of your own state.
Thank you for engaging in this argument and providing real references to official state policies, adopted by the American people, which have resulted in 34 million war refugees clogging the borders of the world, immense calamity and destruction of multiple sovereign states, and an entire region of the world left to dig its children out from under the piles of burning rubble.
Actually, Nazi Germany was filled with nostalgia coupled with bitterness over the treaty of Versailles. They felt hard done by in WW1, and wanted to reclaim their rightful place as rulers of Europe. And of course xenophobia, genocide and atrocities come along for the ride when you put your trust in a strongman who goes to imperialist war.