Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
Very interesting thread for foreign policy buffs looking at bi-partisan commentary on some of the missteps that led us to where we are.
Dont get me wrong, Putin is bat-#### insane, but many strategists on both sides had some very grave predictions on this very scenario occurring given some of the NATO moves in the late 1990s and then further posturing since then. Interesting read seeing the predictions and regrets from those directly involved in the decisions.
|
It's not bi-partisan as much as it is apologetic for Russia's insanity. The existential threat is their own imperialism and the inter-generational trauma they caused to pretty much every country they ruled in the past 100 years. These talking heads offer no insight as to why all of these European post-Soviet and post-Warsaw Pact countries used NATO as a shoulder to cry on as soon as they became free. With the exception of Belarus I guess, which is objectively weird and broken.
All of their arguments are that NATO should not expand because Russia is an insecure hyper nationalist state that we should tip toe around. Sorry, but Russia should get to decide whether or not their neighbours deserve protection from them. NATO has never shown an interest on taking Russian land, but Russia has a long history of taking countries that are in NATO. Bowing to their whims shouldn't be the goal.