Fear is why Finland allied with the Nazis.
Fear is why the Soviet Union also signed a pact with the Nazis and invaded Ukraine.
It's easy to justify anything with fear.
The other one is about 300 sqkm with 5 million people.
When in doubt, use basic logic.
Your argument is the same as Iraq being a realistic threat against the US.
Also, list of Russian neighbors not threatened or invaded by Russia:
Belarus (pushed into a sort of union state)
China (too big)
Japan (I think)
Mongolia (I think)
Azerbaijan (I think)
List of neighbors threatened or invaded by Russia:
Ukraine
Georgia
Moldova (Transnistria occupied since 1991)
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Finland
Poland
Your argument appears to be that your enemy's fear driven by losing 27 million people during an invasion/war of extermination is exactly equivalent to your country's fear of weapons that were imagined solely for the purposes of justifying an invasion.
My argument was that it is quite easy to get a domestic population to treat all of the enemy's legitimate fears as utterly irrelevant while treating bullshit domestic fears as existential.
In a way I think you helped make this point for me by forgetting about those 27 million deaths.
If only there was a reason for this.
It's more of mystery why particular kinds of westerners are especially sanctimonious about Moscow while bending over backwards to excuse nearly identical behavior from the west.
Quick essay for 20 points, those countries all decided to join NATO BEFORE Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan.
WHY did they decide to try to join NATO? Who were they running away from and why?
The lie was laid bare once they were actually attacked. Article 5 protections - the only reason they are fighting this war - came off the table as soon as it became clear that the rival gang wasn't going to be taken down.
Quick essay for 30 points: write to a grieving mother campaigining against gangs explaining why even though her son joined the crips for protection and got murdered by a blood in the initiation phase, she needs to STFU about kids staying out of gangs. The reason is simple: she needs to STFU because several other 14 year olds who joined the crips for the promise of protection haven't yet had that promise tested.
The Western alliance is doing some horrible things worldwide, but your point of view regarding Eastern Europe is horribly mistaken. I'm fairly sure you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're probably not from there. I'd basically classify you as a tankie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
I'm doubly going to classify you as a tankie as you're dodging the question of WHO Eastern Europe was running from (and WHY).
Also another quick essay for 40 points: who has voluntarily joined Russian led alliances (except for Armenia, which is currently reconsidering its life choices).
If we were having this argument inside the Soviet Union in 1968 you'd be calling me different slurs for an identical reason - because I wouldnt have supported sending the tanks into czechoslovakia. and you would, coz your calculus is "my empire justified, other empire unjustified".
This isnt any different to when I was called a Tankie in 2003 coz I didnt want to send the tanks in to Baghdad by people who accused me of being pro Saddam.
You apparently dont have the capacity to see pacifism, only traitors.
Wary? Yes.
Seems Necessary given current circumstances.
(After peace comes, and enough time passes, someday, we will be friends again)
You've missed a few significant figures there, Finland's area is: 338145 km2
And your idea is that they had zero reason to fear invasion from the west? Even though that is precisely what happened just a few years later?
It is totally ahistoric to pin any actions of USSR on fear or just reaction to external events. If WWII was continuation of WWI (in my and many opinion it was) both Germany and USRR were revanchist powers that wanted to reverse outcome of WWI. Many forgot that Russia later USSR lost WWI badly. Plus Stalin after very, very, bloody consolidation of power in 30ties was ready (in fact it was imperative for regime stability) to start outward aggression/expansion.
Furthermore historian believe that Stalin knew that confrontation w/ Germany is inevitable but (more popular opinion) was estimating it will happen one year later at least or (less popular, even fringe opinion) was amassing forces to attack Germany and was cough by Nazis w/ "pants down". Either scenario would be explanation for initial successes of Operation Barbarossa.
Fun fact - last train with grain from USSR to Germany crossed border few minutes before start of Operation Barbarossa.
In summary - Soviets and Nazis were allies till 1941 - both parties know it was tactical alliance not unlike USSR - GB/USA against Germany and at the very end Japan. Note that after WWII there was cold war between former allies - not unlike like hot war between former alliance parties of Nazis and Soviets.
Second fun fact: Orwell's "oceania was always at war with eastasia" from 1984 is direct reference to how alliances were changing during WWII.
...two years after Molotov Ribbentrop.
If they had nothing to worry about Japan it logically follows that they had nothing to worry about Hitler either as was shown by the Molotov Ribbentrop pact.
In 1939 the Soviet military was a disaster, also. It's difficult to overstate just how exposed they were.
>Furthermore historian believe that Stalin knew that confrontation w/ Germany is inevitable
They were right to be afraid.
>In summary - Soviets and Nazis were allies till 1941 -
In summary, out of fear which was entirely legitimate. Fun fact: the only difference between them and Finland is that Finland gets excused for allying to Hitler out of fear by its western allies.
... or maybe because Fins got invaded by Soviets.
Just like fear of "greater finland" made the Soviets invade in the first place.
It's fear all the way down. The only difference is the validity of those fears. Obviously your country's enemies' fears were always invalid while your country's allies' fears were always justified.
And the fear of Poland made the Nazis invade Poland, right?
Their propaganda no doubt presented things this way, but that was far from the truth. Much like Nazis had to stage a Polish attack on German radio station[1] to justify their invasion of Poland, the USSR had to fabricate the shelling of Mainila[2] to justify the invasion of Finland, because neither Poland nor Finland were apparently threatening enough on their own.
Russia never went on an extermination drive in order to create an ethnically pure ethnostate.
The biggest western geopolitical mistake of the 2020s is assuming that Israel isnt run by Nazis but Russia is.
>Their propaganda no doubt presented things this way
Every country presents its propaganda in its own way. Pointing that a country that you consider an enemy publishes propaganda without reference to your own serves merely to underscore that accident of birth dictates which flavor of propaganda you believe.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
Small distinction to you perhaps, but to me it's a bit more than just "technical".
Which "fear" prompted the Soviets to invade Romania in 1940? Which "fear" prompted the Soviets to invade Poland in 1939? Which "fear" prompted the Soviets to invade the Baltics in 1940?
Ah, now I remember, the "fear" of not being the premier colonial power.