That is the ENTIRE point. NATO was there from day 1. The thing is, who have the right to decide their country can or cannot join NATO? It's one thing it's coming from Ukrainian mouth that Ukrainian don't want to join NATO, and it's another when it is coming from Russia.
Man,there's common sense. Western interests could have tried to avoid meddling in that area. Yes,theoretically Russia cannot tell Ukraine what to do. Of course. But there's also common sense that in the geopolitical arena,this is considered Russian turf.
Point is, what Russia is doing is not trying to create a buffer zone, as I said, if they were, they would have try to at least interfere with Ukrainian Politics, instead of starting a general invasion.
They did try. They had Yanukovich. Then Yanukovich was kicked out by a riot of organized nationalists and pro-Western parties. And then there were the Minsk agreements.
Ukraine is NEUTRAL until Russia invaded back in 2014. Have you even read the poll? 28% of Ukrainian wanted NATO Membership before Crimea Annexation and after Maidan. 61% after Russia Annexing Crimea.
Yes,the Russians had acted because they saw this as a regime change by Ukrainian ultranationalists and foreign centers. They considered Ukraine's future as uncertain and they acted fast. Was it right? Was it wrong? They did act and took Crimea back.
If you really do follow Ukrainian Politics like I did, you will know the problem IS AND ALWAYS IS EU. Ukraine themselves, like the Finns, and the Swedes, they don't want to part of NATO, they want closer ECONOMIC relationship with EU. This (ending the war and minding the relationship with Russia) is the same platform that got Zelenskyy elected.
Apparently getting in the EU is something Russians don't want. For what reason,I don't know. Probably economic reasons.
Maybe they consider the EU and NATO as the same club in a way.
How about NATO install ballistic missile in Estonia and Latvia? They are as close, if not closer to Russia from Ukraine. It could also reach Siberia in 7-8 minutes, Russia and NATO had an agreement not to post Permanent NATO troop there in the Baltics, and accord to Jens Stoltenberg, it's gone now. Hell, a ballistic missile Fired from Alaska (US state) can reach Siberia is less than 3 minutes. They are 150 km away from Siberia....How about Guam, and Diego Garcia? Those place are 100% under US Control like Alaska, and how about US deploy missile there? Or how about sovereignty nation that are friendly to the US or NATO? How about US deployed Ballistic Missile in their bases in Japan and South Korea?? Are you saying Russia should invade Japan and Korea like they do with Ukraine because of the perceived threat of Ballistic missile?
Like I said in a previous post,the Baltic countries are small and can be easily smashed. I mean the Russians probably keep an eye on them all the time.
Yes of course ballistic missiles can reach Siberia in a few minutes from the East. The Americans can even invade easily.
But the core is European Russia. An invasion from the Baltics could theoretically be easy to defend against. But from Ukraine? The area is much bigger. Siberia gives them huge depth. They don't need South Korea or Japan,don't be absurd.
The most important cities and population mass is in European Russia,that's what they want to protect the most.
First of all, Russia is the BIGGEST NATION on earth by far, 2 millions (2.8 to be exact) square mile bigger than the second biggest country on earth - Canada, the "Discussion" of whether or not Russian would needed "More" strategic depth is probably not a valid discussion, I mean, what "more" can they get? Strategic depth is "Inward", not "outward" it give you time to absorb the attack and organise counter attack, as I said, 6.6 million square mile probably already have all the Strategic Depth you would ever needed
Like I just explained,it depends where is that depth. In the Cold War they had the Warsaw Pact in front of them. Now,they only have Belarus. It's important for them to protect European Russia and the Urals.
Second of all, even if they do needed "Strategic Depth", you will not get it from a Neutral country, you need to either be a vassal state (Like Belarus to Russia or Transnistria to Russia or Wa State to China) or as a colony. Which mean if Russia wanted to use Ukraine as Strategic Depth, Ukraine being "Neutral" is not enough. That mean Ukraine cannot be a buffer, because a buffer would have been neutral.
If you can't have Ukraine on your side,you might as well have it kind of neutral. It used to be on the Russian side,but after 2014 the next best thing is to have them neutral,unless they agree to have a pro-Russian government again maybe?
what an humiliation
