You had NATO that suddenly lost its grounds when USSR collapsed. Just to keep it afloat you would need to invent new "enemy" for it. When remnants of USSR were in ruins Middle East was wildfired, that stopped people thinking "NATO, against whom?". After that China was assigned as an imminent threat. That passed too. And now Russia.

Any idea what will be the next excuse?

Of course Russia is still a threat and NATO (while serving primarily American interests) helps to protect Eastern Europe countries from Russia. We should not forget that in 1939 USSR invaded into Finland, Baltic countries, Poland if I remember correctly. In 1968 they invaded Chekoslovakia. With NATO those countries probably feel safer.

Ukraine didn't have NATO bases - and lost its territory. This is a reminder for other countries.

You missed cause and consequence. Unprovoked expansion of NATO happened first. After years of warnings. Ukraine was in the line. That non-democratic coup was a step to NATO and inspired/supported by NATO members.

And after that Crimean people expressed that they don't like that by voting out of it.

So you are saying it is Ukraine's fault that NATO was expanding and it deserved a punishment? I cannot follow your logic.

Regarding referendum, it's results (95-96% vote for independence) are obviously falsified. There is nothing new: in 1938 Hitler also got 98-99% votes in occupied Austria [1]. Those 95% in Crimea as real as Hitler's.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Anschluss_referendum,...

Germany/Austria in 1939 is a completely different case.

Let's take a look at the ethnic groups in Crimea - 2014 census:

Russians - 65%

Ukrainians - 15%

Crimean Tatars - 11%

Please note that, of the 15% of Ukrainians living there, most (60%) speak Russian as their first language.

We may argue if the 97% referendum result was rigged or not - we may never know.

But based on the above numbers I think that the people in Crimea really prefer to be part of Russia - because they are Russian!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea

>Regarding NATO expansion, of course it serves the interests of USA but it can be also good for other countries. For example, the presence of NATO troops in Baltic countries helps them to stay independent and avoid repeating the situation that has happened in 1939

Europe in 1939 was a completely different place than it is today. To say that we need NATO because of something that is extremely unlikely to happen today is a weak excuse. Honestly if such a situation was to be repeated today I think there would be a lot more problems in Europe than just the Baltic countries.

Not that I am against NATO in any way, in fact I strongly believe that we do need a way to bridge different nations and my country has greatly benefited from the stability that NATO has brought to the area( with the annual tax paid to the American military-industrial complex for new weapon systems of course).