If you look at Yeltsin’s presidency and Putin’s first term, both pursued the goal of integrating Russia into the Western world, and to some extent they succeeded. At the same time, both leaders strongly opposed NATO’s expansion eastward. This opposition was rooted in explicit assurances given by Western governments that NATO would not expand, assurances made in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany. Putin’s stance hardened once it became clear that Russia would never be accepted into either the EU or NATO, unlike many other former Soviet states.
You speak of Russia’s aggression toward its neighbors, but overlook Western aggression toward Russia. Russia—and earlier the USSR—was invaded twice in the last century by coalitions of Western powers. Two of the most devastating wars of the twentieth century were fought largely on Russian territory, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of lives. These experiences are often downplayed or ignored in Western historiography, but they remain central to Russian historical memory.
Take Finland as an example. The USSR attacked Finland once, but Finland invaded Soviet territory twice: first by annexing land, and later by participating in mass violence alongside Nazi Germany. Yet popular memory outside Russia tends to focus almost exclusively on the Soviet attack. Given this historical context, it is hardly surprising that Russia remains deeply suspicious of NATO and Western countries—especially considering that, over the past 30 years, NATO members have been involved in numerous wars of aggression.
> If you look at Yeltsin’s presidency and Putin’s first term, both pursued the goal of integrating Russia into the Western world, and to some extent they succeeded.
They succeeded to some extent to integrate Russia into the Western world, but failed or didn't try to actually change Russia. Already in first Putin's term it becomes clear how will the country proceed.
> This opposition was rooted in explicit assurances
No such explicit assurances have ever existed and if someone claims russian politicians have believed some spoken sentences as ratified pacts, they are either dumb or lying. Anyway, Russia also promised in writing to guarantee the territorial integrity and safety of Ukraine (1994), so there is no reason to believe anything they say or write for the foreseeable future.
> You speak of Russia’s aggression toward its neighbors,
For which they never apologised.
> Yet popular memory outside Russia tends to focus almost exclusively on the Soviet attack.
For which they never apologised and annexed Karelia.
And this is exactly why many people say the only good Russian is a dead one. If the country and nation wants to be universally hated, it should proceed exactly like that.
> No such explicit assurances have ever existed and if someone claims russian politicians have believed some spoken sentences as ratified pacts, they are either dumb or lying. Anyway, Russia also promised in writing to guarantee the territorial integrity and safety of Ukraine (1994), so there is no reason to believe anything they say or write for the foreseeable future.
You can look at this issue from both sides. The Budapest Memorandum was exactly that—a memorandum—and it was never ratified by Russia. As such, it carries no more legal weight than the security assurances provided by NATO. Moreover, it was largely the Clinton administration, together with the EU, that pressured Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, since no one wanted the emergence of a new nuclear state in Europe.
> For which they never apologised.
You are also incorrect on the historical point. Russia officially apologised for the Winter War during Yeltsin’s presidency, along with issuing several other apologies for Soviet-era crimes. Finland, by contrast, has never apologised for its own actions, nor does it adequately teach about its own atrocities. Ask the average Finn how Finland acquired Petsamo or about Finland’s role in the siege of Leningrad, and you are unlikely to encounter much regret or acknowledgment of responsibility.
> And this is exactly why many people say the only good Russian is a dead one. If the country and nation wants to be universally hated, it should proceed exactly like that.
> As such, it carries no more legal weight than the security assurances provided by NATO.
There were no 'security assurances provided by NATO', but I also agree any political agreement signed or even ratified by Russia carries zero significance as they do not feel to be bound by it. They only understand force, not dialogue, and as such can't be a part of the civilised world.
> You are also incorrect on the historical point.
I am correct on that, there is no formal apology for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, for example.
> And that is just sheer racism and speech hate.
That may be, but it's also completely understandable in the face of russian behavior of the past over 100 years, of the russian public indifference to the heinous crimes perpetrated by their army in Ukraine and it is still way better and less racist and hateful that daily murdering Ukrainian children in their sleep.
