"Strong states do as they will; weak states do as they must" and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
There's this trend in all tribal politics where the tribes that are geographically nearest to you are the biggest threat, because everybody else would need to go through them to get to you. If you are a weak state bordered by a nearby strong state, your existence as a state is threatened daily. It makes a lot of sense to ally with a stronger but more distant partner to gain leverage over your nearby rivals. The U.S. is a very convenient ally for this because with an ocean on both sides of us, it's difficult for us to directly invade the countries in question without being invited in. At the same time, we have an industrial & military might that's a very useful counterbalance to potential regional aggression.
The same dynamic plays out both in other regions (Taiwan & Japan ally with the U.S. as a check on China; Saudi Arabia allies with the U.S. as a check on Iran; Africa allies with China as a check on the U.S; Cuba allies with Russia as a check on the U.S.); within racial groups in the historical U.S. (black slaves allied with Northern abolitionists against Southern planters); and within social classes in contemporary U.S. politics (minorities ally with urban liberals against the white working class; the white working class allies with old-line business owners against urban liberals; urban liberals ally with technocrats against old-line business owners).
Everything coldtea said was factually correct. I personally don't have a problem with it because I'm American and it's to my benefit to have citizenship in a geopolitically strong nation. But your response is conflating "that which is true" vs. "that which is convenient for me". You can acknowledge geopolitical realism without passing judgment on it.
"NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states (using countries like Georgia, changing regimes, etc) ever since the "end" of the Cold War, and they're supposed to just sit back and take it."
Except this is exactly the Russian narrative coldtea is repeating.
"NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states"
Is this a fact or an opinion?
Joining NATO has been each time initiated by the new member state. Nobody has been called to NATO. Quite contrary, there was clear opposition to this and it was not at all certain if any of the new members would ever be able to join NATO.
This narrative like NATO is circling Russia is repeated every day in the Russian media.
It is not Russian neighbors fault that Russia has constantly demonstrated aggression towards its neighbors and willingness to repeat the invasion. Russian neighbors still remember the genocide that happened after the previous invasion.
"They're supposed to just sit back and take it."
In principle, in a civilized world where Russia has abandoned the expansion idea, yes.
Russia has chosen the isolation. Russia and NATO have been partners for long time but apparently the interests of both do not align anymore.
Edit: I agree with your description of the bigger picture.
There's this trend in all tribal politics where the tribes that are geographically nearest to you are the biggest threat, because everybody else would need to go through them to get to you. If you are a weak state bordered by a nearby strong state, your existence as a state is threatened daily. It makes a lot of sense to ally with a stronger but more distant partner to gain leverage over your nearby rivals. The U.S. is a very convenient ally for this because with an ocean on both sides of us, it's difficult for us to directly invade the countries in question without being invited in. At the same time, we have an industrial & military might that's a very useful counterbalance to potential regional aggression.
The same dynamic plays out both in other regions (Taiwan & Japan ally with the U.S. as a check on China; Saudi Arabia allies with the U.S. as a check on Iran; Africa allies with China as a check on the U.S; Cuba allies with Russia as a check on the U.S.); within racial groups in the historical U.S. (black slaves allied with Northern abolitionists against Southern planters); and within social classes in contemporary U.S. politics (minorities ally with urban liberals against the white working class; the white working class allies with old-line business owners against urban liberals; urban liberals ally with technocrats against old-line business owners).
Everything coldtea said was factually correct. I personally don't have a problem with it because I'm American and it's to my benefit to have citizenship in a geopolitically strong nation. But your response is conflating "that which is true" vs. "that which is convenient for me". You can acknowledge geopolitical realism without passing judgment on it.