NATO Expansion Debate

I’m not sure I understand your point. Ukraine is already “not a member of NATO”. Russia is bordered by NATO members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They have notably not been invaded. Putin is not foolish to directly attack a NATO member state. Logic would dictate that perhaps it would have been better for Ukraine to be a NATO member. Clearly, Putin’s attack was preemptive - to prevent Ukrainian membership. Now he’s sabre rattling to Sweden and Finland over their considerations to join NATO. Are

Russia is bullshitting - they are not afraid NATO would invade them.The balance of fear due to nuclear weapons if nothing else guarantees this.Russia is opposed to the fact it can't bully it's weaker neighbours on a whim if they are in NATO. That is the cause for their irritation.

NATO members have been directly bordering Russia through Estonia and Latvia for literally 18 years at this point with no harm or even the threat of harm to Russia.NATO members, as stable democracies, have zero interest in going into war with a nuclear power like Russia. Even now at the peak of tensions, every NATO member has repeatedly publicly pledged that no NATO troops will be involved in conflict.The idea that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is Russia acting to protect itself is the

Russia already shared borders with NATO.The truth of the matter from Ukraine's perspective is that this never would have happened if Ukraine was a NATO member.NATO hasn't moved aggressively on Russia.The motivations for Russia and it's neighbours for their opinions on joining NATO are the same. Russia doesn't invade NATO members. That's why Russia's neighbours want to join and why Russia doesn't want them to.

As far as I am aware there is no signed international agreement that NATO would not extend into Eastern European countries like Ukraine. This is wishful thinking on behalf of Putin and an attempt to put themselves into a victim role.If Russia wants less NATO troops close to their borders then they should consider not invading their neighbours.

> Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway?This question, no matter how well intentioned, is irrelevant.Russia views NATO as an existential threat. It’s irrelevant whether you agree with that NATO is such a threat or not. Russia does not want NATO on or by its borders. They’ve been making this clear since the collapse of the Soviet Union.You can disagree with them, argue in favor of NATO expanding eastward, or specifically making Ukraine a member state, etc. These

Because for all of Russia's apocalyptic rhetoric about the dire consequences of NATO membership on their borders, they've done nothing significant about Finland and Sweden actually becoming NATO members while stepping up their military spending. By comparison, a little political noise about Ukraine maybe joining NATO someday is much less of a provocation, which makes it seem unlikely to have been Russia's actual reason for invasion. And from any reasonable ethical perspective it&#

There is a deep inconsistency in your argument. Countries bordering Russia should not join NATO as doing so would be a provocation. Yet Russia has shown that they are happy to invade bordering countries (who are not in NATO) and blow their people to bits. How do you think the people in Finland, Latvia, Poland, Ukraine view this situation? What is their right to self-determination worth?

NATO is a defensive pact, not an empire. It was created to protect against expansion by Russia. Russia just invaded a neighbor. Seems like a great case for NATO to expand.

Let's assume for a moment that not only he said that, but also made a promise, and later even signed it.Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened.Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, howe