It's a defense pact. As long as you don't attack nothing happens - so why would you feel threatened by that if you don't plan on attacking those countries?

[–] Empricorn 1 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Okay, so Russia has been aggressive, but what about the time NATO attacked... uh... yeah.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 18 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Why does Russia, the largest country, not simply join NATO?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (3 children)

It was considered at one point in the 90s.

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Before both sides walked away. Both sides had shit that the other side wanted nothing to do with.. and it mostly involved Russia insisting it be allowed to keep a sphere of influence (read puppet and slave states with no autonomy or say in their own affairs)

Russia will never abandon its imperialist ideology without a Nuremberg style purge

And NATO. in sight of that imperialist ambition. Wanted nothing to do with Russia. There was also the matter of Russia being a mobster state.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago

Really was a consideration all the way up until mid 00's. After 9/11 Russia warmed to NATO when they expanded the "war on terror" and even became a part of a permanent joint council.

Relations soured when Russia started dicking around in Ukraine and Georgia again in 04 and 08. Russia's version of soft power is basically empowering local oligarchs by giving them cushy oil/mineral deals and have them get involved in their respective countries politics. A big part of the orange revolution was kicking out the pro Kremlin oligarchs.

Russia's transition from soft to hard power has always been funding and supporting "separatist groups" like they did in Georgia and Ukraine. It's always the same fucking playbook.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 points 6 days ago

Boris Yeltsin sure did drink a lot, eh?

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

They don't have to. They just interfere in our politics

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 2 points 6 days ago

They've tried on more than occasion, but been rejected.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Cue conspiracies about NATO strong-arming countries into joining to further the imperialist agenda of the United States (and their goal of making Russia a scapegoat for all the world's problems). Yes they exist.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

Would have worked just as well without panels 2 & 3 and not require mutilating the format

[–] _bac@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

well, to be fair... remember the Cuban missile crisis?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments