I am sympathetic to the complaints about NATO. Then again, a person who read my comments on this thread would know that.
Quoting myself:
If the Monroe Doctrine makes sense for the US, something similar makes sense for Russia. Why NATO even exists after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact remains a mystery to me.
In that case, drlorentz, I owe you an apology for thinking that you were critiquing without having listened to the interview. I disagree with your interpretation, but I apologize for failing to understand your comment.
No need to apologize. This is part of the give-and-take of a robust discussion. Perhaps my comments were insufficiently clear, above.
To clarify my position further, I would add that early in 2022 someone pointed me to the speeches and writings of John Mearsheimer, whom I found to have a better informed and more nuanced understanding of the situation than the average media commentator (aka regime mouthpiece). I can’t quite find all the same resources I used then, which dated from c. 2015, but I linked up a video below from well before the February 2022 action began.
I guess my overarching thought about this is that territory changes hands over the centuries, often (sadly) through violence. It’s rare for one side to be entirely on the side of the angels. Each side has a story with some elements of truth. In any case, I view this as a slavic civil war that the Global American Empire (GAE) and its satrapies have no business sticking their nose into.
An official correction from Mongolia:
Might not be a bad idea for the former president to be extra cautious moving forward and stay away from personal watercraft, helicopters, bathtubs, tea, door knobs, and floors above ground level … ;-).
I just watched it, and the phrase that comes to mind is that one about “a battle of wits with an unarmed man”.
Does ANYBODY imagine Ol’Jo(k)e can go head to head with this guy?
And I do not mean cuz Bygone is old ‘n’ senile: I mean because he is not now, nor ever was, as well-educated as Putin. The guy reeled off over a millennium of history , from memory.
I hafta say, I feel…ashamed.
Why stop at Russia? The Mongols in the 1200s had conquered everything from China to central Europe – and there was at that point no surviving Euro force which could have stopped them from continuing west to the Atlantic. The world was on the point of seeing MacKinder’s Heartland “world island” unified under a single Mongol rule.
Then fate intervened. Ogedai Khan died in 1241, and the Mongol hordes had to return to their homeland to elect the new khan. An interesting book about this is “The Devil’s Horsemen: the Mongol invasion of Europe”, by James Chambers (1979).
There is a military technology parallel with today’s events. Europe’s medieval military was built around the very expensive armored knight on his very costly specially-bred heavy war horse. The Mongols had vast numbers of cheap horsemen (riding ponies, really) with a much better bow than Europe had developed – one whose arrows could pierce European armor. And the Mongols had better tactics than the Euros. Cheap quantity outperformed expensive quality – not picking on the F-35 in particular.
Be that as it may, it might be a smarter current strategy for landlocked Mongolia (pop. 3 Million) sandwiched between former conquests China (pop. 1,400 Million) and Russia (pop. 145 Million) to keep a low profile. 
Tucker Carlson needs to be extra cautious moving forward and stay away from personal watercraft, helicopters, bathtubs, tea, door knobs, and floors above ground level … ;-). /cc @gms
George Kennan, Paul Nitze and Paul Kennedy opposed NATO expansion during the 1990s because it would provoke Russia and increase Russian nationalism and militarism.
In 1997 Paul Kennedy said NATO lacks a purpose because it lacks an enemy.
Oh, c’mon. Just because it has no purpose, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t go on forever. Government entities are the closest thing to immortality in this mortal world.
Ah, yes, The Weed Agency : https://www.amazon.com/Weed-Agency-Federal-Bureaucracy-Without/dp/0770436528