I'm not saying the USSR was great for eastern europe or anything but it's also unfair to call them aggressors for the couple of times they've resisted this continual inward push from NATO.
Why do so many countries choose to partner with NATO? I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries?
A large number. But then again not nearly as many as the Ottoman Empire, which enslaved 10 million Europeans and brutally occupied a large chunk of Europe. Yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-Turkish sentiment or anti-islamic sentiment in order to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece, which were all under occupation for centuries. And then we have Germany, with its own history of killing and brutality that makes its neighbors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, etc -- weary of German influence and yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-German sentiment in these nations for its own power politics. We could go on, with rivalries between different nations and ethnic groups throughout the region and hurt feelings of past oppression. So yes, the anti-Russian sentiment is real and has a real basis in history, but encouraging and benefiting from these historical animosities is still considered a hostile act.
What are the odds that Germany invades France tomorrow?
What are the odds that Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow?
That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior.
Their reaction to losing it was arguably a defensive reaction rather than an offensive reaction, if you're taking the perspective that Crimea is part of the Russian empire.
How this won't lead to endless conflict is not understandble to me.
The US Constitution is younger than the Russian claims on Crimea and we're going to try and tell them about it? In between sponsoring coups in Latin America and the Middle East whenever we feel it's in our interest?
You are turning this upside down. You are presenting Russia's reaction to NATO expansion as the reason for NATO expansion. It's a circular logic. George Kennan, the architect of the containment policy, has predicted such rhetoric in 1998.
''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. … I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. … It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.
THIS IS JUST WRONG.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n...
The rhetoric of rebuilding its sphere of influence, role in international affairs, regaining its 'colonies' as much as possible is very profitable domestically. As such, it is natural that such former satellite states would wish to protect themselves, i.e. by joining NATO and closer integrating with the EU.
In other words, it seems likely that Russia's foreign policy would be very similar even without NATO expansion. One could argue it would be less aggressive because they would not feel a need to hurry, or more aggressive because they would feel less resistance to their actions. But the general policy trends would likely be very similar.
Perhaps to some extent. The reason for that is that the US took advantage of Russia's weakness in the 90s[0]. There was a lot of admiration for the US in Russia[1], 80% view it positively. Eltsin and Putin were talking about Russia joining NATO[2][3] and a free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok [4]. People in Russia thought they shook of communism, adopted democracy and market economy and were joining happy European family. They were told they don't belong -- most importantly excluded from the common security system. That didn't go too well in a country that remembers that the USSR 50 years before lost 26 million people in an invasion from the West.
"The rhetoric of rebuilding its sphere of influence, role in international affairs, regaining its 'colonies' as much as possible is very profitable domestically."
Where did you get that idea? People in Russia want the government to spend money on improving life standards.
"it seems likely that Russia's foreign policy would be very similar even without NATO expansion"
There is no reason to think so.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the...
[1] https://www.ridl.io/en/russians-changing-attitudes-to-the-us...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20-story.html
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantray...
[4] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-v...
[0] https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploreeconomies/russi...
Have you seen news recently? It is happening every few months. Bulgaria had to call army to secure and enforce borders. There were new barriers installed, Turkey used bulldozers to demolish them.
So the US only knows how to exploit anti USSR sentiment because that's the only sentiment it has institutional knowledge of.
Europe however has multiple millenia of various institutional knowledge and history.
It is fascinating to me how the generations transfer, but these strong institutional and cultural memories continue in such seemingly vivid fashion.
Russia is not entitled to any "sphere of influence" outside its own borders. Personally I would gladly cut Russia out from the rest of the world with 2000 feet tall wall made of ice, so that Russian zombies can't get out.
It's complicated. Russian government is the enemy number one to Russian people, as it's common for autocracies.
Russia did invade Ukraine.
My country was occupied by USSR (aggressors). Now is free and it is not their business anymore. Complayning about that is bullying.
Hundreds of thousands are dead over last 30 years because of Russian invasions. Millions are dislocated. Be it Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova etc.
Russia is burthurt on this, that cannot and should not be the concern of the rest of us.
Why should Western companies not be able to develop the countries bordering Russia if the countries want them to come in?
The problem is that when Western companies come in to Ukraine etc with rules and audits etc, it makes it tougher for the corrupt oligarchs with ties to Russia to operate and extract their wealth through corruption.
If these countries adopt western norms in elections/governance, and adopt western business practices, it leaves very little room for the old corrupt guard of Russia/Soviet origins to operate and squeezes them out of any piece of the pie.
That's why Putin is at odds with it.