[scotty79]

No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade.

NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.

[DaltonCoffee]

How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again?

It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.

[amalter]

If this was the true concern of the Kremlin, why would they do the one thing that strengthens and enhances NATO in ways unthinkable even 6 months ago.

The war in Ukraine is the rebirth of NATO;

- Finland and Sweden on the fast path to joining. - Every member country making good on defense spending and more. - Eastern member countries inviting ever larger standing forces. - Renewed interest in Nuclear deterrents. - Reinforcement of other "NATO like" alliances like AUKUS.

If the true reason for the war was US-NATO provocation, the it was the most successful, long term, multi-administration conspiracy of the century.

Or - the Kremlin could simply be lying and have other ulterior motives for war (territory, hydrocarbons, empire, legacy, etc).

They are either stupid, or liars.

Fyiw - the only real "winners" here seem to be China.

[cuteboy19]

Because there are already 4 NATO countries bordering Russia.

[taylodl]

> NATO doesn't invade

But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia. Another NATO member state, the United States, along with the UK spent the latter half of the 20th century waging a cold war against Russia. I'm a Cold War kid and a U.S. Marine to boot but damn! Russia definitely has legitimate reasons to be concerned with NATO expansion. I know, I know - we believe we're the good guys. The problem is Russia doesn't believe that and they have credible concerns we can't simply hand-wave away. Understanding that is important to making international politics work.

[scotty79]

> But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia

What? When? Should we be holding modern organisations accountable for Napolenic wars? That's absolutely hilarious statement. So when's USA going to take the revenge against the Brits? I'd like to adjust my vacation plans accordingly.

On the other hand ... You being a marine explains a lot. Standards of US military industrial complex to what country has the right to have as legitimate interest and horrifying.

It's not about being good guys or bad guys. It's about not poking your nose in the stuff of people who live outside of your borders without a firm invitation from global community.

[giraffe_lady]

Nato doesn't invade?? Do you think there is a difference for the people living there whether the bombs come from an official nato action, or from a country acting alone with the tacit approval or explicit support of other nato countries?

This feels sorta how in the US only congress can declare war, so we don't declare war anymore. These technical distinctions may be compelling to you but they don't put people's legs back on, they don't pull children out of the grave.

Nato countries acting together with the support of other nato countries do invade. Call that what you want I call it nato invading.

[scotty79]

Which country any NATO member attacked, occupied and annexed? Because that's what Russia does when it invades (like with Crimea).

Let's keep the same meaning of the word 'invade' when we talk about Russia and NATO.