Oh NATO just appeared out of nowhere next to Russia? Look at all the countries that joined NATO after 1997.
View attachment 829228
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
And would Zelensky have agreed making Ukraine neutral and restoring friendly relations with Russia after 8 years of war? And especially when the Russians took Crimea back and now wanted Donbass as well? He wouldn't have been re-elected.
Besides,I think he believed the West's promises of money and protection so much that he wanted to join NATO and EU no matter what.
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.
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.
I don't think now even with a Neutral Ukraine, they are not going to be "Friendly" to the Russian.
Again, if NATO
WAS the problem Russia made out to be, then attacking the only country in the Area that is
NOT NATO member does not push NATO border away, as I said, you only push your border closer to them.
Yes,but like Putin said,if NATO had installed ballistic missiles in the Ukraine,they could have reached Siberia in 7-8 minutes.
Not to mention that European Russia can be easily invaded from Ukraine. The Baltic States are small and enemy concentrations can be easily destroyed,theoretically. Plus there is Kalliningrad acting as a huge base there to deter any landings or act as a diversion.
Belarus and Ukraine give Russia strategic depth to defend and organize a counter-attack. Just like Kazakhstan for example.
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?
There are places US can put missile to threaten Russia beside Ukraine, NATO member, non-NATO allied and even within US Soil that were less complicated than deploying missile in Ukraine that just as threaten if not more threatening , the problem is, this is outside Russia Calculus. I mean, what could Russia do if say Latvia now wanted US Ballistic missile deployment in the region? How about Japan?
As for Baltic state can "easily" destroyed. You cannot attack the Baltic States without triggering Article 5, which bring the entire NATO to war, on the other hand, if your argument is NATO will not come to Baltic state for help, then that would negate the Ukrainian threat because one would think if NATO will not come to other NATO member state for help, then NATO would most definitely not going to come to a non-NATO country to help. Which negate the entire NATO threat of Ukraine to Russia.
Belarus and Ukraine give Russia strategic depth to defend and organize a counter-attack. Just like Kazakhstan for example.
Lol, do you know what is "Strategic Depth"?
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
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.
