“In the 1990s, the organization extended its activities into political and humanitarian situations that had not formerly been NATO concerns.”
Why would Russia be angry about NATO having HUMANITARIAN and POLITICAL as opposed to MILITARY ambitions?
I’m sure most of Russia didn’t mind Operation Allied Goodwill I & II, (February to March 1992) either: “NATO assisted an international relief effort by flying teams of humanitarian assistance experts and medical advisors to Russia and other Commonwealth of Independent States nations using AWACS trainer cargo aircraft.”
You know what’s really funny... I went through a list of all the NATO missions, and I can see in there lots of “at their own request” actions e.g.
Operation Anchor Guard - assisting defence in Turkey, who feared Iraqi invasion (Gulf War)
Event security for the Athens Olympics (2004)
African Union Mission in Sudan - providing air support prior to the UN mission (2005 to 2007)
Pakistan earthquake relief assistance (2005)
Hurricane Katrina response (2005)
There’s a very long list of countries that hasn’t asked NATO for a mission in the last 20 years - it obviously includes Russia since Putin came to office.
Russia wasn’t a focus for NATO for over thirty years - it was busy doing humanitarian and political work AT THE REQUEST OF THE RECIPIENT GOVERNMENTS. Russia never asked - it’s that simple.
If Putin and his mates did object to NATO political and humanitarian support when they could just as easily asked for it like anybody else, then it’s no better an indicator than their responses to Chernobyl and Kursk - massive inferiority complexes, paranoid and a misplaced sense of pride meant they’d rather see Russians die than admit they needed help.
I have some respect for Scott Ritter but he’s just flat out wrong on Gorbachev - “not one inch eastward” was an INFORMAL draft pledge that neither Russia nor the USA kept in the formally signed and witnessed agreements. Why do you think Russian fascists hate Gorbachev so much? He admitted that America held up its end of the AGREED stuff - and what Sheverdnaze and Baker discussed was NEVER part of the final deal.
Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
The “Soviet interest” ended the day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus jointly declared the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Anyone suggesting otherwise needs to be horsewhipped until common sense sets in.
By that dumb shit logic, the USA and Mexico oughta respec’ the interests of the Aztec Empire.
NATO should have been disbanded in the mid 1990’s. Globalists pushed for it to expand. Now look at the mess.
you seem to miss the point.
the alliance was created for a specific purpose — once that purpose was no longer needed, then the alliance should have been disbanded or majorly shrunk back.
You need two to tango, and if one side knocked down the wall and offered an olive branch to genuinely have an East meets West mindset, then there is no need for NATO.
but 30 years later AFTER the fall of the wall, it’s still expanding??????????
seems like one side wasn’t interested in the tango.
The last thing we need are billion dollar budgets involved in humanitarian efforts.
Seriously...just stfu.