It really makes perfect sense. USA has long history of imperialism and anti-democratic actions. And USA is core of NATO. Any sane country knows that only safe way is to have reasonable buffer zone against such well known aggressor.
A while back, our company hired a difficult to cope with person. There was some social awkwardness. And some performance issues. It's a good sized disciplinary group, but his assigned tasks were most similar to mine. Guess who became the "buffer zone"? Me. It was the worst. When things finally spilled over, there was a larger meeting where issues were finally recognized. I expressed my bitter sweet gladness thusly: "I can't tell you guys how wonderful it feels to no longer have this be my burden and my burden alone. It is such a relief. On the flip side though, why the F** didn't this meeting happen 2 years ago?!?!? I could have laid this all out for you then, but I guess it wasn't bothering you yet, was it?"
I've seen this behavior in church youth groups I've worked with over the years. There's an odd-hard-to-cope with person. The group pushes back against maladaptive behavior. The troubled youth connects with one of the normal kids. And then that kid gets asked to be the problem child's "buddy". And the rest of the group abandons the buddy to suffer it alone.
I volunteered at our state penitentiary for a couple of years. It was interesting experience. On the outside, I would hear "tough on crime" and "three strikes and you're out" and "those people". On the inside... it was complicated, and a different story. A couple of truly evil people, mostly surrounded by people who grew up in crappy situations, were in the wrong place at the right time, and a whole lot of iffy mental health. Same thing. As long as it was somebody else's problem, the "rest of society" could have a happy existence.
Maybe I'm seeing too many similarities where I shouldn't, but I find the whole notion of a "buffer zone" a poli-sci euphemism for "somebody else should have a shitty life so we don't have to".
Buffer zone in this context means Russia doesn't want US missiles and nuclear bombers with a 5 minute flight time to Moscow.
So you think it's OK for Russia to invade the (NATO member) Baltic countries, then?
Russia borders with nato at multiple places. It should leave those places and create buffer. After all, Russia ia the more aggressive one.
"[Russia] has long history of imperialism and anti-democratic actions. Any sane country knows that only safe way is to have reasonable buffer zone against such well known aggressor."
The Serbians I have talked to regarding the war with Ukraine seem to be very neutral, beginning any discussion with a criticism of NATO rather than a criticism of Russia for invading a neighbor.
Poland joined in 1999, and generally speaking all of the eastern European nations that joined were after 1997.