Sakwa's statement is correct, at least in a sense that it became correct through the times when Moscow was unhappy with NATO's eastward expansion and the whole complexity of the US involvement in European affairs post '91. In that complex mix and the dnamics of NATO enlargement where one would say 'it's just promotion of democracy and security' the other would say 'it's not just that, it's the promotion of particular American interests', both would be right.

Over time Russia chose to see the latter as the most important facet of the complex American presence in Europe and at its doorstep in Eastern Europe. That perception is now a hard-wired reality for the Kremlin and the Western diplomatic approach can't just brush that aside.

So, in the environment of Ukrainian crisis and Western - Russia relations NATO is a part of the problem. It can become a part of the solution solution through either military defeat of Russia or through a regime change in Moscow where some small circle of pro-Western politicians will run the show. Neither option seems realistic and both of them will cost immensely.

Oh, and hi, it's my first post at Eurotrib. :)