Comments by "Meh Pluribus Unum" (@pluribus_unum) on "Understanding the psyche of Vladimir Putin | Alexander Stubb" video.

Putin is terrified of NATO. The notion that Putin called NATO's bluff misunderstands how NATO's strength comes in no small part from its defining defensive posture. Putin wanted to join NATO, but wanted to be exempted from the requirement criteria and get special treatment in terms of timing. "Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”..."
9
@sb_dunk - The defining defensive posture of NATO -- a military alliance -- is not an ethos of pacifism. I don't understand the argument that Libya disproves NATO is a defensive alliance, frankly. It's been a pet claim of Putin's for over a decade though. The UN Security Council resolution NATO was implementing was drafted to protect civilians. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 "...demand[ed] 'an immediate ceasefire' and authoriz[ed] the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians."
2
@rikulappi9664 - Regarding taking on NATO forces, the context of the comment made, Putin is terrified of NATO. Regarding the possible advantage democracy and democratic reforms in Ukraine would gain with NATO membership, I believe Putin is also very worried. Saying he's not terrified of NATO expansion is accurate, however. He simply wants Ukraine and Ukraine applying for NATO membership is the excuse.
2
@gorgon9786 - Location. Location. Location.
2
@sb_dunk - I get you don't see that, and a good argument can be made it's not defensive. The larger point is, NATO draws tremendous strength from the collective, pragmatic and defensive nature of its structure and mission. We can feel however we want about the NATO no-fly zone and bombing of Libya under the UNSC resolution. At the end of the day, it doesn't impact the power NATO derives from its defensive alliance status, no matter how many times it's raised as a criticism.
1
@sb_dunk - And you'd by no means be alone. It's my own view that NATO is, at its best, a self-aware necessary evil. At its worst, I feel, it's complicit in wars of aggression and illegal invasions because -- based upon its peacekeeping and security missions alone -- it is relied upon by aggressor nations like the US to come in and be a major part of reconstruction after the destruction. It's complicity in my view because this is true whether it is after a war of aggression or an act of of defense and preservation of sovereignty and/or self-determination.
1