The Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union collapsed because they were corrupt, inefficient, and undemocratic. Russia had to keep sending tanks to keep their satellites in orbit. The people wanted no part of them.
Plain lie. As usual. The question is not why do you believe in this lie (you are very gullible preson, watching way much of western TV and too ignorant to read other sources). The question is why do you masters pay to you media for the denigration of Russia. They are practical men, they wouldn't waste money without a good reason.
Russian communists bragged about 'burying' the West so a certain amount of defensiveness was warranted. Nazis and Hitler are the go to for Americans wanting to highlight EVIL. Only Russians define 'Nazi' as anti-Russian.
Yep. Americans define 'Nazi' as anti-Black, anti-Jewish and anti-homosexual. We define them as "anti-Russian" for it is more practical.
Americans love democracy (at least they did until recently) and feel everyone is entitled to it.
You know nothing about democracy.
We can be overzealous in trying to spread it.
Mass murdering of random people, raping, pillaging, illegal and unprovoked aggressions, support of the most evil terroristic organisatios - is not spreading democracy in any meaningful sense.
Considering that authoritarian governments have been responsible of most recent wars (Stalin, Hitler, Sadam Hussain, and Putin to name a few), democracies seem preferable.
Of course no. Absolute majority of post-WWII conflicts were started by so called "Western Democracies", first of all - by the USA.
Really? Details please.
Are you banned in Google? Try Grok from X, then. It's quite good in the explanation of the common knowledge while prone to repeat common mistakes. Just asked myself, and yes, there were few referendums (but most of them joined NATO without referendums).
-------------------
Donald Trump has frequently claimed that America "sponsors" Europe, primarily referring to the United States' significant contributions to NATO and its role in European security. His statements stem from the belief that the U.S. bears a disproportionate financial and military burden in protecting Europe, particularly through NATO, while European allies contribute less relative to their economic capacity. Here are the key reasons behind his claims, based on his statements and the broader context:
NATO Defense Spending Disparities: Trump has repeatedly criticized European NATO members for not meeting the alliance’s guideline of spending 2% of their GDP on defense. For example, in 2018, he noted that the U.S. was spending around 4% of its GDP on NATO-related defense, while countries like Germany spent closer to 1%. He argued this imbalance means the U.S. is effectively subsidizing Europe’s security, allowing European nations to allocate more resources to domestic programs like welfare.
Trade Imbalances as a Grievance: Trump often linked security contributions to trade, claiming that Europe takes advantage of the U.S. not only through lower defense spending but also via trade surpluses. He stated that the European Union had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S., implying that Europe benefits economically while the U.S. foots the bill for their protection.
---------------------
Several new NATO member states held referendums to gauge public support for joining the alliance, particularly among countries that joined after the Cold War. Below is an overview of referendums related to NATO membership among new members, based on available information and focusing on countries that joined NATO after 1990. Note that not all new members held referendums, as the decision to join NATO often depends on parliamentary approval or government decisions rather than a public vote.
New NATO Members and Referendums
Since 1990, NATO has expanded through multiple rounds, adding 16 new members: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia (2004); Albania, Croatia (2009); Montenegro (2017); North Macedonia (2020); Finland (2023); and Sweden (2024). Below is a breakdown of referendums or lack thereof for these countries:
Czech Republic (1999):
No referendum. The decision to join NATO was made by the government and parliament without a public referendum. Public opinion polls at the time showed mixed support, but the government proceeded based on strategic priorities post-Cold War.
Hungary (1999):
Referendum held. On November 16, 1997, Hungary conducted a referendum on NATO membership. The result was overwhelmingly in favor, with 85.3% voting "yes" to join NATO, though voter turnout was around 49%. This strong public support confirmed Hungary’s interest in aligning with Western security structures.
Poland (1999):
No referendum. Poland’s accession to NATO was decided by the government and ratified by parliament. Public opinion generally favored NATO membership due to historical concerns about Russian influence, but no formal referendum was held.
Bulgaria (2004):
No referendum. Bulgaria’s decision to join NATO was made through parliamentary processes. Political parties opposing NATO membership, such as the Bulgarian Socialist Party, lost influence in the 1997 elections, paving the way for accession without a public vote.
Estonia (2004):
No referendum. Estonia’s NATO membership was approved by the government and parliament, driven by concerns about Russian aggression due to its Soviet past. Public support was generally high, but no referendum was deemed necessary.
Latvia (2004):
No referendum. Latvia’s accession was handled through parliamentary approval. Public opinion was largely supportive, influenced by the country’s history under Soviet occupation, but no referendum occurred.
Lithuania (2004):
No referendum. Like Latvia and Estonia, Lithuania’s decision was made by the government and parliament. The Baltic states prioritized NATO membership for security against potential Russian threats, and public support was strong, but no referendum was held.
Romania (2004):
No referendum. Romania’s NATO membership was approved through parliamentary processes. Public support was significant due to the desire for Western integration, but no referendum was conducted.
Slovakia (2004):
No referendum. Slovakia’s accession followed parliamentary approval after the 1998 elections, where parties skeptical of NATO membership (e.g., HZDS) were voted out. Public opinion leaned toward NATO, but no referendum was held.
Slovenia (2004):
Referendum held. On March 23, 2003, Slovenia held a referendum on both NATO and EU membership. Approximately 66% voted in favor of NATO membership, with a turnout of around 60%. The referendum confirmed public support for integration into Western institutions.
Albania (2009):
No referendum. Albania’s NATO membership was approved by parliament. Public support was generally high due to the country’s pro-Western orientation, but no referendum was conducted.
Croatia (2009):
No referendum. Croatia’s accession was decided by the government and parliament. Public opinion was largely favorable, but no referendum was held.
Montenegro (2017):
No referendum. Montenegro’s NATO membership was approved by parliament in April 2017, despite significant domestic opposition, particularly from pro-Russian factions. Public opinion was divided, but no referendum was held due to political tensions and the government’s strategic decision to align with NATO.
North Macedonia (2020):
Referendum held. On September 30, 2018, North Macedonia held a non-binding referendum on the Prespa Agreement, which resolved the naming dispute with Greece and paved the way for NATO membership. The question indirectly addressed NATO and EU accession, with 91.5% voting in favor, though turnout was low at 36.9%. The government used this result to justify proceeding with NATO accession, which was finalized in 2020.
Finland (2023):
No referendum. Finland’s decision to join NATO was made by the government and parliament following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Public support surged dramatically, with polls showing over 70% in favor of membership, but no referendum was held due to the urgency of the security situation.
Sweden (2024):
No referendum. Like Finland, Sweden’s accession was decided by the government and parliament in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Public support for NATO membership increased significantly, but no referendum was conducted.
Key Observations
Limited use of referendums: Only a few new NATO members (Hungary, Slovenia, and indirectly North Macedonia) held referendums on NATO membership. Most countries relied on parliamentary approval, reflecting the complex and often elite-driven nature of security policy decisions.
Public support and context: In post-Cold War Eastern Europe, NATO membership was often seen as a safeguard against Russian influence, particularly for former Warsaw Pact or Soviet-aligned states. Referendums were more likely in countries where public debate was significant or where governments sought to legitimize the decision.
Challenges with referendums: Low voter turnout (e.g., North Macedonia) or domestic divisions (e.g., Montenegro) sometimes complicated referendum outcomes. In some cases, governments avoided referendums to bypass opposition or expedite the process, especially in urgent security contexts like Finland and Sweden’s accession.
Eastern European sentiment: As noted in an X post, Eastern European countries often joined NATO voluntarily, driven by historical experiences with Soviet or Russian influence, which lent legitimacy to their decisions even without referendums.
Sources
Information on Hungary, North Macedonia, and Slovenia referendums:
General NATO enlargement processes:,
Sentiment in Eastern Europe:
If you’d like specific details on any country’s accession process or public opinion data, let me know!
--------
Why is Russia so paranoid?
Oh, we have pretty good reasons to be a bit caution while dealing with such untruthworthy and sneaky thugs like you. Those who trust America or Europe too often found themselves dead.
Do you think Germany has plans to invade again?
Actually, German tanks already came on the Russian soil (and they just hired Ukrainians to crew them). So yes, they are already invading.
None of Russia's neighbors should scare Russia so their paranoia about NATO is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Ask Finland.
The problem is not that they are scared of Russia. Fear is ok, it have been keeping them (and you) from doing stupid things for more than sixty years. The problem is the lack of fear. They decided that they can actually defeat Russia and survive after it. So, the real question is what should we do in reinspire fear in you. Resume nuclear testing? Nuke Berlin? Eliminate significant part of US nuclear forces?
of American troops in Vietnam. I don't know if I understand your point but I'll say what I have to say anyway. We (the soldiers in Vietnam) knew something was wrong - something was not right. Some guys blamed our "effectiveness"
