1) Isn't NATO a product of the cold war, meant to stand as an alliance against the USSR? A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone, be it Russia or China. And isn't it a tool for the US (mainly) to serve their interests & enforce their will around the world? See Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya.
2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years.
3) My geography knowledge is a bit spotty, but isn't Kaliningrad part of the Russian Federation (even if an exclave, between Lithuania & Poland)? Also I don't know if indeed there are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad.
I am not arguing that NATO is worse, my point is that NATO is the West's/USA's tool and regardless of whether you see it as an instrument for justice/good, historically it very much has been against Russia's interests and arguably still is. You may consider NATO a force for good and Putin/Russia evil, thus giving legitimacy to NATO's existence & operations, that does not mean that Putin/Russia perceiving NATO as a threat "makes no sense".
Yes, "annexed" by Russians from Nazi Germany. As in, becoming part of the Soviet Union since the Red Army had taken the city near the end of WWII after the Russians and British had bombed ~90% of the city.
Then from whom is the alliance defending themselves, if not from those not into the alliance?
For example, a defense alliance that included all nations, would defend against aliens.
I repeat, a defense alliance must be, by definition, protecting the members from external threats. I don't think it's a very difficult concept to grasp.
It is possible to create an alliance against an external threat without defining the threat in advance, as you seem to assume. If Russia wanted to join NATO, they could, and this was an imaginable possibility in the 90s, and could be an imaginable possibility again in the future, in a post-Putin era. A defensive pact is just a pact against anyone who attacks; if the US attacked a NATO country, it would be a pact against the US.
Obviously you are unaware of basic history of how NATO was created to halt the communist/Soviet "threat". Please, look up "History of NATO" on Wikipedia.
So, for NATO there _was_ a _defined threat_ it sought to protect against. In general, all alliances are made against perceived present or future threats, if you are _actually_ aware of an alliance being made with no external threat in mind, please let me know.
If you delve deeper into the history of NATO, you will realize that the threat that was most critical in the mind of some members and a key reason it exists is the threat of...Germany (who was not, initially, a member, even West Germany) becoming resurgent again once the allied occupation inevitably ended. (Which, ironically, ended up taking much longer than anyone would have expected because of the Cold War.)
NATO was flexible for these purposes because it was not defined or structured around any particular threat, but as a general-purpose regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment adaptable to changing threat circumstances.
I'm not entirely sure that that is the case and Germany was the primary reason for NATO forming. It surely was meant to hinder the spread of communism/Soviets.
And yes, a defense alliance can be flexible and change its objectives with the times, that's not counter to the point I was making. I'm not sure how to better express myself, I really think it is obvious that a defense alliance must be defending its members from _external_ threats.
If there is no possible threat (real or perceived, present or future) then no alliance is formed. That is the whole purpose, _the definition_ of a defense alliance.
I don't know how to express this notion with more clarity.
2) But still Cuba was permitted to stay within the Eastern block. Why did Russia not choose to just sanction Ukraine then but allow NATO membership (that would the comparison)
3) Yes, of course, but really surrounded by NATO members. Could you imagine Russia permitting a NATO exclave inside Russia? And Russia certainly makes it sound like they have nuclear weapons there (see their latest drill last? week)
Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.
>Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.
Also, picking this from a comment of yours further below:
>In the end, not sure it really matters how Russia sees the situation to be honest or what Russia thinks is relevant to them in.
Obviously Russia wanted Ukraine under their influence and NATO stood against that. It really _does_ matter how Russia sees things, now there's a war in Ukraine.
2) Probably because Russia sanctioning Ukraine would not be as debilitating for the country as the embargo against Cuba has been for Cuba.
3) You're talking about land that is part of the Russian Federation since 1945, is very close to Moscow and the mainland and is surrounded by NATO members because Poland and Lithuania joined NATO in 1999 & 2004. I'm not sure you're making any sense in this. Also, it's nowhere near the USA, Russia's main adversary.
At the end of the day, yes NATO and the USA may do as they wish, will removing Ukraine from Russia's influence lead to better lives for the Ukrainian people? Will this war that has already caused so many deaths and so much pain, be worth it? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can answer with much certainty.
3) Call it "Russian exclave that hosts missile systems" then, not "Russia has nuclear weapons inside NATO" because someone who's not familiar with European politics, borders might read it as "Russia installed missile systems inside NATO country" which is simply not true. It's quite important to be precise on this.
You should drop #3, Poland and Lithuania are former Soviet states and late joiners of NATO '99 and '04 respectively so NATO effectively "annexed" former Soviet territory around part of Russia. Arguing that this somehow means that NATO is more tolerant of having Russian forces "within its borders" is absurd since they were the ones that expanded those borders around Kaliningrad.
Please explain "annexed"; your wikipedia link makes it clear that different people intepret scare-quotes in different ways. If you are talking about annexation not involving coercion, then we aren't reading from the same dictionary page.
In the sense that the current government in Russia still perceives its former satellites as part of it or its sphere of influence. The US and Russia are the main players here so I'm not considering the opinions of the people living in those states sorry but that's just realpolitik and its the way both sides think. Russia lost its empire during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States has been expanding its empire at their expense. Before you say anything about it not being an empire, I'll just say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.
2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years.
3) My geography knowledge is a bit spotty, but isn't Kaliningrad part of the Russian Federation (even if an exclave, between Lithuania & Poland)? Also I don't know if indeed there are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad.
I am not arguing that NATO is worse, my point is that NATO is the West's/USA's tool and regardless of whether you see it as an instrument for justice/good, historically it very much has been against Russia's interests and arguably still is. You may consider NATO a force for good and Putin/Russia evil, thus giving legitimacy to NATO's existence & operations, that does not mean that Putin/Russia perceiving NATO as a threat "makes no sense".