I assume they meant that the Biden administration's approach backfired because instead of isolating Russia on the world stage it strengthened its ties with other countries and China in particular.
Few wars have exactly one cause, but to deny that NATO expansion was the main cause of this one is to be a western equivalent of an unequivocal and passionate Putin apologist.
Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
Im not sure it's a distinction worth drawing. Other kinds of gang also expand by luring in fresh meat who join voluntarily in a fractious security environment.
It's very vulnerable position being a prospective member of a gang. The fact that you try to join one for protection doesnt mean you wont end up being sacrificed when the gang leaders demand you "prove yourself" first.
NATO has participated in 4 wars in the last 20 years, 4 of which were offensive. Unfortunately underlining the word defense doesnt magically make it less of an offensive alliance.
The horseshoe theory applies here. Putin's supporters take equally orwellian positions to this.
In the past 20 years, I see 2 that could be qualified as offensive, at most.
NATO's command in 2003 in Afghanistan came following an unanimous UN Security Council resolution; Russia even provided support. But yeah, let's count 1 here, given the disaster of the whole thing.
Involvement during the Libya campaign in 2011? under a UN mandate again; Russia didn't veto, abstained, and afterwise criticised how it's been interpreted on the ground. Let's count 1.
That makes 2.
NATO did not join the USA in Iraq.
Kosovo Force is a peacekeeping mission.
Ocean Shield was an anti-piracy mission.
Baltic Air Policing, following the Baltic states joining NATO in 2004, is practically a shared border patrol across these states.
Enhanced Forward Presence, since 2016 is a deterrence in response to Russia actions in 2014 in Crimea.
Lying to the security council about the intention to overthrow the government in Libya was probably the main action that changed Russia's view of NATO from "a risk" to "overtly hostile threat". Quite rightly.
It puzzles me why some people (you, but you're not the only one) think that gaining the UN mandate to conduct a humanitarian mission under false pretensions and THEN saying "we came. we saw. he died" exculpates NATO. It makes it so much fucking worse.
The orwellian/Putinesque thinking is evident here also. If you can excuse this you can excuse the invasion of Ukraine just as easily.
The problem is proving it was a lie and not a change of circumstances/opportunities during the operation (which doesn't make it right either, but at least dismisses the disingenuous intent).
So your attribution to my thinking is pretty unwelcome. I don't think it was ok, I don't think either it makes Putin's perspective more reasonable or acceptable.
Putin's track record is way worse than that: multiple military or mercenary invasions, journalists, activists and politicians murders, multiple meddling with foreign elections.
This does not diminish the defence fundamentals of NATO. Putin's strategy only reinforced NATO making sense for its own members and for candidates. He could have acted differently, and favour democratic changes rather than making himself a defence to autocratic regimes, both at home and abroad.
The NATO Expansion line has been disproven to death.
Putin sees the fall of the USSR as a historical wrong that must be righted. He uses NATO Expansion as an easy excuse to sell to the rubes, but it's just that, an excuse.
He was going to go after Ukraine and Georgia NATO or not.
It hasnt been disproven even once. The usual attempts to do so deny geopolitical realities (e.g. assuming the Finland-Russia border is as vulnerable as the Ukraine border).
Georgia was, obviously, left alone after it dropped its NATO ambitions, disproving the rather quaint theory that Putin is intent on reforming the USSR.
And what Kalingrad is to Poland, and what Transnistria is to Moldova, and what Abkhazia and South Ossetia are to Georgia, and what Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea are to Ukraine.
If you wish to understand this issue, you must condemn the russian invasions and annexations in Poland, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, and many others.
> Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
Even person who panders to Putin repeat bullshit Russian propaganda? How surprising. The NATO expansion excuse is just ignorant talking point. Russian imperialism is the very reason why every neighbour of Russia (apart from the ones that are it's puppet states) want to be in NATO, not the other way around.
According to the Kremlin, this means Russia dictating security policy to a population double its own. You may choose to believe that you can count on one hand the number of countries in the world with genuine sovereignty, but I assure you the citizens of the other countries will beg to differ.
Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits..."is intended to mean here. Donald Trump has always repeated Kremlin talking points so I'm not sure why anyone would think of this as novel.
>Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits
Obviously American left coast DNC die hards and neoliberals hate him with a passion that beggars belief but he's basically still a different face of American imperialism repesenting similar goals with a changed strategy. Patching things up with Russia is part of that.
The conspiracy theory that he's a Russian plant is amusing, but a delusion to which even the most die hard Putin supporter cannot reach. I guess it's easier to admit than the idea that America lost.
>Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
I'm confused why you would phrase it as "even Donald Trump", as if we should somehow expect Trump to not buy in to Putin's propaganda line? The fact that Trump "admits" that he agrees with Putin should not give any weight to what Putin claims.
"Even" Donald Trump? The man who many accuse of being a Russian asset and having more sympathy for Putin than for decade-long allies? That Donald Trump?
> Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
EVEN Donald Trump? As if minihands is the staunchest critic of Russia? I mean, c’mon. Pretty much _only_ Donald Trump claims this outside the context of actual Russian propaganda.
It’s a terribly flimsy argument. Like, no-one has ever, as far as I know, said that Poland should invade Belarus because it joined the CSTO, say. Because that would be obviously ridiculous; actually joining, never mind wanting to join, a defensive treaty organisation is no sort of excuse for invasion. None of this makes any sense unless you accept to start with that Russia has some sort of rights over Ukraine, and no-one really buys that except for Russia.
