NATO has been preaching since the 90's the mantra that "every country must be free to decide if they want to join NATO" as a convenient alibi to recall former soviet countries into the western (euphemism, the USA) sphere of influence. Putin is angry to see how NATO countries encircle its own, and...
Probably it would have ended with that country out of NATO It doesn't look like NATO includes a clause on removing a member from the alliance, though. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/28337/…
@Allure True, but just like Fizz comments in their answer, NATO is quite flexible. There's no official mecanisms to expel a country from the SWIFT system, but it has been done. Twice.
This is missing sources, especially for the rather far-fetched claim that it's only the USA at work. Note that the Eastern European countries also joined the EU, and Putin is also not accepting EU membership of Ukraine. The USA very obviously is not an EU member.
@RedSonja Maybe, but there's where everybody lives. The USA has never been worried about Russia's proximity to Alaska. Soviet missiles on Cuba, however, were a very different issue and almost triggered WWIII.
@MSalters I'll add the sources back home, but the whole "let's admit Ukraine in NATO" was George Bush' idea. Which wasn't a european president. And while Putin didn't like EU membership for Ukraine, he didn't threatened with war - actually his main reserves about EU membership is that it usually makes a tandem with NATO membership. Buy one, get the second for free.
@Rekesoft: Russia already has an EU non-NATO country on its border (Finland). Norway is the other way around. The two are of course related because both blocs share common criteria on new joiners, e.g. being a democracy. North Korea obviously can't join either.
@MrVocabulary The USA has bombed many countries many times, and as a result most of them would like to have nukes. That doesn't mean it's a good idea letting them have nuclear weapons, despite their reasons being understable.
@MrVocabulary Russia is encircled by countries it invaded multiple times ironically, the US has also invaded Canada and Mexico; the UK has invaded Ireland, Scotland and France; France has invaded Germany, Spain, and Italy, etc.
@Allure The UK has never invaded Scotland; Scotland has been a part of the UK since its founding in 1801. If you go back in history long enough, sure, but Russia occupied its neighbors from the 1940s to 1989; that's a little different from centuries old invasions.
@Rekesoft So why isn't it a good idea to let sovereign nations join a purely defensive pact? Sovereignty isn't full sovereignty unless a nation can freely form pacts for their defense.
@Allure And? I still don't see why it's any of Russia's business, or that Russia would be any happier if NATO hadn't intervened in Afghanistan, etc. Estonia wants a guarantee that Russia won't invade it, and given that Russia gave its word about not invading Ukraine, Russia's word isn't worth anything. The idea of national sovereignty is that Estonia and Ukraine have as much right not to be invaded as Russia.
A less ranty version of this, incorporating the relative lack of trust in the US in matters of agreements (JCPOA). But also not forgetting that Russia's actions wrt the Budapest Memorandum are much worse. That would deserve some more upvotes. The US, especially under Bush's neocons, often thought that was good for them was automatically good for everyone else. Contrary to your claims it is totally understandable that East European countries would, on their own, want to join NATO. It is equally understandable that even a considerably more reasonable Russia could be concerned.
@prosfilaes the point is that NATO has historically not been a purely defensive alliance, hence Russia is worried about the "defensive alliance" encroaching on its borders. You could say Russia's word isn't worth anything, but in the Russian point of view, NATO's word isn't worth anything either.
A minority of NATO countries have nuclear weapons. It is very unlikely that Ukraine would seek to hold nuclear weapons. In 1994 Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of territorial integrity, Russia being one of the signatories.
@RussellMcMahon And the present situation is precisely why they would like nukes rather than garantees on paper. Russia has accused Ukraine of trying to get nukes, and while this nukes are as fake as Iraq's WMDs, I don't find it unreasonable at all.
@Allure and when two parties don't trust each other, that's when they carefully follow the rule of law. And the international law says that it's none of Russia's business what alliances Estonia and Ukraine join.
@prosfilaes international law also says it's none of the US's business that the Soviet Union decided to put its nuclear missiles on Cuba, and yet they sure kicked up a fuss during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
@allure For one, the US never actually invaded Cuba with its military, and for another, so what? One imperialist nation doing something doesn't justify another imperialist nation doing things.
@prosfilaes but the US imposed a blockade, which is also an act of war. If the nuclear weapons weren't already there they could very well have invaded. Also, given that the US agrees that threats to their national security are part of their business, they could agree to deny Ukrainian membership in NATO, which doesn't violate any treaty (see OP), but they didn't.
@prosfilaes There is not such thing as "international law", because there's no one to enforce nor tribunal to judge it - and where there is one, the powerful nations like the USA choose to not opt in. The only truth in your comments is "yes, the USA also do that, so what?". So what indeed.
Discussion on answer by Rekesoft: Why…
Discussion on answer by Rekesoft: Why…