But the decision to apply or not was theirs and other NATO members welcomed them exactly because that was conforming to NATOs values and principles.
Most tellingly, these were countries that were in a similar treaty before with Russia - the Warsaw Pact. The one that crushed the Prague Spring. They knew exactly what the difference between the two treaties were.
It is common practice, after big wars, to negotiate what newly created states can or cannot do, this was done in Europe for centuries (Belgium, Poland were often under such constraints and used as buffer zone between empires).
What treaty are you referring to?
The US has been working on surrounding Russia with NATO states, putting bases and nuclear next to Russia, Russia tried to do the same in Cuba during the cold war but the US did not accept it and was ready to sink the Russian ships, Cuba was "free" to do that but that doesn't matter because the US beleived it's a threat. Now that Russia beleives it's strong enough to face the US on some small issues (the US is still much stronger but not as before) it no longer accepts to have NATO on it's border, especially in Ukraine because historically that's where Russians come from plus it would hurt their access to sea.
Anyways, that's how it looks like for me as a bystander.
... with permission.
I visited Hawaii recently too - they didn’t seem occupied at all.
> "they didn’t seem occupied at all"
all you're saying is that you like the outcome. The fact remains the same though - that territory was occupied, and then annexed, and the government was overthrown by the U.S. military forces.
Not me. The people living under that "occupation".
Putin is pretty much emboldened in playing with the rule of law because the US showed him how to trample international laws for the past 20years (Kosovo, Irak, Libya, Syria). Yeah yeah I know, invading and bombing countries when it's Washington is ok...
It's a military pact that contains both a self defense treaty that goes beyond self defense, as well as purely offensive considerations.
Far more people died in the NATO invasion of Afghanistan than there even are soldiers and militia members in the whole of Ukraine.
Make no mistake, NATO is even more threatening and has dealt more devastation than Russia ever could. NATO has just as few qualms about intervention and far more power and experience in ruining countries than even Russia, and that's saying a lot.
Instead, Russia had to build walls and shoot people to keep them leaving their empire.
You may keep spewing your propaganda - people already know who the bad guys are here.
Imagine taking the fact that some people wanted to leave as an excuse for hundreds of thousands of deaths. You're literally trotting the same line as Putin when he talks about people leaving Eastern Ukraine to go to Russia.
> You may keep spewing your propaganda - people already know who the bad guys are here.
No. Unlike you, I'm being consistent. All you can do is adapt your thought pattern so that your in-group can do no harm, open air slave markets and massacres be damned. You can't get around understanding your in group isn't a saintly force for good even when it burns villages and destroys entire countries, and then you accuse others of spewing propaganda. Truly remarkable.