Nato after 1991 also didn’t make strategic sense with a crumbled Russia.
Russia still had plenty of leadership and factions that held animosity towards the West.
Russia still had nukes.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Russia still had plenty of leadership and factions that held animosity towards the West.
Russia still had nukes.
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?
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?.
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 west is actively facing a striking rise in fascism not dissimilar to how it happened in Russia because of capitalism and billionaires.
Idk what you’re even trying to say here
To build trust.
Russia is also the prize. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
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.
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?
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?
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.