Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

First: Russia lost the territory in 1989 (Warsaw Pact) and 1991 (breakup of USSR). It hasn't lost any Russian territory since, or was it in any danger of doing so. It was (and is) in danger of losing influence over territory that is not Russia's, but nobody was going to invade Russia to steal territory.

But the way you and Russia talk about it shows that they still consider that to be their territory, even though it is now a different country. That attitude leads Russia to think they have a right to meddle in their former territory.

Second: Why did those countries join NATO? Because NATO held a gun to their head and told them they have to join? No, because Russia kept talking and acting in ways that made them afraid that they were going to get pressured, meddled with, invaded, and/or annexed. They wanted something bigger than their own military to protect them, so they pushed to join NATO.

All of which leaves Russia feeling surrounded and encroached upon. But the cause of that has been the Russian habit of trying to treat former territory as still their own, rather than the evil machinations of the West.

> You can't mandate that people should buy bratwurst, or read Horace

of course you can. Do you know why the Breton language in France is reduced to 200k speakers and the Académie française gets to determine how French is spoken? Because the state stamped out every regional language during the creation of the Republic, and that was that.

Are the native cultures of the new world almost gone because they're worse cultures? No, it's because they were defenseless. Did Chrisitanity and Islam spread because they "worked?" No, they were spread by sword or settlement.

China's experiment isn't new, it's not even an experiment really. how do you think the Romanization of large parts of the old world happened, or the Russification of much of Eastern Europe? Is Finland 'idiotic' for defending its culture? Are they actually just living in a worse culture and haven't realised it yet?

What a terrible might makes right logic.

What are you even talking about? Elaborate please.

It's not that simple. You'll want to look at GDP/capita to compare countries in general.

My point is a different one though: If Turkey joined the EU, it wouldn't be a net contributor, it would get huge subsidies from the EU. As such, it wouldn't benefit the EU economically, and it would be a disaster politically. It may be nice for some private companies to get easier access to a new market, but the price would be much too high, and I'm fairly certain that the EU would not survive Turkey as a member state.

You can call it what you like, Russian statesmen and elites thought of many of these territories as Russian. Ukraine above all. Lots of these regions had been part of Russian empire for 100s of years. Some still have Russian military bases and space ports in them and some speak Russian.

Russia has lots 'non-Russian' regions inside of its border that they also think are part of Russia.

> But the way you and Russia talk about it shows that they still consider that to be their territory, even though it is now a different country. That attitude leads Russia to think they have a right to meddle in their former territory.

I'm explaining wat the Russian perspective is, I'm not taking Russia side.

Yes they do. Like literally ever great or regional power does. US literally claims dominance over a gigantic region, basically half the world. See what happens when China tries to put Mexico under a nuclear umbrella.

These issues need to be considered in diplomacy.

> Second: Why did those countries join NATO? Because NATO held a gun to their head and told them they have to join? No, because Russia kept talking and acting in ways that made them afraid that they were going to get pressured, meddled with, invaded, and/or annexed. They wanted something bigger than their own military to protect them, so they pushed to join NATO.

I agree. Where did I deny that? Of course these countries want foreign protection. They are well aware of their own weakness.

But just because somebody ask me to fight for them, doesn't mean its a good idea for me to do so. Maybe they would be better helped with other kinds of support.

> All of which leaves Russia feeling surrounded and encroached upon. But the cause of that has been the Russian habit of trying to treat former territory as still their own, rather than the evil machinations of the West.

Any power would respond when you try to literally surround it with a nuclear umbrella.

The West pushed and pushed NATO further East, and that's a fine strategy for them and certainty made some amount of sense even if Russia didn't like it. But at some point you need to realize that Russia was gone respond if you take it to far.

The Russians quite strategically invaded Georgia to make it impossible for them to join NATO. The reason they did that was quite clearly to stop the Eastward expansion of NATO. They had over, and over and over again in negotiation said that extending NATO into Ukraine and Georgia was a vital interest for them. In a way that it wasn't with the Baltic's for example.

And again, I'm not 'on the side of Russia'. But when you are talking about practical diplomacy, I think the Western powers miscalculated. Georgia under NATO was a terrible idea. Giving Ukraine hope to be in the EU is an equally terrible idea. Not just because of Russian response, but for other reasons as well.

Blocking NATO expansion to Georgia and annexing Crima were simple sensible policies that should have surprised nobody. But they don't represent a massively expansionist policy on Russia part. I think Russia knows they can't really do that.