Is Russia Really The Baddie?

[Fred Steeves]

Alright, thanks Lauren. So I reckon to me, the base fundamental cause/concern over this whole mess would be NATO expansion. The Russians have long expressed deep concern about this, and from their perspective can't say that I blame them.

I like to think of it as if there was an armed gang that continued, slowly but surely, heading towards my property. They can say all they want about how they have no hostile intentions, but at what point does "Nyet Means Nyet" cease being a warning, and escalate to doing whatever is necessary to make them stop. Where is that red line so to speak? Should I wait until they're at my front door while still saying "everything is fine, we mean no harm"?

Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns.  Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

1.  © Summary.  Following a muted first reaction to
Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)
at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and
other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion
as a potential military threat.  NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia.  In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading to
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force
Russia to decide whether to intervene.  Additionally, the GOR
and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry,
Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations
generally.  In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability
and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions.  End
summary.

Cable: 08MOSCOW265_a




We can of course even go back to the beginning, with James Baker's   “not one inch eastward”

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6) 

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive



So I'm just laying out some basic framework of which I'm sure we're all well aware. But even this alone, without going any further, should at the very least cast some doubt upon the ubiquitous western media mantra of "Unprovoked Russian Aggression".