Why Does Russia Hate the West (and NATO) - TLDR News

A lot of the current dispute between Russia and Ukraine boils down to Putin's dislike of NATO - so we thought it was worth unpacking why Russia hates NATO so much and what this means for the stability of the continent.

TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.

TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!

////////////////////////////////////////

18 - NATO AND RUSSIA: A VIEW FROM MOSCOW; Sergey Rogov

00:00 Introduction
00:45 Disclaimers
01:23 How Russia Sees NATO
01:58 "NATO is Not Purely Defensive"
02:46 NATO and Kosovo
04:45 NATO and Libya
06:52 "NATO is a Political & Cultural Project"
08:22 "NATO Continues Anti-Russian Policies"
10:00 Conclusion

[IsYitzach]

"If you're enjoying our coverage of these on going tensions..." I can't say that I'm enjoying the coverage. It's quite depressing actually. But the work is quality and worth a subscription.

[srashidi]

'NATO requires the members to uphold the rule of law, civil rights, and democracy.'
Are we pretending to ignore that Turkey is NONE of that? lol

[ElzariusUnity]

Here's a little insight, into why Putin has such a large base of anti-western supporters among the 35+ population.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the USA was not ready for it. It was not expected. So when Yeltsin became the leader of the newly formed Russian Federation and invited western advisors to help boost his own position, they didn't have a real plan. They had no teams prepared, plans worked out, so they swarmed the Russian government with anyone they can get their hands on. My aunt who worked in the government at the time says that sometimes English would drone out Russian in the office.

Problems were, that:
1) Without a plan, all western advisors had was basic advice, not grounded in the reality of post-collapse Russia.
2 (and much much bigger) Yeltsin was power-hungry, corrupt, and incompetent.

They told him to privatize the economy. He set up a system that allowed his allies to rob the nation blind.
They told him to decentralize the state. He turned regions into private fiefdoms for his friends can rule like little tyrants, dismantling whatever structures USSR had to reign in such people.
And so on, and so forth.

The Dashing 90s. People were starving, living in complete poverty, and in a state of constant terror. Police and government worked for hand in hand with organized crime. All while that drunk idiot and his oligarch friends were selling anything of worth for scrap metal. And the American shadow was one step behind them.

And so many countries were "assisted" by the West after USSR's collapse. Why did so many easily transition, while Russians had to fear for the lives of their children? In the Soviet Union, you can keep doors unlocked! Now you have to barricade it at night.

The West chained itself to Yeltsin and his actions.
West=Yeltsin=90s.

What's more believable? That Western powers fucked up and failed to see who they were jumping into the bed with? Or that they used that drunken fool in an attempt to permanently nail the Soviet coffin shut?
I'll hint - people don't think the American government was stupid.

This post-90s generation will always support anyone who antagonizes against the West because they had a taste of "western values", and they did not like it. Nostalgic on everything good that the USSR had and seeping the misery of the 90s, they will burn Putin at the stake if he so much as hint at western cooperation. Until they become a complete minority, I don't think we can get over with this 20th-century shadow.

[luisapareja]

Thank you so much for this video, it's great to be able to understand their point of view, specially when I feel like the argument of "Russia is the bad guy just because" has been the only thing I've heard since forever, I don't think there's objectivity in media. Of course I don't agree with everything Russia has done, but it's nice to have perspective.

[ScuffTuff]

Russia only being invaded 5 times in the past 500 years is kinda impressive given it’s Europe and everyone was invading everyone.

[nocturnenugget]

Great video, and like you said in the last point, Russia fears a repeat of all of the western invasions. However the West has also always feared Russian domination, which is why the UK and France both intervined in the Crimean war in the 1800s, as it was to prevent Russia from growing too powerful and dominating all of mainland Europe. It's been a mutual cycle of fear, as Winston Churchill said "in politics no enemies nor allies are permanent, only interests are" or something along those lines, Russian interests have always been to protect the russian heartland by pushing the frontier further west, while European powers always wanted to contain Russia before it swallowed all of Europe

[antonlubichart]

Just a little fact: one of the first things that Putin did when he became a president of Russia was asking NATO to let Russia be a part of it. NATO denied his request. If you want to know more, consider watching this "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin".

FIY: I'm not pro-Putin, I just want peace in the world.

[jaye]

Libya and Kosovo indeed represent questionable examples of Nato interventions. Still these countries were not subject to any expansion plan; the worst part is that they are left to themselves, so mistakes were certainly made. But Syria is not in better shape despite the non-intervention.

In the meanwhile, Ukraine's territory has already been invaded and we are now talking about a large scale occupation from Russia. Belarus is practically already under Russia's rule.

I see the expansion theory being applied only by one side in recent history and it's not Europe.

[patrickstar]

Honestly 5 invasions in over 400 years is not that much for an European country. France got invaded more in less time.

[tolcreator]

In your map of NATO countries, you include the Republic of Ireland. Ireland is not a NATO member.

[Coffee]

*"Invasion looks likelier than ever."*

Well, that aged pretty good.

[mathieugariepy]

Experts or not, your channel seems genuinely concerned with providing acurate and unbiased information. I'm subscribing!

[danielconde]

Well, when Portugal entered NATO in 1949 we weren't exactly a Democracy delight... not until 1974.

[haiiro]

I'm unfamiliar with the legal contents of the UN Libya inquiry but would like to to add that Russia was hardly alone in its criticism. While there was some initial support for a no-fly-zone, both the Arab League and the African Union, as well as the BRICS countries, soon condemned NATO's subsequent broader bombing campaign.

[daniell]

As a US citizen, I come out of this video somewhat surprised to see that the Russian perspective isn't entirely without merit. I think it is unreasonable for Russia to hold three centuries' worth of history against the modern political climate, however. I mean, counting back to Napoleon's invasion as a demonstration of the modern world? Madness.

[izdagrimeyone]

Bravo, this is one of the few times I heard both sides of a story. I'm officially subscribed

[noradrenalin]

Russia: NATO is a political and cultural project.
Turkey: I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

[theotherandrew]

What NATO says, in its self description, and what NATO does, and it's members try to do, are not the same.

[l.matthewblancett]

i like how this describes how russia feels so invaded by Europe historically but fails to mention russias CONSTANT invasions of poland going back a thousand years.

[wezlo]

Subscribed... Only channel I've seen giving the other side's viewpoint.
Top job just need to go see if all this is correct now. 👍