Military Doctrines

Putin mentioned Finland and Sweden the other day, and people are shocked to learn that he's opposed to those two countries joining NATO. It's as if this was completely new to them. But this is how things have been ever since the end of the second world war. It's a fifty year old doctrine. Putin didn't say anything new. He merely reiterated what has been known for decades.

The reason this came up was that Ukraine was also supposed to be a neutral country. As were the Baltic states. But now that the Baltic states have long since joined NATO, and Ukraine is petitioning for membership, Putin's patience has been pushed to his limit. NATO cannot continue its eastwards expansion unopposed, and the situation we currently have is what we got.

Some may say that it's none of Putin's business who may or may not join NATO, but this would ignore the fact that the US has had a similar doctrine in place for itself for more than a century. No forces hostile to the US are allowed on American ground.

These rules that powerful nations impose on their neighbors are known as military doctrines, and they define the geopolitical landscape, allowing for relative peace.

Such doctrines are not to be messed with. This is easy to understand by simply imagining Canada's prime minister petitioning China for membership in an anti-US alliance. Imagine China wholeheartedly supporting such a foolish proposal, talking tough and sending weapons to anti-US rebels. There would be US troops in Ottawa, and the US president would demand to talk to the idiot in charge. The talk could be held in London, a city friendly to the US but technically independent.

This is exactly what has happened with Ukraine. There are Russian troops in Kiev, and Putin demands to talk to the idiot in charge. Putin has proposed Minsk as a suitable place for the talk because it's both pro-Russian and technically independent of Russia.

Chronological map of NATO

By Arz - based on Image:Map of NATO countries.png, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link