Here we are talking Nazi command and whole armies. And whole concept of actually doing what Hitler was trying - expanding East. Even at the time when war was still raging in Pacific and Far East.
To me, that doesn’t sound like west was ever interested in peaceful collaboration. Kind of justifies mistrust from the rest of the world.
Waldheim
It would likely trigger preemptive use of Russia’s forces. Putin was clear about that - Russia has nothing to lose. It would not be a good outcome for some in Europe. That is part of Russian “de-escalation doctrine” (and, again, reference to NATO aggression on Yugoslavia - it was a turning point, wish I could say that that wasn’t when WWIII started):
In Yugoslavia the United States utilized modern, high-precision conventional weapons to produce highly tangible results with only limited collateral damage. These conventional weapons systems, unlike their nuclear counterparts, were highly usable.
The Russian response, begun even before the conflict over Kosovo had ended, was to develop a new military doctrine. This effort was supervised by Vladimir Putin, then-secretary of Russia’s Security Council, a body similar to the National Security Council in the United States. By the time the doctrine was adopted in the spring of 2000, it was Putin who signed it in his new capacity as president.
The doctrine introduced the notion of de-escalation—a strategy envisioning the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would force an opponent to accept a return to the status quo ante. Such a threat is envisioned as deterring the United States and its allies from involvement in conflicts in which Russia has an important stake, and in this sense is essentially defensive. Yet, to be effective, such a threat also must be credible. To that end, all large-scale military exercises that Russia conducted beginning in 2000 featured simulations of limited nuclear strikes.
I think that Putin can be trusted here:
I would now like to say something very important for those who may be tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard.
That was what NATO was made for. Fighting Soviets/Russia. Pushing East.
No. NATO was made to keep the Soviets out, the Germans down and the Americans in.
Dammed good reply on all counts.
There are no longer Soviets, just a right wing Russia liked by right wing Americans, so keeping the “Germans down” may be easy but the “Americans in” may be a bit difficult.
I’d say that modern Russia under Putin has straddled the Right and the Left of Western nations’ respective political spectra. Until Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, RT was solidly leftwing and Russia generally aligned with Leftwing countries. Between 2008-2014, Putin began emphasizing the traditional Russian culture that existed before the Bolsheviks a lot, elevating the Russian Orthodox Church in importance, arresting “Pussy Riot”, banning homosexuality, etc. Then, in 2014, RT shifting sharply to the Right, and one of the previous executives of RT was assassinated in 2015, Mikhail Lesin. Then, about a year into the Trump administration, Russia began to flirt with the Far Left again, strengthening its ties to Communist nations like Cuba and Venezuela.
Dictatorships recognisided beeing leftwing? Or realy left wing countries (from an American point of view): Nederlande, Danmark, Belgium, France, Swenska, Suomi, etc… and at least Germany. Putin is a pure fashist not pretending to have any internationalist or national socialist agenda. Russia is good for billonairs
I don’t think you understand politics in America very well. The right wing Americans you speak are the most hawkish for supporting Ukraine. That is hardly friendly to Russia. When Trump was President, he was not pro Russia in fact he was selling weapons to Ukraine when very few others would. What he was against was a bunch of nato freeloaders not pulling their weight and he made this very clear. It worked too as several countries increased their contributions. He also made it clear it makes no sense to be anti Russia and at the same time fund their economy by buying all their energy exports.
In America, I see this as more of a class issue. Polling shows that people more educated, more prosperous tend to support US intervention more. Those of the working class say F Russia but I don’t want to go fight there and I don’t want 10% inflation to put sanctions on Russia.
Keeping the Americans in during the Cold War was simple. When you have that level of threat it keeps your attention. After 1991, well we had bigger problems all the sudden.
Accepting traditional values is not right wing.
Nor is realizing that your “partners” actually have different values and are hiding their true intentions.
Together with most of the rest of the world, Russia is opposing dictatorship/hegemony of liberalism, liberal democracy as the only available option for people’s of the world.
That is why it was needed to exaggerate the threat? Like that “missile gap” thing?
Soviets were never threat for the west. Nor is/was Russia. Nor China, India or anyone else for that matter.
Even without nukes, internal subversion by the Soviets was a serious problem, long ignored by left-wingers (Gee, I wonder why).
Internal subversion? Like?
Spies within our own government, funding movements to destabilize our country and influencing academia and the media to be manipulative liars. Not to mention fellow travelers – In fact, one of the reasons why I dislike FDR is that he trusted the Soviets a little too much (even for a wartime situation, it was a bit much).
As for Cold War activities, read up Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, The God That Failed, and Hollywood Party, among others. The Soviets themselves admitted to this around the time the Soviet Union collapsed.
Read up on Yuri Bezmenov as well:
In the west it is mostly the right wing politicians that are known to be open to be bought by Putin
Trump in America , Le Pen in France and Forum for Democracy in the Netherlands.
All bought by Putin and all of them against support of Ukraine
But today betting on it is stupid. European security must be done by the people living there.
Instead it’s propagating a dictatorship based on conservative values and uniformity. You may critigue my liberal democracy all you want, but at least it let’s me make my life choices.
Edit: I also prefer social democracy over liberal democracy, but at least democracy let’s me make that choice and openly support such things
Personally, I think all political ideologies are toxic nonsense - just different flavors of the same thing; and forcing decision paths based on ideology.
That’s not really a threat for US security. It was aimed at obtaining intelligence for protecting own security.
Soviet/Russian doctrine was true defense of their own territory, with spreading ideological influence. There was never actual “projection of force”, as much as I can tell. Hardly any protection of interests on other side of the globe.
Spying is matter of mutual trust. With Allied plans to attack Soviets even before the war ended and creation of NATO it is not difficult to understand Soviets mistrust.
Social democracy is form of liberal democracy. System as implemented is overrated. Democracy has throughout history been linked to some form of slavery - majority of disenfranchised providing for elite table protected by crumb maidens surrounding it and playing inconsequential “election” games.
What you call dictatorship are quite often meritocracies with its own ways of providing equality of opportunities for their citizens.
Past two years have clearly shown how easily “democracies” descend into totalitarianism.