[flagged]
This was a G. W. Bush idea, during his last year in office, and it was never going to actually happen.
At the dinner on Wednesday, the German and French position was supported by Italy, Hungary and the Benelux countries, a senior German official said. Mr. Bush was said to have accepted that his position was not going to prevail,
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html
> Was the EU and the USA friendly towards Russia ...
When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, did Angela Merkel stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, as very sensibly demanded by much of Eastern Europe? No, of course not - if we just trade more with Russia, they will be interested in peace! Germany deservedly lost billions finishing the construction, and it never transmitted a single ccm of gas.
> You know the result of that, but still consider there was no provocation at all
I think a better question to ask is, why do countries that border on Russia try so hard to become NATO members?
That announcement is still on NATOs website to this day. To think it would never happen can only be seen as wishful thinking.
> try so hard to become NATO members?
If your intention is to align with the EU, it makes sense you want military protection against invasion in the future. Even Russia wanted at one point to join. The question is really why Russia should sit quietly while several countries around it join an alliance against it? Would the US be ok with Mexico and Canada doing that? Sounded ridiculous until a few months ago, now that is a sensible thing for them to seek. Look at how the US reacted to just a EV deal Canada made with China.
It threatens mobsters racket profits, but it will not start any actual fight.
It’s not a secret that Ukraine is vital for the ground defence of Russia, but the Ukrainian people are pro-EU, and not from propaganda. You might well remember that their government was essentially a puppet for Russia until they were ousted. So if Ukraine is radicalised it is odd to think that its because of European propaganda- more likely they got tired of their masters.
I fully accept that Putin thinks of NATO as a threat to Russia, and NATO is at the door.
Its also entirely true that the border countries (Estonia for example) have major anxiety regarding a Russian invasion, and actively seek NATO membership to avoid that.
However, flying aircraft into sovereign territory (as Russia often did and continues to do to Sweden) is not the behaviour of a threatened country, they are the ones making the threats, constantly testing.
Their expansions into territory under the guise of “going where there are native Russians” will necessarily conclude with border regions being even more hostile to any native Russians wanting to settle. Again, in Estonia, the city of Narva is almost entirely native Russian; but they don’t want to be under Putin. Putins actions make Estonians wary of this fact and makes the Estonian government wish to integrate these people more instead of letting them live their lives.
In the Ukraine this was true too, thats why there was such a push to get people speaking Ukrainian, but Putin saw that his claim to the territory gets weaker over time and decided to invade.
If you understand the incentives of all involved, it is plain to see that Putin is the architect of his own misery here.
Now, Greenland, as an example, would be wise to seek protection from the US, if we use the same logic, since it’s clearly being threatened, more clearly than the Baltic countries ever were by Russia since they joined NATO , at least. Imagine how the US would react if China was asked to help! Now, imagine Greenland actually had ties to the US going back several hundred years and a large population of “ethnic” Americans (bear with me). Would the US quietly sit while China initiated the process of establishing military presence in Greenland, at Greenlanders own request? Do you think they should, even if the current administration obviously wouldn’t entertain that for a second? Quite honestly, I think it would be foolish for the Americans to allow a sovereign nation near its borders to do something like that , and the Bay of Pigs conundrum shows that the US is not dumb and this will simply never happen. Now, the situation between Ukraine and Russia is not exactly the same , but if anything the incentive Russia has to prevent NATO there is even stronger than in the imaginary scenario I outlined above, I think that is as clear as anything can be in geopolitics.
It is the right of any sovereign country to freely join any military alliance, including NATO. The fact that this upsets Putin says more about him than the alliance and its (potential) members.
"Let me return to NATO enlargement. .... Russia is European and multi-ethnic. I can imagine us becoming allies. Only dire need could make us allied with others. Bit we feel left out of NATO. IF Russia is not part of this of course it feels left out. Why is NATO enlargement needed? In 1954 Russia applied to join NATO. I have the document. [ Bush: "that's interesting" ] NATO gave a negative answer with four specific reasons. Lack of an Austrian settlement. The totalitarian grip on Eastern Europe. And the need for Russia to cooperate with the UN disarmament process. Now all these conditions have been met.Perhaps Russia could be an ally."
Russia is threatening a direct military invasion to present-day and potential future NATO and EU members. When has the EU done the same to any of your listed countries/territories? When have the US said they will invade a country for simply allying with Russia or the BRICS?