The perspective still equally applies. Ukraine is just the step too far from his point of view given the historical and geographical situation.
Allow a retort.
1) What does Putin mean by missiles? Nuclear missiles like his comparison to Cuba? First of all, NATO does not currently and did not, to my understanding, have nuclear weapons deployed in any of the Baltic states or Eastern Europe. And certainly the deployment and conditions of those weapon deployments would still be open to negotiations and additional treaties. He didn’t need to invade Ukraine to start negotiations , NATO and the US were clear we were open to security talks with them to avert an invasion. Look at his written demands - full withdrawal of NATO forces and treaties to pre 1997 and a guarantee Ukraine would never join NATO.
2) On Ukraine - Ukraine did not, does not, and for the foreseeable future will not be eligible for NATO. For starters, the don’t meet many requirements - but as long as Ukraine still recognizes Donbas, Luhansk and Crimea as territorial disputes because if they joined NATO they could immediately invoke article 5 to take them back. That’s world war 3.
3) Pre 1997 borders. You saw his pudgy little hands twitch and throw down the paper in that video - but let’s be clear. He’s right, there are some sources that contend that verbally there were NATO wouldn’t extend east - but it’s contentious and disputed. But let’s get really accurate, when it comes to buying a house or a car, nobody relies on verbal conversations. The fact that Yeltsin never got it in writing is an indictment of Yeltsin, not NATO. This is like someone saying, “Hey, my uncle was drunk 20 years ago and wasn’t paying attention when he signed those papers to buy this crap used car, you told him it was great car verbally, so I’m coming up there with a gun to demand justice.” Being pissed off that you didn’t get in writing 30 years ago wouldn’t get any of us anywhere.
4) There’s a distinct reason that Poland, Hungary, Romania and the Baltics (and Ukraine) want to be a part of NATO. When Putin compares that to Canada and Mexico - there’s a distinct difference - The US didn’t occupy them and crackdown on independence movements like the USSR (aka Moscow) did in Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the Czech Republic in the 50s,60s, 70s, 80s and 90. Cuba is certainly a different case - but again go to point #1 we haven’t deployed nuclear weapons there the way the USSR did. Let Putin ask himself instead, why are Mexico, Canada and Ireland not standing in line and falling all over themselves to join a military alliance with Russia? Why are all the former Soviet republics desperate to join NATO?
5) NATO expansion happened in 1997, and he’s only now pissed off enough to start a war? What happened recently? Had NATO done anything? The answer is an emphatic NO. NATO was as fractured as it’s ever been after Iraq and Afghanistan and f*cking Trump. There was absolutely no chance NATO was going to admit Ukraine anytime soon. So what changed? Not a provocation from NATO or the West - but rather an opportunity for Putin to strike while NATO is frazzled and not unified. He wasn’t threatened or feel an intense pressure, he’s taking advantage of our most vulnerable point in 60 years, after f*cking Trump’s nonsense after Putin messed around in internal US politics.
6) Oh, what a victim. These petty politicians with their grievances and victim mentality. Russia always tried to work with the West. Bullshit. The West certainly could’ve done better supporting the economies of the post-Soviet nations, but Russia’s descent into a kleptocracy/mafia state is the model Russia adopted - and the model that they actively spread, and still try to proactively spread, to their satellite states - is NOT the fault of the West. It’s the fault of Russia, and their fault for actively promoting this as their nation-building policy. Look at Belarus, Moldova, etc. These are Putin’s “success stories”. This is what he wants for Ukraine, the Baltics, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, etc. Take a look at what he’s selling … failed kleptocracy/mafia states with an autocratic leader and oligarchs in control of everything, or else. People can, and should, have critiques of the US, the EU and the west but whose used car would you buy? Ours or theirs?
