▲ 18 ▼ Neutrality: An Alternative to Ukraine’s Membership in NATO (www.cfr.org) submitted 1 year ago by GiorgioPerlasca@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Marbles@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago In the 90s and early 00s, Russia had bigger issues to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GiorgioPerlasca@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 1 year ago There are many issues with your comment. "Putin had no problems in 2004" is incorrect. Russia's reaction to the expansion of NATO in 2004 was immediate, harsh, and contained threats of specific counter-measures. "In 2007, he suddenly got scared" is an incorrect interpretation. The Munich Speech of 2007 was not a sudden reaction of fear, but a thoughtful, ideological and strategic statement by a strengthened Russia. It marked the transition to a tougher and more independent foreign policy course based on rejection of American hegemony and an insistence on taking into account Russian security interests. The rhetorical escalation was not the result of a sudden emotion, but the result of the accumulation of systemic contradictions, the unwillingness of the West to take into account Moscow's concerns and the strengthening of Russia, which was ready to challenge the status quo that did not suit it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago In the 90s and early 00s, Russia had bigger issues to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GiorgioPerlasca@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 1 year ago There are many issues with your comment. "Putin had no problems in 2004" is incorrect. Russia's reaction to the expansion of NATO in 2004 was immediate, harsh, and contained threats of specific counter-measures. "In 2007, he suddenly got scared" is an incorrect interpretation. The Munich Speech of 2007 was not a sudden reaction of fear, but a thoughtful, ideological and strategic statement by a strengthened Russia. It marked the transition to a tougher and more independent foreign policy course based on rejection of American hegemony and an insistence on taking into account Russian security interests. The rhetorical escalation was not the result of a sudden emotion, but the result of the accumulation of systemic contradictions, the unwillingness of the West to take into account Moscow's concerns and the strengthening of Russia, which was ready to challenge the status quo that did not suit it. permalink fedilink source parent