That's exactly the arrogance Putin - and me - are talking about
: "Putin will have to live with that reality". No, it's not just Putin, it's a majority of russian public opinion, and No, they must not just live with it - in fact they already are reacting. BTW, Putin is very popular - especially amongst the young. They (voluntarily) even make pop songs about him. The size of intellectual opposition is overestimated, imo. and many of it's dreams about "all would be well if we would have a way like the EU" are simply this: dreams. A look at Brussel's already present anti-democracy and ursurping of powers that have no democratic legitimation should teach them for the better. - And after the fall of the USSR, and before stronger state control was reestablished again, the country, it'S ressources and economy almost got sold off to oligarchs and Western predators. No, the West has no reason to tell the Russian that the West is more fair, just and well-.going than Putin's method.
When the US felt that Soviet-friendly influence might be installed in Middle America, they started to wage wars in such cases. That was far tougher a reaction for much lesser cause. Talking about wars against independant states, not Aerican federal states wishing to leave the union.
If a foreign military power starts to creep towards your borders more and more, installs sensors, radar screens, missile defense systems that reach far into your territory, it is not only hurting to your pride. It is an open provocation - like U2 flights high above your territory outside your missiles reach. Not to mention diplomatic phrases like "hurting one's territorial sovereignity". Mind you again: when America thought Soviet influence was coming too close in form of socialist regimes, it launched hidden or open wars. It turned countries in south and middle america into bloodthirsty tyrannies. Say what you want, Putin is far from that. He wants to keep together what he has left, and not give any more ground, that's it. The nineties were a time of constant giving ground and constant bad compromise and constant moves back. This has been brought to a halt.
It is not wise to treat a huge and mighty country, which in sort of it'S energy ressources has already a mighty "civilian" club available, in such provocative manner. It is totally unimportant if you think your moves are harmless, and have good reasons. Important is what reaction you cause because they see it different. there is also a nationalistic faction in Russia that is far worse than Putin. You do want to avoid acts that help them to come to power again or even just widen their influence. Putin doies not ifgnore them, but it seems to me that he also has managed to tame their ambitions for the time being.
NATO always claims it's only for the best of people. at the same time it is a toothless tiger on the european part, an actor making excessive use of military force whenever it serves his interests on the American part. This is what Putin lined out, and correctly.
NATO also needs to ask if it is in NATO's own interest to grow that far. that the US is aiming at a global role for it, is clear. But I do not see it that way. Europe shall not have any interest in playing policeman - not in the North-Atlantic neighbourhood, but in Asia. Or closer to China. the farther NATO reaches into crisis regions in the south-east, the greater the chance that it will get cought up in a real war that has little to do with European interests. Why fighting other people'S wars? And is anyone living under the impression, after Afghnaistan, that the european part of NATO is prepared for that? Or that the american part, after the poor performance in Iraq, is prepared for that? Like the EU, a too huge NATO also could lead to inability to act, to reach decisions, to come to reasomnable agreements. Every dwarf wants his voice represented in the outcome. There are already far too many players in the team.
Bombings of embassies (no way to convince me those were unintentional), patrol flights that are setting courses most precisely on the path of international border for "that is legitimate", phrases like "we armed them to death during the cold war, we'll do it again" (voice in this forum), and "let there be no doubt that the US has the capability to wage two wars at the same time" (Powell), sabre-rattling against Iran although having lost in Iraq and is being outmanouveured in Afghanistan and helpless against Northkorea - not really a display of reason and modesty. "Mine is longer than yours - so don't even dare to piss me!" In many regards, NATO policy is american policy, and American foreign policy does not reach farther than it can reach out with it's fist - an armslength, that is. That is the tapping-around of a relatively blind man. As is extremely obviously demonstated for example in the Middle East, since decades.
Nato is not the holy round of the twelve King Arthur knights. It neither is as noble, nor as capable. As a matter of fact it is in deep crisis, torn apart between America's attempt to use it for it'S own global desires, and Europe stubborness by which it refuses to even take responsebility for europe itself, and halfheartly waging wars that are not labelled wars in other parts of the globe, trying to close ties with Islamic countries at the same time. The example of Afghanistan for me has started to sing the swan song of NATO, although one might not be willing to see that before another 10 or 20 years have passed. the North Atlantic has become significantly wider in size, not smaller.
25-40% of gas and oil for most European countries comes from Russia. For Germany, it is even slightly more. You want to piss the russians, for whatever silly reasons you have? then at least make sure you get independant from them first. Like I always said before: you want to resist Islam? Become independant from Muslim oil first (around 20% of German's oil comes from Arab states, 20% that are tough to replace on today's tensed global energy trade markets since the chinese and Indians switched to higher gears).