Comment by brabel
4 hours ago
Do you think openly saying any country that wants to join NATO, except the enemy, Russia, is welcome and will be accepted in due time, as they did with Georgia and Ukraine, and many others a decade earlier, despite USSR having left without blood the territories they had held since they obtained them after the bloodiest war in history, in which they came out victorious at enormous cost, does not constitute a threat? You can only think that if you buy the argument that NATO is purely for self defense, now and forever. Would you buy that argument if NATO ‘s guns were pointing directly at you? Even if you were right , is the risk you may be wrong acceptable when it comes to your national security?
Context matters a lot.
You insert subtle hints of USSR/Russia being benevolent or good. (“Left without blood”, “victorious at enormous cost”)
This context is not real. There was blood since ww2. And major part of that ww2 cost you mentioned, was actually paid by Ukraine itself.
Countries joining NATO, did so not because they want to conquer Russia. (Are you proposing that Estonia wants to conquer Russia?)
Up until recently, European defence budgets were laughable. If decisions would be done based on actual risk analysis, it would be clear that NATO was not threatning to attack.
> Even if you were right , is the risk you may be wrong acceptable when it comes to your national security?
Yes, for Russia it will always be beneficial that all its neighbours are weak puppet states.
I concede all events in history (incl. Ukraine invitation) do lead us to this moment. But this is a bit of nitpicking, everybody see who is the psycho and everybody must deal with it.