so, as i don't see a russian aggresion since the ww2, and i think it was a german aggresionn then anyway, the nato had maybe the right to exist as long as the warsaw pact was intact. since then the nato for me is nothing but an arm of the military industrial complex with the only justification of a fear of a russion aggression. you need enemys if you want your weapons to be sold. that is the context i see the nato in.
Russia’s post-war aggression is legendary: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Iran, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Austria, Manchuria, Korea, Afghanistan, Japan etc… In some cases the outright response was to push the USSR’s borders further out at the expense of other nations – ironically forcing the pro-western part of what is now Ukraine into the USSR from Poland. The result: a little known anti-Soviet guerrilla war which lasted for over a decade. I’m not really sure why you would see some aggression originating from Germany at this time.
The Soviet regime, especially under Stalin, was hell bent on conquest. They were determined to reclaim the entire former Russian Empire. This is what Putin greatly admires. NATO’s creation was in response to Soviet aggression and the fact it missed the boat on Hitler, because of the prevalent policy of appeasement which proved disastrous. The fact so many former Moscow ‘clients’ are happy under NATO’s umbrella speaks volumes. Not one of them would wish to re-join a Moscow alliance, would they?
Ganser’s work on NATO is interesting, I must admit that. However, I don’t think justice is done, saying that operations were conducted in a uniform manner throughout The West. In other words, the allegations of ‘terrorism’ cannot and should not be equally applied through all member states, some of which were clearly Soviet sympathisers at times and/or had significant pro-Soviet political parties. There was war: cells operated differently, depending on the circumstances.
If a war is on the cards against Russia, you will see the most determined fighters coming from eastern Europe. There is a very good explanation for that: they greatly value their newly won freedom and know the price is high to retain it when Putin has already shown Georgia and Ukraine what the consequences are of moving towards a pro-Western agenda.
Estonia now wants a permanent NATO force, despite the guarantees of the NATO-Russia Founding Act. Why? Because they don’t trust Putin and Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia live with the legacy of WWII. Sweden and Finland want closer ties and have increased co-operation. They never really considered the option during the Cold War. Russia is largely perceived as a grave threat to European peace – not NATO. In response, NATO has so far declined to station troops on a permanent basis, or indeed provide missile defence batteries in The Baltic States.
Putin didn’t need Maidan to interfere in Ukraine. The bottom line is that Russia has never really had any interest in an independent, especially pro-Western, Ukraine. The sooner it ceases to exist, the happier Putin, the nationalists, the royalists and the communists will be. It's also an important stage to recreating the empire.
