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.
Why is the burden of building trust on NATO when Russia had just gotten done occupying and oppressing half of Europe?
There is no obligation for it. It would just have been the complementary option to including Russia into Nato. The chosen third option has led to where we are now.
why don’t you articulate the point you’re trying to get across
The US have an interest in keeping Russia small. Some actions can also be explained by Russia trying to limit external influence.
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.
Maybe I am insane but I didn’t make that claim. Maintaining some level of power that is too much for Nato membership doesn’t imply offensive actions. Furthermore these involvements came after the window for Nato membership.
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.
There is no obligation for it. It would just have been the complementary option to including Russia into Nato. The chosen third option has led to where we are now.
The US have an interest in keeping Russia small. Some actions can also be explained by Russia trying to limit external influence.
Maybe I am insane but I didn’t make that claim. Maintaining some level of power that is too much for Nato membership doesn’t imply offensive actions. Furthermore these involvements came after the window for Nato membership.