• HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Russia wasn’t exactly a bastion of stability at that era, especially as Shock Therapy economics absolutely destroyed the country.

    Additionally, all these other countries that wanted into NATO vehemently hated Russia for years of occupation. They’d probably have been far more hesitant to join if Russia was in there.

    Not saying there wasn’t malice on the side of the West, but at no point in NATO’s existence had inviting Russia into the fold made any strategic sense.

    • plyth@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      at no point in NATO’s existence had inviting Russia into the fold made any strategic sense.

      Nato after 1991 also didn’t make strategic sense with a crumbled Russia.

      What about all other countries not being part of a strong military alliance? Why do only the most prosperous and strong countries feel threatened?

      Either dissolving Nato or inviting Russia would have created the opportunity to fully implement the idea of the UN and leave conflicts behind.

      The problem is that we also have Capitalism. The UN doesn’t limit the power of billionaires. That’s fine within the West but the Russians must have objected to being treated like any weak economy. This should be the actual reason why Russia is not part of Nato.

      • HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Nato after 1991 also didn’t make strategic sense with a crumbled Russia.

        1. Russia still had plenty of leadership and factions that held animosity towards the West.

        2. Russia still had nukes.

        3. You act like all was clear and settled after the USSR collapsed. It wasn’t. It was an era of uncertainty, especially with the aforementioned unstable Russia.

        Why abandon the military alliance when you don’t know if the enemy is truly gone?

        What about all other countries not being part of a strong military alliance? Why do only the most prosperous and strong countries feel threatened?

        Are you a child? You understand the geopolitical situation for North America and Europe isn’t gonna be exactly the same as, say, Ecuador, right?.

        Either dissolving Nato or inviting Russia would have created the opportunity to fully implement the idea of the UN and leave conflicts behind.

        That is a laughable fantasy.

        Russia didn’t turn to fascism under Putin because NATO exists. Russia also doesn’t invade its neighbors just because NATO exists.

        Russia does this shit because the Russian gov is imperialist and lead by a dictator. Placing Russia in NATO would most certainly created a greater clusterfuck when they inevitably turned fascist and started invading its neighbors.

        The problem is that we also have Capitalism. The UN doesn’t limit the power of billionaires. That’s fine within the West

        The west is actively facing a striking rise in fascism not dissimilar to how it happened in Russia because of capitalism and billionaires.

        but the Russians must have objected to being treated like any weak economy. This should be the actual reason why Russia is not part of Nato.

        Idk what you’re even trying to say here

        • plyth@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Why abandon the military alliance when you don’t know if the enemy is truly gone?

          To build trust.

          Russia does this shit because the Russian gov is imperialist

          Russia is also the prize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

          but the Russians must have objected to being treated like any weak economy. This should be the actual reason why Russia is not part of Nato.

          Idk what you’re even trying to say here

          Suggesting that they wouldn’t dismantle their power to the point that they get a regime change for independent politics like nationalizing the oil industry.

          • HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 minutes ago

            To build trust.

            This is a common bullshit stance Russia apologists love to take.

            Why is the burden of building trust on NATO when Russia had just gotten done occupying and oppressing half of Europe?

            You understand nearly every single European country under the Iron Curtain wanted to diplomatically run to the West because of how fucking awful Russia was to them, right?

            Russia is also the prize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

            Ok rather than just slapping a reference and link to an entire article, why don’t you articulate the point you’re trying to get across than making me read through that entire thing to find your point?

            Suggesting that they wouldn’t dismantle their power to the point that they get a regime change for independent politics like nationalizing the oil industry.

            If you’re claiming Russia’s atrocities against Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, (and everywhere they’ve sent the Nazi mercs Wagner is all to keep power, you’re insane.

      • ZMoney@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Right, once you have a global alliance that includes every nation there’s no reason for that alliance to exist. Or standing armies. Or nuclear submarines. You can’t ever let people get to the point where they start to question the need for mindless death instruments and the psychopaths who wield them.