- May 27, 2017
- 20,213
- 26,537
The west would rather have Russia's vast resources for free than pay for them in trade agreements.And?
The logic you're following is 19th century imperialism, which led to colonization. There are more efficient ways to get access to the resources you need than creating vassal states/colonies (which, BTW, didn't work well for imperialistic France, Britain, Spain, and Portugal).
I just don't know why so many of you here choose to forget that before the attempts to expand Russian territory became obvious, the West willingly traded with Russia, to the point where European nations made Moscow a strategic partner by relying on their energy: Germany closed down its nuclear power plants and relied on Russian gas in their plan to transition to renewables. The UK overlooked the multiple assassinations Russian agents perpetrated on its territory for the sake of this economic relationship. All of Europe overlooked Russian intervention in Georgia because of they cared more about making Russia an economic partner. Putin decided otherwise.
Nobody with sense wants to go back to the days where geographical expansion was considered a valid geopolitical strategy. That alone is why opposing Russian actions in Ukraine is the moral position to take. Humanity suffered through 2 great wars because of it.
No one cared about Georgia because it's not of strategic importance. Britain didn't care about assassination attempts because they were on russian asylum seekers not the royal family or members of parliament.
This is a game of chess that most can't comprehend. The west dangled NATO membership like a carrot to Ukraine. They wanted to build missile bases in Ukraine and obviously the Russians weren't going to allow that the same way the US wasn't going to allow the soviet missile base in Cuba.