[tomash]

You don't live in a country bordering Russia, do you? Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. Russia's western neighbors flock to NATO for a reason. Basically Russia is the bully of the neighborhood, using violence whenever it doesn't get whatever it wants.

[kbart]

Exactly. I do live in a country bordering Russia and we have been occupied by it twice during the last two hundred years. NATO is seen as the only way to keep our independence. Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.

[prebrov]

In the 150 years before WW II ended there has hardly been 20 years of peace in Europe in one stretch.

Domestic European squabble developed into bloodiest conflicts the world had seen, more than once, never mind whole continents in submission and despair up until the 50s. Yet it is Russia that poses perpetual imminent threat.

Very unfortunately for territories bordering Russia, they are a, indeed, a buffer zone and get mowed down and/or change hands every time shit hits the fan. Equally so, in fact, by Russia and by the Western (“Proper”) Europe.

[gsnedders]

> Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.

Semi-seriously: Ukraine at least had a treaty securing its borders by the US, UK, and Russia. If the US and UK aren't willing to act on that treaty, what makes one think they'd act on a NATO Article V invocation by them if they were NATO members?

[kbart]

Because not invoking NATO Article V would immediately render the whole alliance useless (as this article is the whole point of NATO) and I'm sure no member of it would risk that. Russia pulling a similar trick as in Ukraine on any NATO member without serious consequences would be an achievement comparable to the victory of the Cold War.

[Spooky23]

Attacking that commitment is likely a big part of why we have the political situation that we have in the US today.

[StudentStuff]

Hasn't Russia been all too keen to flex its might when it comes to Natural Gas too? As most of the nations in Eastern and Central Europe rely on Natural Gas coming from Russia for heat & some power.

The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.

[v_lisivka]

You are right. War in Ukraine was started to kick out Shell out of natural gas field near to Sloviansk, which was able to fulfill needs of Ukraine and Europe, so Sloviansk was first target for Russian "insurgents".

AFAIK, the same reason holds for Syria: to stop Qatar attempt to reach Europe.

[Tade0]

It has, but fortunately since the oil price slump they haven't really been in a position to do this, because they need the revenue to keep their operations going.

Meanwhile Europe is diversifying its sources of fuels, so it seems that they will lose any ability to do that eventually.

[blattimwind]

Gas exports have been frequently used as leverage against transit countries, but not against destination countries. It wouldn't per se surprise me that it's just about cutting the middleman out (cf. nordstream).

[thriftwy]

> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century

Two world wars happened since at least 20th century. Napoleonic before that.

Countries go to wars. Since forever. Aggressively and recklessly. Doesn't make agreements less important. A poor agreement is better than a good war, isn't it?

[DubiousPusher]

I'm not sure. I think poor agreements lead to more wars.

[dogma1138]

So was Sweden at the time...

I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.

[Svip]

Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars. I don't recall Russia perusing any similar foreign policy during the same period.

[dogma1138]

And before that? Gustaf the II? The 30 year war?

[maaark]

Appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, haven't seen Sweden invade anyone recently.

[dogma1138]

No it's not appeal to hypocrisy, Russias actions are pretty much defined by it's geography it's effectively a land locked country without warm water ports surrounded by local and global super powers.

[cat199]

> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop.

and historically, everyone surrounding russia has been trying to limit, constrain, or invade it (eastern crusades, crimean war, western sponsorship of lenin, etc).. what is your point?