Now, there is exactly zero appetite anywhere in NATO for invading Russia. But Putin doesn't understand that - doesn't understand that, when the leaders have to answer to the voters in elections that they could lose, the leaders have to be very wary of body counts. So Putin is terrified of a fantasy, but his terror is still at least somewhat real. It's not all bullying.
It is.
>launched their invasion
You are reproducing Russian propaganda planted all over the English speaking internet. About Russia's desire to secure itself through buffer zones, when in reality it's just plain old imperialism.
Geographical buffer zones and natural borders like mountains are mostly irrelevant for modern air-superiority dominated warfare. It's not 1940s anymore. US expeditionary force is delivered by the sea. An attack could already be launched from the Baltic states, since about 2004. And Putin perfectly knows that nobody would attack a state that has the highest number nuclear warheads in the world.
Ascribing some level of care for Russian interests and security to someone like Putin is the height of naivete. Putin will leave Russia much much weaker and thus less secure after his death, than the 99 other timelines, where it isn't ruled by an egotistical wannabe tsar. He only cares about himself, his family and his friends, and that's it.
If he truly cared about Russian future he wouldn't have started the current conflict with Ukraine that's been going on since 2014, because the economic losses from that over 2-3 decades are tremendous. A difference in 2-3 percentage points of GDP growth results in several times the economy size of losses. And further escalation would cripple the economy even more.
Or are you saying that it's propaganda the Putin is worrying about that? I've never heard them say so, so I don't think it's a common theme of their propaganda.
The propaganda insists that that kind of thinking is still relevant in 2022 and that Russian elite truly believes that, and not using it as an excuse for imperialistic/revanchist expansion.
Besides - Ukraine haven’t been offered NATO membership have they?
One, Ukraine hasn't been invited to join NATO. Two, even if NATO had never entertained the idea, I'm sure Putin would pitch the existence of hats and teacups as clear evidence of Western aggression against Russia.
...and then I see comments like yours that just seem to want to make Russia into this mustache twirling always evil villian and to me its people like you destroying hopes for good conversation that seem like the real villians.
This purported promise is a myth, see my comments here [1]. (TL; DR No treaty or public comments. Russia, on the other hand, signed a treaty promising not to invade Ukraine when she denuclearised. Talk of broken promises is a red herring.)
Russia has a realpolitik interest in creating buffer nations between it and the West. What it's doing--invading Crimea and now threatening to take the rest--doesn't further that goal. It does, however, serve Putin's political agenda.
This is what Russia is promoting but it's a gross exaggeration. When the Berlin Wall fell, The Secretary of State at the time, James Baker, threw this out there to Gorbachev in early treaty talks as a "what if?", but others in US gov. said absolutely not, it never made it in the treaty, and Gorbachev never pushed for it. Gorbachev himself said that no promise or treaty was violated, but it was against the "spirit" of the assurances.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...
Sorry if I am destroying your good, nuanced conversation.
I can't imagine USA acting in cool and peaceful manner when sword of Damocles hangs near them.
NATO members are not annexed by America. Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and has had no realistic path to membership for some time. And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it.
Sure analogy, ain't perfect, and it's too late to edit. But say they join Russian led pact and Russian build basses there. I'm pretty sure America would throw as big hissy fit as Russia did.
> And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it.
It's a great deterrent as well. NATO members have a policy, attack one, you attack us all, yes. But they also prohibit members that have problematic borders with non-NATO powers.
Adding a member like Ukraine means essentially getting ready for (nuclear) war with Russia. And NATO is, and probably won't be ready.
Seeing list of NATO's recent "victories" seems like a compilation of US greatest fails (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). So Russia is calling NATO/US bluff.
NATO has never made a formal “promise” or agreement not to expand. This is a myth that refuses to die it seems.
But this is beside the point. Ukraine isn’t a member so can hardly be responsible for what NATO does. Nor is it offered membership. And they were invaded preemptively? This whole line of reasoning that NATO has anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine years ago is a fabrication.
> or is it offered membership. And they were invaded preemptively?
Kinda. A member with existing border dispute has little chance of being admitted.