Russia’s diplomats were once a key part of President Putin’s foreign policy strategy. But that has all changed.
In the years leading up to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, diplomats lost their authority, their role reduced to echoing the Kremlin’s aggressive rhetoric.
BBC Russian asks former diplomats, as well as ex-Kremlin and White House insiders, how Russian diplomacy broke down.
Gotta wonder how Russia never ended up being able to NATO despite this.
It’s simple, they never actually asked to join.
Russia / Putin didn’t want to follow standard procedure, feeling entitled for a special treatment.
Like when the US illegally invades Iraq and murders millions of civilians against UN orders
Lol, what a fine example of whataboutism. We’re talking about a procedure to enter NATO and you whatabout Iraq. How about we talk about the crimes of Ivan the Terrible instead?
I’m starting to think there are Russian shills ITT.
Declassified (by the US) documents mention that Putin wanted to join without waiting in queue with “insignificant countries” (in early 2000s, who would that be? Baltic countries?), and as late as 2012 there was a contract for usage Russian airport as transit hub to Afghanistan (https://m.gazeta.ru/politics/2012/06/29_a_4650373.shtml, was looking specifically for pro-Russian media as a source)
NATO laughed them out of the room, then proceeded to pretend they were still the USSR.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-didnt-russia-join-west-after-soviet-union-died-blame-bill-clinton
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO–Russia_relations
The factual link you posted (not the commentary on CATO, lol) says the opposite. NATO cut ties after Putin began turning aggressive as Ukraine began gaining independence.
CATO is a Washington think tank. I don’t know why you are laughing it off in this matter, over Wikipedia which fails to mention that efforts to approach NATO were initiated by Russia. You want a more recognizable source? Fine: https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5564207/russia-nato-relationship/%3Famp=true?espv=1
CATO is a bunch of crazies posturing as a think tank. Their opinions are ideological and not fact based. They make the Heritage Foundation (I think they rebranded to Heartland Institute) sound like a reasoned logical bunch.
CATO is not a trustworthy factual source. It’s a trustworthy source if you want to justify oligarchy and fascism, though.
And yeah. You keep posting links that contradict the statement “they laughed them out of the room” you originally posted. NATO opened up to Russia. Russia decided it was not worth their effort.
Anything that confirms your bias I guess. Have a nice day.
Lol. I accepted 2/3 of your links but I reject the idiocy of CATO so I am biased!? Lol
Have a nice day.
You didn’t indicate so. You just laid out a claim on thin air and then went ahead to deny all I said. So…
Your links keep contradicting your own point and your response is that we are confirming our own bias? The mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance you go through on a regular basis must be a real bitch lmao
Responds to criticism of a Cato link with a google amp link…
Dude responded with a Time Magazine article, you’re arguing in bad faith.
I’m not arguing at all I’m just pointing out some cringe behavior.
CATO as a source is worse than RT lol. Talk about arguing in bad faith.