-
That said, there are also the people who are saying that Putin is right to regard NATO as a threat...which is much less arguable.
is it?
Anyway, to resolve a conflict you have to understand exactly what has driven your enemy to get to this point, whether you agree or not
ftfy
We don't agree with Putin, doesn't mean we can't understand him. Understanding him isn't excusing him.
.mo.-
Understanding him isn't excusing him.
Its the same as why Thatcher and her government had so many meetings with the IRA in secret. The Good Friday Agreement was a result of years of people engaging with the terrorists behind closed doors not just something that fell into place out of the blue.
Its easy to say "whats the point?" about these things but as you say understanding how your enemy got to this point is crucial for resolving the situation.
It grinds my gears a little bit to hear people criticising Macron for talking to Putin for example. Another example would be the heat that Corbyn got from meeting with the IRA (and why the government kept their meetings secret).
-
people who are saying that Putin is right to regard NATO as a threat.
Putin does not regard NATO as a threat. Putin regards NATO as unlikely to intervene directly if he invades Ukraine, and has been proved correct.
Stonehedge
William.
I think, as always, the nuances of this argument are lost in the age of binary internet opinions.
Its perfectly possible to say that NATO has contributed to where we are today, without actually saying that NATO did the wrong thing or Putin is acting reasonably in response. If Putin thinks NATO policy is a reason for the war, then its one of the contributing factors leading to this war, whether its justified/rational or not.
That said, there are also the people who are saying that Putin is right to regard NATO as a threat...which is much less arguable.
Anyway, to resolve a conflict you have to understand exactly what has driven your enemy to get to this point, whether its fundamentally insane or not.