[friedturkey]

"Expansion" makes it sound like something that happened to Eastern Europe against their will--not that those countries actively wanted to join.

Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified.

[binarray2000]

2018 Macedonian referendum is one example of the contrarian. It was invalid as the turnout was mere 36.89% (most were probably Albanians). And (I think) in non other country that is a NATO member now, there was a referendum.

For a broader perspective: NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” (from the horse's mouth)

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

EDIT: For even broader perspective: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world. — Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hi...

[ido]

Unless there was foul play involved, if among 36.89% majority voted to join NATO and the rest didn't care enough to vote - isn't that an argument in favor of joining?

[mushbino]

There is no open door policy with NATO. Russia and the Soviet union have tried to join NATO at least a few times publicly and were rejected every time. What's the point of NATO again?

[lazide]

The point of NATO is exactly why Russia fears it - consolidated strength that makes it impossible to pick off member states one by one by a stronger power (namely Russia). Russia and the USSR weren’t invited because they explicitly were the threat.

[lalaland1125]

In order to join NATO, one of the current requirements is having a liberal democratic government with civilian control over the military. Russia (and the old Soviet Union) didn't meet that requirement.

Perhaps Russia should try transitioning to becoming a liberal democracy first?

[tpoacher]

This is true, but only in the same sense as shop owners willingly accepting mafia protection as soon as this is "offered". "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your shop".

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a country expresses interest to join NATO, the general sentiment must be "my my what a lovely club to join, I feel so safe here". You're literally signing a pact of war. Basically it's "choose which mafia family you prefer" and simply not choosing one is probably the worst choice.

[mercy_dude]

Even western polls show around 54% population support for Ukraine to join NATO [1]. Not by a huge majority. And I suspect the Eastern parts the number is substantially lower. When Ukraine is discussed, a lot of western media assumes east and west in same terms which is really not the case.

[1] https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support...

[lalaland1125]

I think it's a bit misleading to state that 54% figure without also mentioning that 18% didn't answer the question.

So 54% supported joining NATO and 28% opposed, almost a 2 to 1 ratio of support to opposition.

[friedturkey]

I don't think Ukraine was even being seriously considered for NATO until Russia decided to surround the country with its military recently.

It's like punching someone, some guy passing by tells you to stop, then you justify your reason for punching that person because you were worried that the person who told you to stop was going to attack you.

Nobody was going to do anything to say anything to you if you hadn't gone out of your way to attack someone.

[dillondoyle]

polling is way higher on EU trade and EU membership though and strong support !== necessarily mean strong opposition.

Just a couple google sources before the invasion put it at 69%, 57%, 58% join EU versus 21% wanting the opposite of an economic union with ussr countries.

IDK xtabs or if there is a poll with strong/lean scale, but a strong plurality above 50% is pretty big regardless see another example last link below showing decent majority strong yes with relatively small no.

Main point is that NATO wasn't even on the table for Ukraine.

The first invasion happened after the Ukrainian people chose a new government because Yanukovych refused to sign the EU trade agreement.

I think a lot of countries in their position (like finland) the citizens were rightly worried about poking the nuclear bear by trying to join NATO.

There are more than a few articles and polls out now showing the sentiment has changed now with this recent war.

Finland for example is now above 53% join nato for while only 28% against.

Another example of lopsided enthusiasm painting a different picture of support.

https://www.iri.org/resources/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-support...

https://www.statista.com/chart/26933/ukrainians-survey-nato-...

https://www.eureporter.co/world/ukraine/2021/03/16/ukrainian...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/03/business/finnish-swed...

[DeathArrow]

>Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified.

The same way Cuba bid for the Soviet Nukes to defend them?

What would you say if Mexic and Canada would bid for a military alliance with Russia and China and some tens of thousands of soldiers and tanks, rockets, planes, would sit near the US border?

PS. Before voting down, I am not trying to justify Russia's invasion but merely trying to explain the reasons behind it.

[pasquinelli]

didn't russia try to join nato?

[Schiendelman]

Yeah, and since it was obviously a troll move, they said no.

[chii]

> bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe

the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).

I think they must give up this notion. If russia turned into what germany is today after the fall of the USSR, they'd be prosperous. It would mean capitulation (to the "west"). Of course, this would mean that the oligarchs do not get their wealth, so there's no impetus for this course of action from anyone. The US is also not keep to have a "marshall plan" like they had with the post WW2 period to rebuild.

So perhaps this war in ukraine is "inevitable".

[pphysch]

> the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).

Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.

The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.