It made sense for them, yes. But it makes no sense for us.Whether it made sense for NATO to expand or not is moot, it made sense for those Nations to join NATO. If Russia doesn't like it, that's Russia's problem.
As I said, NATO expansion effectively means that potentially hostile forces are like 1000 miles closer to Moscow than they were during the time of the Soviet Union. That is effectively invading its space and challenging its strategic calculations.It is a simple statement of fact. Please cite an example of Russia's neighbors invading it since the break up of the Soviet Union.
You seem to be contradicting yourself a lot of the time, in reality.As I said, NATO expansion effectively means that potentially hostile forces are like 1000 miles closer to Moscow than they were during the time of the Soviet Union. That is effectively invading its space and challenging its strategic calculations.
It isn't that hard to imagine. The USA went bonkers when Cuba decided to host nuclear missiles. They are a sovereign state, no? They had the right to do whatever they wanted, no? Was the USA wrong to tell Cuba no nuclear missiles?
More like you are so trapped in the PC unreality bubble like the rest of the HRC cliche that you refuse to consider alternate POV. And you are unwilling to contemplate it, a sure sign of the intellectual rigidity which has destroyed the D party.You have not thrown out a single thing as proof for your blithering, and I won't waste my time.
Gee, and both videos contain a pretty vigorous prosecution of Russia and a counter argument. One of the videos contains an argument from Anne Applebaum, one of the foremost Russia critics in the country, unedited, in her own words.You have not thrown out a single valid thing as proof for your blithering, other than a couple YouTube videos, so I won't waste my time.
Don't deny that, except to say that neither you or I read Russian and understand it. In terms of priorities, cooperation with Russia as it is is necessary for our mutual security and prosperity, and waging ideological half-thought out battles is counter to that goal.Vlad Putin has had political opponents arrested on trumped up tax charges, jailed for several years. Others have been killed, including a reporter. TV stations have been taken over by force, including Russia's largest social media platform VK.COM for opposing Putin (they were sold to units of GAZPROM, Russia's largest energy concern worth hundreds of billions...and Putin secretly owns a large piece of it). He is pretty evil.
However, we have to deal with Vlad Putin because he will likely be its dictator for life.
Uh, what? if you're asserting that this guy was a victim of Putin...you're dead dead wrong. If anything, Washington ideologues have a tendency to pin the wildest Alex Jones level conspiracy theories against Putin. The latest I read in the Daily Beast somehow thinks that Putin created Islamic terrorism.
As I said, I paid more attention to China before Russia. The stuff China does is more extreme than these stories of Russia.Interesting how the op starts a thread asking for info and then proceeds to shoot everything down as some form of liberal propaganda. Guess this really was a troll thread. Thumbs up op.
As I said, I paid more attention to China before Russia. The stuff China does is more extreme than these stories of Russia.
Really? The people of Tibet, India, Vietnam, Inner Mongolia would highly disagree with you. And this is just from the time of creation of commie china since 1949 and not just from way back when (you do know that originally, china was just about 1/3 of its current size, right?).Last I checked, China hasnt invaded any official territory of other countries yet.