Just as an example of the information I am utterly lacking is what the actual situation is with NATO (U.S.) bases in Eastern Europe. Like, what are they doing, when were they installed, what is their ostensible purpose, etc. I would need to know this in order to evaluate Putin's complaints. It's entirely within the realm of possibiliy that they are peacekeeping bases and Putin doesn't like that they protect countries he'd like to threaten.
Purpose? That's necessarily rather fuzzy, isn't it?
When they were installed is (relatively) easy enough, and likewise what troops are deployed when. You might need to dig
slightly deeper than the Western press, and into the upper levels of defence policy wonkery, though that's not a hard-and-fast distinction either. But they're not "USA (doing business as Nato, Inc)", it
is actually a multinational organisation, y'know. Poland might have a US-led brigade forward-deployed there one year, and then an entirely different one from various other countries the next cycle, possibly with a different US battlegroup in another country by then.
They're definitely not peacekeepers, it's a mutual defence body. By treaty it's explicitly defensive: "Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked." OTOH, a jaded Russian eye is going to look at said "defensive alliance", and see a certain family resemblance to the participants in assorted "coalitions of the willing".
It's also within the realm of possibility that their main purpose to exist is to threaten Russia just on principle, flaring up tensions to justify large military expenditures in the Eastern Bloc area.
If you recall the Tony Soprano-like rhetoric from a certain Former Administration, most of the members don't even meet Nato's own guideline on spending. (Not that contrary to that Fa-- fine fellow, that's "spending", not "protection money owed to the US", of course.) Whether you consider that as "large" or not may also vary. Granting that Poland and the Baltic States all do -- not entirely coincidentally you might think. I was a little surprised to learn that the biggest spender (proportionate to GDP, which is how the guideline is framed) is actually not the US but Greece. While Turkey, which has a
huge standing army, is significantly below the 2%. (Traditionally of course their main interest is in possible war with
each other, so this almost feels like it should be in a separate column.)
For instance, is Russia potentially on the defensive in some respects, having to take action to prevent others seizing necessary assets of theirs, or is it the reverse, that they are greedily looking at assets they would like.
Greed and necessity are rather difficult to objectively tell apart. "We want peace, but we need to achieve it from a position of strength!" -- every warmonger, since always. Is Russia entitled to a warm-water port? To have contiguous access to all its own territory? To militarily protect the interests of all its citizens? To ensure self-determination of areas with Russian majorities? Russian sentiments on such matters and international law don't necessarily coincide -- surprise-surprise. (Not something unique to Russia, of course, but there are degrees...)
Are old official (or unofficial) bargains made in the late 80's being broken by either side? Putin has claimed many times that the agreement the USSR made with the West when it gave up has been breached by NATO.
No (and yes). Respectively. Though they were more related to the reunification of Germany, than to the breakup of the USSR, which was far more of a self-inflicted... injury? Improvement? Process? Let's just just "thing", I guess. James Baker and Helmut Kohl gave "assurances" to Gorbachev, but they weren't affirmed by Bush or by the Nato structure, so not really binding even at the time. And definitely not in any treaty, so absolutely not binding on future Western governments -- much less the Eastern European ones, more to the point. But this is a
huge part of the narrative in Russia -- I'd say "understandably", clearly others feel that only sentences using every possible part of speech, conjugation and declension of the word "Hitler" can suffice -- and very clearly not some personal quirk of Putin. If anyone, pin the start of in on Boris Yeltsin... pretty much the person who did break up the USSR, if we're going to ascribe it to just a single individual.
Putin may want to bring back the good old days but the good old days methods don't work, But then learning from History is for losers
A popular evaluation of Putin is that he's a great tactician, but a terrible strategist. But that's also related to the question of whether he's acting in his own interests, or of his country's.
