Allies fear the US is becoming less reliable, with growing concern over a possible Trump return

I don't think USSR became what anyone in the west wanted it to become.

Who is Yeltsin?

It's nowhere near neoliberal, for one, more like a mafia state.

Technically it quickly became something closer to classically liberal rather than neoliberal (as the imperial core shunned it) but to claim that liberalism is opposed to mafiosi is hilarious, it has never existed without them. It's like saying liberalism is opposed to slavery, there is some vacuous sense in which you could use sophistry to push that angle, but when you look at real, historic manifestations of liberal states, they are heavily economically reliant on various forms of slavery, whether domestic or via their dogs in the third world.

Legitimate national interests don't include attacking ethnic minorities, which is a major cause of the current war dating back to the early 2010s.

There's also a question of what "national interest" means when the U.S. coups your elected government, as it did to Ukraine in 2014.

I don't know, why don't you ask the Americans who replaced their government for them?

I don’t immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to.

God, this is so mask off. Just because a country doesn't meet some extremely vague notion of "good" that you've arbitrarily decided to apply (and which almost always just means "part of the West" in practice) you think it's not aggression to bomb their people into poverty and famine. Fuck liberals.

I'm not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat.

That's exactly what you said, although you said it about the USSR, which was even more absurd.

I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

So clever to fall back on the "well if I did do it, they deserved it" defense.

Do you think the people of Libya, a country you'd say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.

I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Liberal, free, non-oppreasive, democratic nations that oppose Western neocolonial interests tend to get coup'ed by the CIA and replaced with pro-Western fascists. Countries that do survive, like for instance Cuba, have their name dragged through the mud by an enormous propaganda machine - which also whitewashes or conveniently forgets the crushing of the leftist projects that don't survive.

There are countless examples throughout history, but my go-to is Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran, in the 50's. No doubt the line will be that "that was a long time ago so it doesn't count," but the CIA covered up their involvement for decades, and if I picked a more modern example you'd likely either deny involvement or say that the government deserved it.

Iran suffered under British colonialism for decades. In the 1800's, the shahs signed all sorts of deals selling out the country at absurdly bad rates and no expiration, to fund their exorbitant lifestyles. A large scale popular movement ousted them, but the agreements remained, and a new dynasty took power with British support, and the exploitation continued. Britain secured enormous profit and wealth through Iranian oil while falsifying records to pay virtually nothing for it while the Iranians lived in abject poverty. For decades the Iranians sought a diplomatic resolution and we're completely stonewalled.

Finally, another popular movement caused the shah to appoint Mossadegh as PM (a position that had previously been hand-picked by the British). Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry to enormous popular support, but the British responded with a blockade, and offered Eisenhower support in Korea and in forming NATO in exchange for having the CIA oust Mossadegh (an offer Truman had dismissed in disgust, as this was the first case of CIA involvement of regime change).

Mossadegh, like many Iranians at the time, saw their struggle as being only against the British and trusted the US to uphold the values it preached and saw it as a potential friend. The CIA took over every newspaper in the country and started publishing anti-government propaganda nonstop. They hired false flag protesters, who claimed to support the government and then wrecked shit (as well as hiring protesters to march against the government). Politicians, vote counters, religious leaders, journalists, anyone with an ounce of power was getting bribed by the CIA. Mossadegh believed that these were genuine and legitimate expressions of dissent and did nothing to crack down. Finally, a US diplomat told him a made-up sob story about people at the embassy getting death threats from his supporters and threatened to close it, and Mossadegh got on the radio and told his supporters to stand down and stay home - the next day, the CIA launched a coup that ousted him from power.

What followed was the restoration of the shah's power, which included hunting down leftists with secret police, banning traditional religious garb to make the country appear more Western, and of course the continued exploitation of Iranian oil, the proceeds of which went straight to the king's bank account. When the Iranian Revolution of 1973 happened, decade of political repression of the left allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to be the ones that took power, and the US allowed the shah to flee there which outraged the Iranians, considering that he had previously been installed by them.

I could tell you the same story over and over again about countries all around the globe. Many nations had resources stolen from them via violence and colonialism and these resources remain in the hands of the people who took them, and anyone who attempts to reassert control over their own resources is putting themselves in the crosshairs of the the US and NATO, whether through sanctions, seizing assets, CIA backed coups, or overt military aggression. But all they have to do is cover up the truth or present a bullshit justification, and by the time it falls apart it'll be too late to do anything about it, it'll have faded from the public consciousness, and people will assert, without reason or evidence, that "they don't do that anymore" dispite having clear means and motive to and never having faced any sort of punishment for it. Meanwhile the historical examples can continue to be used to intimidate countries outside of the imperial core who don't have goldfish memories, and understand that they could be next. So they either comply with neocolonial exploitation, or they take measures to prevent CIA infiltration, which then gets them derided as "authoritarian" by people like you - and if they do neither of these things, then they get coup'ed and replaced by a fascist.

Lmao that's the weakest shit. "Sure we helped starve Leningrad and worked with the people who did the Holocaust, but look, some commies blew up a single synagogue during combat! This proves that we were right to massacre thousands and work with fascists, actually."

How do you type that out and fight off the embarrassment long enough to hit post? Long practice, I guess. Defending fascists tends to put you in the clown shoes time and time again.

oh, did the USSR set out to conquer finland then? must be why they started with demanding territorial concessions, and after beating the shit out of finland, ended up taking somewhat more territory.

when was this wholesale conquest on the table?

your shit people on the other hand joined the nazis, who were out to conquer all of russia and kill all its inhabitants. it's all projection with you fucks.