Safety from NATO means being in a strong defensive position with respect to NATOs ability to project force. This isn't just about proximity, but about control of strategic resources. The US pushed Turkey through NATO ascension because access to the Black Sea was deemed strategically valuable in an eventual war with the USSR. Russia needs to counter that threat and losing the port in Crimea would be a strategic blunder.
They have had the port in Crimea since 2014. They still wanted more.
Hell, when they started the war, it was supposedly about "demilitarization". By now they have officially annexed four more regions of Ukraine (well, the parts they control) in addition to Crimea, two of which wasn't even occupied until 2022.
The current status quo was unsustainable. Crimea was indefensible without a land bridge through the Donbass. Ukraine was attacking Crimea by cutting off its water supply. Ukraine was also being trained and armed by the US. Time was against Russia in terms of a conflict with Ukraine being on favorable terms. NATO in Ukraine meant that Crimea would be lost eventually. Control of the Donbass gives Russia control of Crimea's water supply while allowing a proper defense.
You know, it's almost funny how Russian "national patriots" keep saying that NATO will attack any time now for... 30 years at least? I remember reading books about this in late 90s.
Yet, somehow, it's Russia that keeps invading neighboring countries. Who then scramble to join NATO because they don't want to be next.
Have y'all considered that maybe if you tried not constantly trying to rebuild your empire on the backs of your neighbors by invading and occupying their territory, you would actually have that regional stability and peace that you claim to seek? Regardless of who is and isn't in NATO even?
30 Years is nothing on the timescales of geopolitics. How long has China been talking about unifying with Taiwan? Yet no one is under any illusion that China won't eventually make a move against Taiwan. The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting.
This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.
No, its not at all different. Like I said, bad faith.
Edit: Lol didn't recognize your username. If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, you might get more constructive replies.
"And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes."
"So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect."
Come now, those are very much adversarial.
Regarding the main point of contention: Russia complains about NATO expansion raising security concerns and the response from NATO/US representatives is "NATO is defensive pact", "Russia has nothing to fear from NATO", "This is a new NATO... Its enemy is not Russia", and so on. This list could go on and on. But the denial of NATO presenting a security concern to Russia is just an assertion that NATO is benign to Russia's security. In other words, NATO expansion is irrelevant to Russian security. These terms all mean the same thing in the context of whether NATO and NATO expansion is a security threat to Russia.
Seriously, this is all just the basic meaning of words. If it's not obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps consult ChatGPT.
The first statement (the one that began the engagement) obviously was not.
And ironically -- your misinterpretation of that statement (as adversarial when it clearly wasn't) is exactly what I was referring to in the second statement. By which was meant, in somewhat longer form: "It seems you're going out of your way to read adversarial intent when there simply isn't any in there."
The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting. So yes, very much adversarial. This should all just be so obvious.
>The tumor is benign
You left off the contextualizing clause which just changes the meaning of the sentence. "The tumor is benign/irrelevant to your continued ability to play the piano" has the same meaning with either phrasing.
The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting.
No, they're saying they have reason to believe your characterization is inaccurate. And it's not in the least adversarial to do so. It's a normal and healthy part of everyday discourse, actually.
As to the main point of contention -- I think a fair description of the consensus view of the situation, among people who have the temerity to disagree with you, goes about like this:
"Of course NATO enlargement was something of an annoyance to Russia. Specifically it can be taken as a signal that NATO might confront Russia's own moves for influence in say, the Balkans, North Africa or the Middle East -- places that, last we checked, are not Russia. It may even choose to involve itself in direct conflict with Russia's allies, such as Serbia, for good reasons or bad. One could also argue that it threatens Russia's 'brand' and prestige in softer ways; and one could even argue that the very existence of NATO is kind of an insult to Russia."
"But every rational actor knows that NATO was never going to actually attack Russia, itself, without cause. Or even threaten to do so. Certainly not in the sense of an all-out, tanks-across-the-steppes assault, or a pre-emptive nuclear strike that Russia pretends to believe is the ultimate goal of its expansion."
"Nor is there any long-range plan in the works to station forces of any kind on Russia's borders that could potentially threaten or signal the capability for such an invasion, in for extortion purposes (in essence), as Russia's current regime also pretends to believe. You simply will not find a shred of evidence for any line of thinking in support of such a plan."
"All that pretense is just that -- pretense and propaganda. It's just a foil that its various incarnations of its regime have used, over decade, first to justify its continued occupation of the Warsaw Pact countries, and now, to distract from its actual reasons for its invading Ukraine (and manacing other countries). And to get its people to sign up for the endless meat-grinder war it managed to create for them there, once its delusional expectations of a quick, decisive victory evaporated on first contact with reality."
So if people say things like "NATO's expansion is benign to Russia's security concerns", that's the framing in which that sentiment is most likely meant. They may be oversimplifying slightly, but not by much.
