> But then I am confused. You say that Russia's narrative about NATO doesn't make sense; but at the same time you seem to agree that both Ukraine, in the post-2

> But then I am confused. You say that Russia's narrative about NATO doesn't make sense; but at the same time you seem to agree that both Ukraine, in the post-2014 world, would like to join to gain the military protection of the alliance; I don't see a contradiction here: Yes, Ukraine and Georgia would very much like to join and no, NATO doesn't want to admit them. In fact, NATO has been denying their requests for membership since at least 2008 when Ukraine applied. > and that the alliance leaves the door open for Ukraine and Georgia. As long as that's the case, how can you say that Russia's story is false and just invented to sidetrack the trusting Westerners? Don't you think "leaves the door open for the future" is quite different from imminent danger of missile deployment? It is clear that NATO won't admit countries with territories occupied by Russia (they had 14 years to do that with Georgia and 7 years with Ukraine), so feigning being threatened by that is just a pretext. Also, look at the map and ask yourself why NATO don't just deploy those missiles in Latvia. > I also don't fully understand the point about the destabilization either. Does Russia destabilize all its neighbors, and why would it prefer an unstable neighbor to a stable one? Are you really asking in good faith? Obviously, Russia prefers stable pro-Russian autocratic neighbors and are willing to destabilize any governments that don't conform to that definition until more fitting government can be established.