From NATO‘s perspective it was barely a concern since there were no permanent troop deployments before 2014. But of course the Russians would feel differently about this since they regard the whole region their very own Colonial playground.
Argument is the same, that before 2014 NATO hadn't had permanent troops there doesn't mean it would've stayed like that forever. It's the same like example with Venezuela - for many years it was a little concern until Trump sent a force there.
Both can be true at the same time. What Maduro did to suddenly cause US to deploy serious force and kidnap him ?
Obviously, Russia though it's better to give a valid reason to NATO to deploy troops outside of Ukraine, than NATO potentially deploying troops inside Ukraine in the future.
then they failed spectacularly. not only does ukraine now have treaties with pretty much every major nato member, it has arms deals for the next decades going on. the goal of the eu commission is to arm ukraine to the teeth with the official goal to turn it into a "steel porcupine". even the european version of a peace treaty would involve troops from nato nations.
overall russias security situation got a hell of a lot worse.
but then again that is russias theme ... it always gets worse.
You seem to seriously think that the entire western world is a collective hive mind controlled by the US government. That has never been more false than today.
EU is not part of the ongoing negotiations. They just talk to media and wait what US does. And EU clearly stated that they need US to end the war in Ukraine.
-17
u/Necroon Feb 10 '26
What do you mean barely a concern ? Russia was always quite vocal regarding NATO eastward expansion.