I removed my response. The wall of text was in jest. Because that was the point, not its content. Anyway, I removed my response quite fast as I wasn't in the mood for a hellthread. I'll mute this thread now.
@p@fba I don't now much of the fediverse and usually stay away from related discussions. But it has always concerned be that there seems to be no transparency. I consider it a danger.
@11112011 That wasn't my question, maybe I misspoke. I wondered to how to get to the context? How come it wasn't available directly? Is it become instance problems? Challenges with federation?
@11112011 Allow me to address something unrelated: I see posts like this (like yours), but there's no context whatsoever. Maybe I'm an idiot, but how does one find out the context? Behind the "plus sign button" there's nothing.
From my convo with @eisai it appears there's less motivation to post links mainly because too often it doesn't end up in good hands. They dismiss it or "troll" (like @p) mentioned I believe.
@p@11112011@Grandtheftautism@Senator_Armstrong@animeirl@dicey@eisai@icedquinn A gigaton of resources though. Also - merely speculating - nobody like the USA bombing half of the world. Putin managed to gain a moral high-ground. Expanding his influence would be more simple and cheap, becoming a far more serious competitor to the US.
Again, merely speculation. All roads (analysis) must lead to either power or money.
First of all I share the (functional) frustration with short posts. I do things my way and accept a kick in the balls from disappointing respondents. It's my way usually - but I have no answers.
Secondly you didn't have to apologize for referring to 2008 as the source of events. Most think that and I even I did, which resulted in my erroneous analysis of Putin's motives. Apologies accepted.
Now the strategic gamble by Putin you addressed, citing aforementioned book by Burns, is mighty interesting.
If I understood you correctly, Russia provided a corridor via central Asia for the US/NATO despite internal opposition. US didn't accept that as a payment and rejected the desired (by Russia) cooperation nevertheless.
Putin also hoped for the stoppage of NATO expansion to the Baltic. Upon further research Putin also hoped to find the NATO as an ally against the Chechens back in the day. This explains it.
Illuminating feedback from your end once again.
When it comes to sources (I'd rather end this long post now), I adopted a style where I cite the crucial sentences, and then post the link so they can find out I didn't make it up. But true, most don't give a damn for some reason.
I just did a serious fact checking. It turns out you @p and @eisai were kinda correct after all. But we needed to go deeper into history, up to 2003. Then the context becomes far more clear.
For 2088, in fact, only Putin said he applied for membership, but none of this happened in 2008 at all. It was all about Ukraine and Georgia applying (and being denied MAP, membership). Secondly Russia chose to avoid sensitive subjects such as Kosovo in favor of cooperating with NATO on terrain where their interests align such as Afghanistan and security.
However, you are on to something; Mr Robertson, secretary general of the transatlantic alliance between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe
He said: “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time."
Thank you for sharpening my vision on historical events. But please don't let me work this hard next time. Provide such important sources with your explanation lol.