> And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago.
The invasion plan crumbled before Ukraine got any foreign aid worth mentioning. The airborne attack of Hostomel airport was successfully repelled, leading to failure to capture Kyiv, leading to failure to decapitate the military command structure, leading to successful coordinated counterattacks on the overstretched invasion force.
Five years and 1.5 million casualties later, Russia has still not managed to recover where it was a few weeks into the war, because it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
> That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted".
> And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war?
> I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar
Russian war correspondents openly ridicule such statements, as well as comments like yours, according to which everything in Ukraine has already been blown up five times over. Yet the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Russian official recruitment target is 34k soldiers per month, of which about 29k gets filled. Losses have been 37k this month, expected to reach 50k by the end. Territorial gains since the start of the summer, the most advantageous time of the year, have been 180 sq km in total, which is a rounding error in a country of 603 000 sq km. The numbers speak for themselves.
> The only reason Finland retains its independence, government and armed forces is because the pragmatic Finnish leaders capitulated to Russian security concerns, agreeing to all their terms.
All four got ultimatums demanding military bases on their soil to satisfy Russian "security concerns". Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania accepted the demands. Those bases were then used as staging areas for overthrowing national governments and installing puppet regimes loyal to Moscow that unleashed widespread terror against the local population to keep them under control. These oppressive puppet governments survived for half a century, until the end of the USSR. Latvia suffered the most. By the end of the 1980s, Latvians were on the verge of becoming a minority in their own country due to resettlement policies of Russians into Latvia.
Finland was the only one that refused the demands and took up arms and gained a victory by remaining independent instead of following the tragedy of its southern neighbors.
This is why Russian "security concerns" is not a phrase anyone can take seriously in North-Eastern Europe. Everyone's already seen what it means. Talking about Russian "security concerns" in a serious tone is like walking around with a giant "IDIOT" painted on your forehead.
> As for Putin's comment on Poland and Hitler, the context was that Poland had helped Hitler and Germany in the division of Czechoslovakia, but when the Poles refused to give up the Danzig corridor, Hitler, who looked down at the Poles, decided to make an example of them and attack them.
Hitler was ideologically motivated to conquer Europe using North American westward expansion as a model (mixed with German agrarian romanticism), and what Poland did or didn't do had ultimately little importance. Putin, too, has an ideological worldview that was drilled into him at the KGB: the security apparatus mentality of a totalitarian dictatorship, layered on top of a much broader Russian imperialism, which is rooted in centuries of territorial expansion and the subjugation of other peoples. Russia didn't come to span 11 timezones through acts of kindness, you know.