I don't think that an invasion of the Baltics would have been a foregone conclusion if they weren't admitted into NATO, and the author of the article implies that NATO membership in practice did little to bolster their defenses against this threat prior to 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia.
That really isn’t a very good argument that
maybe the Baltic countries shouldn’t have joined NATO.
The military buildup in the Baltics since 2008 and especially 2014 has made Putin significantly more paranoid about the west, which is saying a lot for someone from a society whose default paranoia on a scale of 1-10 is 11.
Gee, I wonder what happened in 2008 and 2014 that caused that military buildup?
Meanwhile, we've turned countries who had little value to the US into a significant vulnerability for Putin to test our resolve to enforce NATO in the region.
A threat to those countries would have been a threat to all of Europe, and would have had significant adverse consequences for us.
Russia considers itself to have rightful sovereignty over Ukraine due to cultural, ethnic, and historical connections, so we can't automatically assume its aggression to take Ukraine would have automatically translated to war in the Baltics if it were not for NATO admission. However, Russia may have played a more diplomatic long game towards Ukraine without NATO expansion as well as US interference in Ukrainian politics, since it creates a more urgent need for Ukrainian resources to fend off a looming threat from Russia's perspective.
First off, the vast majority of Ukrainians want to remain independent from Russia and that has been the case since they became independent. That simple fact seems to be lost on pretty much everyone who argues that Russia somehow had justifications to invade Ukraine.
Secondly, US and European ‘interference’ in Ukrainian affairs has been blown
far out of proportion to the reality of what we and our allies have done domestically in Ukraine. Conversely, Russia has been
very heavily involved with interfering with domestic Ukrainian affairs long before their invasions, to include poisoning a presidential candidate back in 2004 and literally buying off his successor.
Finally, all three of the Baltic countries have significant Russian minorities that were settled there specifically to strengthen the Soviet Union’s hold on them post-war and there has long been concern that they could be used as an excuse to interfere with their affairs. Russian actions towards the Baltics since their independence, even well before their accession to NATO, have reinforced this view.
Much like China, the US - Russian diplomatic and economic relationship has gone backwards over the last 10 years. They also aren't going to disappear nor change their culture, so we've got to learn how to coexist even though the cloak and dagger games will never stop. It takes two to tango, so "Putin bad" isn't useful to informing future policy.
You repeatedly use many of the same arguments that place the bulk of the blame our current issues with Russia on the West, mainly the United States. All of those arguments fail to take into account that the Russians have been naked aggressors who repeatedly have attacked neighboring sovereign countries, assassinated foreign enemies on foreign soil, bribed foreign officials, fomented unrest and made allies with terrorist regimes among many other asshole things. It is just like blaming a victim for finally defending itself from an abuser.
While you present it as a counter view to the prevailing one here you are using many well worn, inaccurate and biased arguments that parrot Russian propaganda. Propaganda that has obviously been very effective.
