I actually found this to be a very poor piece reliant on a straw man argument. You can argue that Western actions played a role in the current state of Western-Russian relations without saying that Russia is blameless. 1/18 https://twitter.com/IlvesToomas/status/999765425645850624

The author argues at length that the US did not provide assurances to Soviet leaders about future NATO expansion, but even if that were the case, Moscow repeatedly made it clear they were not happy with each round of NATO expansion. 2/18

He also states, "As late as 2010, the problem that Russia’s then-ambassador to NATO had with the military alliance was not that it was too belligerent but that it emanated a “mood of capitulation” with respect to Afghanistan." 3/18

This is a remarkable exaggeration. Anyone who knows anything about Dmitri Rogozin, the then Russian Ambassador to NATO, knows that he has no shortage of complaints about NATO and he is not quiet in expressing those views. 4/18

For a piece on "the roots of Russian aggression," that he never mentions the color revolutions undermines any conclusion he makes. Indeed, one of the central Russian concerns about NATO expansion is that it will support further revolutions on Russia's borders (or in Moscow). 5/18

He also exaggerates Putin's use of Eurasian rhetoric (which largely began in his third term) and the notion that any Russian leader actually believes the Eurasian Economic Union is a "direct competitor to the EU" is laughable. 6/18

He also cherrypicks a number of quotations to support his argument, like the 2004 line from Putin, “If Ukraine wants to join the EU and is welcome there, we can only welcome that” as though EU accession was not a concern to Russia in 2014. 7/18

That of course assumes that Putin was being honest and it fails to mention that the strategic situation in 2004 differed from that of 2014 (like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine) or that EU membership was increasingly viewed in Moscow as a step towards NATO membership. 8/18

Not to mention that the EU has prioritized security cooperation among its members to a greater extent over the past 15 years. He states that Putin has 4 strategic goals: (1) to unite “all the Russian-speaking peoples under a single nation-state" 9/18

(2) reestablishing Russia as “he first among equals in the Eurasian community (3) weakening Europe and the transatlantic alliance (4) restoring Russia as a global power. 10/18

If Putin's primary goal was to unite all Russian speakers in one country, then why has he not occupied other FSU states with large Russian-speaking populations? Indeed, Russia has done a poor job of achieving that goal after 18 years of Putin. 11/18

The goal of weakening Europe is often mentioned but it certainly isn't an end state that Russia wants. Russia depends on trade with European partners, so a weak Europe is a weak Russia. 12/18

Instead, sowing dissension is a means of gaining acquiescence from European countries on certain issues, or to hinder a united European resistance to Russian policies. It isn't a goal in and of itself. 13/18

He lastly argues that there is a clear normative division between Russian and Western countries regarding, "fundamental principles of sovereignty and national self-determination" as well as the use of coercion in state relations. 14/18

Considering the current foreign policy rhetoric from Washington not to mention US military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, etc., it is hard to understand how he believes this is a serous argument. 15/18

One could also look at US interventions in Grenada, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, etc. during the Cold War to show how the US views potentially hostile regimes on its doorsteps. As well as recent US statements on the self-determination of Catalonia in Spain. 16/18

Respect for sovereignty and self-determination is contextual and hardly an absolute for either the US or Russia. Unfortunately, the question of what has driven recent Russian military interventions abroad is critical for future US foreign policy towards Europe and the FSU. 17/18

But arguments like these, only muddy the water by claiming that the US' actions since 1992 have played no role whatsoever in Russia's actions. It is patently false and will likely contribute to future poor policy decisions. 18/18