In the 1990s, Russia being a total mess 'proved' that NATO was needed. Russia attacking a fake country like Ukraine 'proves' that NATO is needed. And Russia trying to prevent itself from being further encircled by NATO will also 'prove' that NATO is needed.
I actually agree, but NATO needs to stay out of former Soviet Republics and Finland. This can only create trouble where none exists.
If Russia bought its time, NATO would have dissolved in a few decades.
I doubt that very much. Like I said, NATO was expanding even when Russia was doing nothing. Furthermore, dissolving NATO is also not the best idea, as something like a German rearmament would surely lead France and the UK to feel threatened.
Staying out of former soviet republics just guarantees that Russia can do to them what is doing to Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine.
Germany was also cutting backs in costs of their army. Everyone was. They weren't even bothering in paying nato, which made Trump visit them and force them to pay up.
Staying out of former soviet republics just guarantees that Russia can do to them what is doing to Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine.
Nothing at all? Georgia picked a fight with Russia and got predictably crushed, because Darth Cheney told them that the Empire of Lies would support them, and Bush had a rare moment of lucidity and decided against it (allegedly).
Ukraine and Moldova, I'm not getting into that, but the Russian actions there are not exactly unreasonable. What is unreasonable is risking nuclear war over a tiny, belligerent country like Lithuania or Latvia, which now feels comfortable making second-class citizens of 40% of its population.
Germany was also cutting backs in costs of their army. Everyone was. They weren't even bothering in paying nato, which made Trump visit them and force them to pay up.
Let's be real, it's never going to be used. And cutting back is not going to be permanent. At some point supposing that NATO were canceled, some country would decide to rearm, for whatever reason, and other countries would face the security dilemma. And we would be in big trouble again.
One could say the same for Poland, it gives them reason to invade Belarus and Kaliningrad, since Belarus is an insignificant beligerent country. Since they seem to have made many of its citizens second class. One could also say the same for Finland invading Russia and getting back some of its lost territory.
It opens up a whole can of worms.
Maybe in the far future they would rearm. But NATO would be gone and putin would have had his wishes made.
In the 1990s, Russia being a total mess 'proved' that NATO was needed. Russia attacking a fake country like Ukraine 'proves' that NATO is needed. And Russia trying to prevent itself from being further encircled by NATO will also 'prove' that NATO is needed.
I actually agree, but NATO needs to stay out of former Soviet Republics and Finland. This can only create trouble where none exists.
I doubt that very much. Like I said, NATO was expanding even when Russia was doing nothing. Furthermore, dissolving NATO is also not the best idea, as something like a German rearmament would surely lead France and the UK to feel threatened.
Staying out of former soviet republics just guarantees that Russia can do to them what is doing to Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine.
Germany was also cutting backs in costs of their army. Everyone was. They weren't even bothering in paying nato, which made Trump visit them and force them to pay up.
Nothing at all? Georgia picked a fight with Russia and got predictably crushed, because Darth Cheney told them that the Empire of Lies would support them, and Bush had a rare moment of lucidity and decided against it (allegedly).
Ukraine and Moldova, I'm not getting into that, but the Russian actions there are not exactly unreasonable. What is unreasonable is risking nuclear war over a tiny, belligerent country like Lithuania or Latvia, which now feels comfortable making second-class citizens of 40% of its population.
Let's be real, it's never going to be used. And cutting back is not going to be permanent. At some point supposing that NATO were canceled, some country would decide to rearm, for whatever reason, and other countries would face the security dilemma. And we would be in big trouble again.
One could say the same for Poland, it gives them reason to invade Belarus and Kaliningrad, since Belarus is an insignificant beligerent country. Since they seem to have made many of its citizens second class. One could also say the same for Finland invading Russia and getting back some of its lost territory.
It opens up a whole can of worms.
Maybe in the far future they would rearm. But NATO would be gone and putin would have had his wishes made.
This will enlighten you why Russia is acting the way it is. https://de.style.yahoo.com/style/35-jahren-gab-helmut-schmidt-085800674.html