Nostr Web Client

Got my dates wrong. This is from 2008 I guess:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

Yes but in 1994 people were already speculating that NATO expanding into the no-mans-land would be seen by Russia as aggression, as Jack Matlock says in this video I posted recently which was a conversation that happened on the day of the Budapest Memorandum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8

Because NATO is not an economic union, but a miliary one. And while military unions are defensive in nature, enemy nations can't be sure of that (it's called the security dilemma). And NATO weaponry went into these countries, which even Kissinger (who was pro NATO expansion) argued we shouldn't do.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

HoloKat 10mo ago

It makes sense. US wouldn’t tolerate Russia or China building up anti ballistic defense systems in Canada or Mexico or even South America. It’s strange that some think that only applies to us.

LuisSP 10mo ago

military brass often take the security dilemma even more seriously by thinking ahead of the politically foreseable future into geographical imperatives.

A = Russia's mindset for centuries has been to have a large buffer because the plains are hard to defend.

B = Now suppose for the sake of argument, as premises, that NATO is 100% defensive and so russophile that there is 0% chance that anything bad to russia happens in the foreseable future given current leaders and politics.

A + B => fine, but if UA is in NATO, how would russia be sure these premises would hold 30 or 50 years in the future? They have to stop it now, anyway, to avoid a future existential threat. They said repeteadly that UA in NATO would be a red line. Right or wrong, they see it as a threat, with some reason.