vinnyt77 if you go back to 1997 and the pact Putin signed with NATO (the NATO- Russian Founding Act) the strategic core of the Act was that NATO pledged it would not deploy “substantial permanent combat forces” in new member states. Since then there’s been a consistent flow and build up of both weapons batteries, new gen missile systems and boots on the ground in what Putin and NATO themselves agreed was “the buffer zone.” - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria, inch by inch, and thats with the addition of multi-national battlegroups and forces that are known as “NATO Force integration units” which are basically special forces operation headquarters that have the VJTF on rapid combat readiness. That whole buffer zone has been transformed. The NATO side argue its part of their charter and broader security planning but its hard to argue that when the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Agreement have literally been torn up, meaning cruise missiles can now be deployed within 1500km of Russia’s borders and open collabaration between NATO and Russian jets for small scale exercises are no longer a thing.
Both sides have legitimate reasons to feel pacts and treaties have been stepped on and both sides have real arguments there, so it comes down to superpowers arguing about who has the right to do what based on their own interpretations of what “security” means for each side at the table. NATO always felt Russia was pushing back and Russia felt they were never getting the best deal.
The reality is that Ukraine are no closer to NATO membership now than they were before the war so that argument about Ukraine joining NATO being an excuse is a clear red herring, if anything it has more to do with Ukraine normalising economic and cultural ties with the EU after 2014, which was seen as a clear provocation by Russia or as some would say, paved the way for a healthier Ukrainian future better than Russia’s. Since then the build up of US advisors, weaponry and logistics in Ukraine by the US has posed the question, are all these militaristic moves helping the security of the region or just throwing petrol on a small fire that could have been resolved with diplomacy?
This nonense about the whole problem simply being because Russia is aggressive and history tells us that, is just a waste of time even engaging in because it lacks core details of work done by many countries over many years that contributed to the spark. I’m of the opinion that this has never been because of one side rather than both and its really stupid to think otherwise. I can certainly see both sides but then it comes down to who has the right to do what. Thats an answer that comes down to your own personal bias though. I really dont think Russia has the right to invade and I really dont think NATO have the right to antagonise veiled as “security”.
