Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
After the dissolution of the SU, you had a friendly Russia and an expectations that NATO is going to disband especially since the Warsaw pact was a reaction to it. Why have NATO still? Who was the enemy? (No it’s not a Defensive force and never was). The disbanding never happened. Even Putins Russia tried to join it 3-4 times. When you see former Warsaw pact members change regime and join NATO shortly afterwards you know what’s up and what’s coming for you. Invading Ukraine was preemptive and a reaction to NATO expansion. It’s the causus belli. So yes you have it reversed. Even war hawks like Mearshheimer ane Kissinger are/were saying this
After the dissolution of the SU, you had a friendly Russia and an expectations that NATO is going to disband especially since the Warsaw pact was a reaction to it. Why have NATO still? Who was the enemy? (No it’s not a Defensive force and never was). The disbanding never happened. Even Putins Russia tried to join it 3-4 times. When you see former Warsaw pact members change regime and join NATO shortly afterwards you know what’s up and what’s coming for you. Invading Ukraine was preemptive and a reaction to NATO expansion. It’s the causus belli. So yes you have it reversed. Even war hawks like Mearshheimer ane Kissinger are/were saying this
Sure, if that’s your take there is no use further discussing it.