Unlike NATO, Russia has a history of inveterate truculence towards its neighbouring nations and territories, and many of those nations were understandably cautious, even wary about that after having been freed from the Soviet shackles, and naturally sought to protect themselves from that aggression and dominance. No country entered NATO under duress, each did so as a defensive act, and with an abundance of prudence and caution in order to protect itself. Just as Sweden and Finland did in 2022.
Russia had several options about how to respond to that landscape at the turn of the century (which I’d say was a key inflection point) through the prism of much greater trading links with Europe than in Soviet times and yet it chose to enter into a conscious pattern of disruption evolving into sabotage and the naked aggression we see today. You clearly feel this pattern wasn’t inevitable, but history strongly suggests otherwise.
Is it possible that Russia would have taken a different path had the west handled things differently in the ‘90s? I have to concede ‘yes’ to that question, but given its history, innate superiority complex, inveterate paranoia, and tellingly, its manifest track record over the last 25 years, including disseminating radioactive material in English cities, I’d say the odds overwhelmingly point towards the policy of defensive caution being the correct one.
Your suggested approach involved taking an unwarranted and reckless risk, mine is founded in experience and caution, which strongly suggests yours is the simplistic one, not mine.
Like I said Russia are cunts, and the expanse of NATO is a natural reaction to that. And is there a particular time in Russian history you’d like to point to in order to refute that statement?
1. Let's go back to the fundamental reason why NATO exist here. It's not for European protection. It's for the maintenance of strategic American hegemony in Europe, under the guise of security protection. Even Trump knows this, because if he didn't, a request to withdraw would've been made in his first term.
If Europe wanted to collectively protect themselves from Russia they could, and would develop sufficient independent capability. The US doesn't keep its second largest foreign troop contingent in Germany because Germany cannot develop its own troops - it does so because that's the deal that came out of WW2 and European settlement. The only reason why Europe presently relies on the US to lead in Ukraine is because the US ensured Europe would be reliant on them.
Russia must be kept as a permanent threat to Europe by the US, real or fake, because it has to justify NATO's continued existence. It grew because the US have WANTED it to expand. Countries did not have to join under duress - the US knew if it worked towards obtaining a critical mass and kept the bogeyman alive in the rearview mirror, smaller states would feel no option but to join or risk because stranded alone on an island. This itself is a form of coercion.
2. Let's expand on your line of though. Should we have taken the same hawkish approach towards Germany post the Third Reich, after it took two world wars to settle the country's status?
If the US had isolated Germany and Japan in the same way that it has Russia post Soviet Union, with no discernible attempt to help integrate it regionally and globally, what would their posture be towards the US and the West?
----
Reverting to the original topic - the US now has the chance to open the gate and try and integrate Iran in the international community, instead of leaving it in a state of near permanent isolation. Carrot and stick, instead of just the stick.
Perhaps you may also consider this an 'unwarranted and reckless' risk, since plenty consider Iran a danger and cunts to boot; I consider it necessary diplomacy and global leadership. All sanctions have done to Iran is strengthen the IRGC's position and chokehold on power internally, leaving their middle class unable to grow and push for political change.
Does the US have it in them? I don't know. At this point, I doubt it. Their arrogance and fear of China are driving these global entanglements.
