@Anastasis I'm just getting caught up and would prefer not to get into a back-and-forth pissing match because I don't really have that in me today. I'm just tired, is all, so can we engage on a civil conversational level?
To your earlier point, yes, many predicted there'd be blowback for NATO expansion back in 1999 and later again in the mid-2000s. And, to be honest, I had some hesitant/mixed feelings about it at the time. At that point, my mindset was much more gunshy about pissing off Russia and bringing back the Cold War, as I'd spent a significant amount of time during the early part of that decade studying and living with and among locals in France and the former East Germany just after reunification. I kind of felt we were taking advantage of Russia's weakness to expand our military footprint, and I'd seen what was left of the Russian army from my time in eastern Germany when it still had a few bases, and it was a spent, decrepit force who couldn't even keep their old Ural trucks running. But still, it was a large country that I felt would somehow get its shit together eventually, and I knew that it was unhappy about it. So, believe me. I'm no hawk, and I certainly understand your point of view regarding NATO expansion. I had zero qualms about the EU expanding toward the east, though.
Even though I didn't look favorably on Putin, especially because of his bombing of an apartment building and his bitching about the Color revolutions, I still didn't see him as a huge threat to the West, that is, until his invasion of Georgia. Yes, I understand that Georgia's desire to align with the West, including NATO and the EU, along with minority groups who had some autonomy but sought independence, were precipitating factors. But the outright invasion of Georgia, I thought, was unacceptable. Then, I had a close friend who joined the State Department in the late aughts and was assigned to the US Embassy in Moscow. She's by no means a hawk (super liberal librarian type), and she told me about constantly being followed and having been sure someone had gotten into her flat at some point. She also talked about how "scary" Putin seemed in everything she'd seen. All of this smacked of serious backsliding and showed a desire not to join the ranks of free nations.
Yes, I understand Putin wants to have some degree of control over its sphere of influence for security reasons. That's all quite natural. But recall what really pissed off Russia about Ukraine: they wanted to position themselves to join the EU. That was what triggered the initial invasion under the pretense of a secession movement in Donbas that was backed by the Kremlin. And, then, there was no pretense for the capture and annexation of Crimea. That was just a land grab, pure and simple. Moreover, in Russia's world, there began a discussion of Novorossiya, which so happens to be almost exactly the same territory that Russia is occupying right now.
Since then, we've had Putin talk about taking over all of Ukraine, declaring it an illegitimate country. We've also seen plans for the eventual unification of Belarus with Russia. Basically, what seems to be the plan is the recreation of the Russian Empire, uniting all Eastern Slavic-speaking peoples against their will. That would be akin to Germany saying that Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands should all be part of Germany since they speak languages/dialects from the same branch of German. I dunno, man. That sounds all too familiar.
So, let's say we're scared of World War 3 and to let Putin have what he wants: a greater Russia that has swallowed up Belarus and Ukraine. How does that improve the situation? There's still a long militarized border with NATO on one side from Finland down to Romania and Greater Russia on the other, with no buffer in between.
If Putin were really worried about NATO aggression, wouldn't he prefer to have some buffers in between? I mean, to be quite honest, I could live in a world where Sweden, Finland, the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine were all neutral but with rock-solid guarantees of never being invaded. Sure, okay, that makes sense, I guess. But that's not the world Putin wants to live in. He's made claims on Ukraine. He's made Belarus a puppet. There are threats against the Baltics because they have Russian minority populations, which would give him the same rationale to invade as he had in Ukraine. If those tiny little nations weren't already in NATO, I'd bet he'd have been on the warpath there too.
So, thinking back to the 1990s and 2000s when I was a little more gunshy and maybe didn't fully appreciate the feelings of insecurity people felt living in those countries, I can see why Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and the Baltics wanted the security of NATO. Poland had been invaded by Russia in 1939. The Baltics were invaded by Russia in 1940. Hungary had been invaded by Russia in 1958. Czechoslovakia had been invaded by Russia in 1968 (31 years prior to joining NATO). These small countries all had a fairly recent history with their much bigger, aggressive neighbor to the east, and it wasn't all that pleasant. I mean, from their perspective, it made all the sense in the world to seek shelter under the Western umbrella for security (NATO) and prosperity (EU).
Well, here we are. The past can't be changed, and it's 2024. How do we move forward? I don't think we can unilaterally kick out countries that have joined NATO (though I've given some consideration to Hungary), and the EU stuff isn't really our thing. Ukraine, at this point, probably wouldn't accept neutrality because who'd guarantee their security? They certainly don't feel they can trust Russia on that. And is it in our interest to let fall under Putin's boot being part of an enlarged and strengthened empire? I can't think of an argument where that would be to our advantage, so why not support them? They certainly seem like they want to be one of us (the "West").
So, anyway, that's pretty much my perspective on this whole matter. In light of all that blah blah blah, cool story bro, what do you think, specifically, we should do?