Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
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.
|
If you read the thread, the posts are all historical and no one is an apologist for Russia. No one is saying Putin is right or Russia is valid in their attack, they're just warning that this might happen in the future, and that Russian policy and political class was such that Ukraine was a bright-line and if you crossed it, this might happen.
They point out there were alternative paths historically that some view that might have avoided bloodshed. The fact you have people involved in the decisions regretting the choices made, is quite interesting.