See I listen to people who know what they are talking about on this topic, people like Ray McGovern the former head of the soviet desk for the CIA, and I find their comments refreshingly nuanced, explaining things like how we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato, etc.

...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.

> how we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato

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.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836

> we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato, etc.

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-...

Yeah maybe you should try listen to the people who lived in the countries under Russian influence and you'll find thing are a lot less nuanced here. We know exactly who the real villains were since we had friends and relatives who died at their hands. The scars are still here, the memories still alive, the monstrosity still visits us in our nightmares. We would do anything to prevent that from happening to us again.

Sorry if I am destroying your good, nuanced conversation.

Ok. But reverse positions. Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that.

I can't imagine USA acting in cool and peaceful manner when sword of Damocles hangs near them.

> Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that.

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.

From Russian POV there isn't much of a difference. You basically see your enemy build installation just outside of your backyard.

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.

But NATO already has land borders to Russia! In five (more?) countries.

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.

US made deal with Russia in wake of German unification, not to expand NATO/US into Russia's (USSR) sphere of influence. They violated that treaty repeatedly. Now Russia is betting stirring shit in Ukraine is enough for US to decline.

> or is it offered membership. And they were invaded preemptively?

Kinda. A member with existing border dispute has little chance of being admitted.

No such promise was made to not expand. That’s a myth.

> Kinda

Has it been formally invited to join, or formally applied? Otherwise they have not.