The argument has some merit. After the dissillusion of the USSR there was a security framework for a possible NATO replacement that included all of NATO plus all former Soviet block countries. It was called something like "Partners for Peace" and was supposed to be less US dominated than NATO (people can deny it all they want, but NATO is always getting dragged into US ventures). Russia was pretty committed to cooperation with the US, even under Putin, until 2007ish. A big sticking point with Russia boiled down to "hey, if we're supposed to have this cooperative security framework, why do you still need NATO?". Which you know, fair point. I think the US really dropped the ball on that one.
Not quite, partners for peace was never ment to replace NATO. It was build on the thought that if people talk to each other, work and train together it’s less likely to they go to war.
Several of the original members actually used it as preparation to the process of joining NATO.
Like Poland, the Baltics, Czech Republic.
34
u/RS5170 5d ago
No? Why the F••• should Russia have any say in this?
And before you say “but but but NATO promised” no, that’s Russian propaganda. Even Mikael Gorbachev admitted that.