I don't understand this post at all.

Nato was the aggressor in this situation. Russia invading today is irrelevant to the fact it was under a direct threat to its security.

How and Why is a huge bag of opposing interests, dating back centuries. Notably some are much more recently.

But the bottom line is Crimea is Russian. Contrary to any other assumptions. It has Sevastopol on it. The rest of Crimea largely supports that interest. It has a majority population of Russians and Russian infrastructure on it.

It however causes a huge geographical problem to the Ukrainian coastline. A coastline in 2017 that was building Nato bases on it, a few KM away from Russian nuclear bases. If you wanted the direct evidence of Nato aggression. Outside of any supposrd biolabs. Or arming the Ukraine population to fight against Russians, its own people wishing to remain Russian. Prior to this conflict, the risk of it was happening daily in the Black Sea. Nato vessels, were continously becoming hazardous to the point of collision. Risk that could only escalate into conflict. Conflict occurring as Ukraine sought to join Nato and armament continued threatening Russian infrastructure. Without further debating any other separatist Oblasts.

Of course Ukraine has its own security concerns, and costal issues. Although they are largely irrelevant. Without Nato expansion, and by neutrality, it wouldn't have occured to the level of the current conflict.

It would be unheard of for this not to have escalated anywhere else globally. It was inevitable. Simple consequence.

It doesn't mean I am Russian. But war was obvious. Obvious due to the geography. Outside of opposing interests and geopolitics. You simply cannot tell a nation to pack up their nuclear bases. Try it. Laughably, conflict.

I don't understand this post at all.

Nato was the aggressor in this situation. Russia invading today is irrelevant to the fact it was under a direct threat to its security.

How and Why is a huge bag of opposing interests, dating back centuries. Notably some are much more recently.

But the bottom line is Crimea is Russian. Contrary to any other assumptions. It has Sevastopol on it. The rest of Crimea largely supports that interest. It has a majority population of Russians and Russian infrastructure on it.

It however causes a huge geographical problem to the Ukrainian coastline. A coastline in 2017 that was building Nato bases on it, a few KM away from Russian nuclear bases. If you wanted the direct evidence of Nato aggression. Outside of any supposrd biolabs. Or arming the Ukraine population to fight against Russians, its own people wishing to remain Russian. Prior to this conflict, the risk of it was happening daily in the Black Sea. Nato vessels, were continously becoming hazardous to the point of collision. Risk that could only escalate into conflict. Conflict occurring as Ukraine sought to join Nato and armament continued threatening Russian infrastructure. Without further debating any other separatist Oblasts.

Of course Ukraine has its own security concerns, and costal issues. Although they are largely irrelevant. Without Nato expansion, and by neutrality, it wouldn't have occured to the level of the current conflict.

It would be unheard of for this not to have escalated anywhere else globally. It was inevitable. Simple consequence.

It doesn't mean I am Russian. But war was obvious.

I don't understand this post at all.

Nato was the aggressor in this situation. Russia invading today is irrelevant to the fact it was under a direct threat to its security.

How and Why is a huge bag of opposing interests, dating back centuries. Notably some are much more recently.

But the bottom line is Crimea is Russian. Contrary to any other assumptions. It has Sevastopol on it. The rest of Crimea largely supports that interest. It has a majority population of Russians and Russian infrastructure on it.

It however causes a huge geographical problem to the Ukrainian coastline. A coastline in 2017 that was building Nato bases on it, a few KM away from Russian nuclear bases. If you wanted the direct evidence of Nato aggression. Outside of any supposrd biolabs. Or arming the Ukraine population to fight against Russians, its own people wishing to remain Russian. Prior to this conflict, the risk of it was happening daily in the Black Sea. Nato vessels, were continously becoming hazardous to the point of collision. Risk that could only escalate into conflict. Conflict occurring as Ukraine sought to join Nato and armament continued threatening Russian infrastructure. Without further debating any other separatist Oblasts.

Of course Ukraine has its own security concerns, and costal issues. Although they are largely irrelevant. Without Nato expansion, and by neutrality, it wouldn't have occured to the level of the current conflict.

It would be unheard of for this not to have escalated anywhere else globally. It was inevitable. Simple consequence.

It doesn't mean I am Russian. But war was obvious.