5 ms·

They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky. Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately i

by ignasl 6y ago

They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky. Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine. Very likely same fate would be for Poland and Baltics if they didn't protect themselves with stronger allies. And even if current Russia is not interested/capable to cause trouble to east EU - that doesn't mean it won't change in the future. Country leader shouldn't just look in the last 2 years - he needs to prepare country for the next 50 years.

iguy 6y ago
I guess a big factor must be to ask what they would gain. Domestic PR / distraction is one thing, but Crimea also has warm-water ports, and a (largely?) ethnic Russian population. Eastern Poland has... some farmland, some ancient forests? People with a 5-generation deep tradition of suicidal attempts to kick the Russians out? Whereas the Baltics are sandwiched with Kalinngrad, and some have fair-sized Russian populations, who can be painted as oppressed. That seems much more concerning.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
elmo2you 6y ago
In case you didn't get that memo: the shit in the Ukraine didn't start with Russian involvement. It started with very active meddling, spending copious amounts of money, into the internal politics of the country. It should also be noted that much of that money went to ultra-right-wing militant organizations, who have zero respect for democracy or freedom. Essentially, the USA bought itself a (fascist) private army to take control (or at least try to) over the natural resources in East Ukraine and Crimea. Russia responded rather predictably to that. Some might even argue that they had every right to do so. I'd love to see Americans react, if Russia were to sponsor some kind of anti-US militia in Alaska, that would subsequently take control of state (military bases with missile launch facilities included). I'm pretty sure that US citizens would call that for what it is: an act of aggression. No, the reason Russia doesn't invade Poland or the Baltic countries isn't because of NATO. Ironically, if those countries are at risk in any way, it's probably rather because of NATO. NATO (and its members) keeps insisting that the organization is defensive in nature only, yet its actions tell a rather different story (and it has done so for a long time, at least since the '90).
- quonn 6y ago
  Alaska is part of the US. Ukraine is not part of Russia. Everything else in your comment is also factually wrong or even a deliberate lie just like the ones you spread in your other replies here.
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    If only you could see the irony in your response. I guess that you have to be oblivious to it. But thank for providing a little piece of entertainment for me today.
nix23 6y ago
>Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine Yeah and stop d one in armenia.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky You’re literally describing the value of the security guarantee.

by ignasl 6y ago

iguy 6y ago

I guess a big factor must be to ask what they would gain. Domestic PR / distraction is one thing, but Crimea also has warm-water ports, and a (largely?) ethnic Russian population. Eastern Poland has... some farmland, some ancient forests? People with a 5-generation deep tradition of suicidal attempts to kick the Russians out? Whereas the Baltics are sandwiched with Kalinngrad, and some have fair-sized Russian populations, who can be painted as oppressed. That seems much more concerning.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

elmo2you 6y ago

In case you didn't get that memo: the shit in the Ukraine didn't start with Russian involvement. It started with very active meddling, spending copious amounts of money, into the internal politics of the country. It should also be noted that much of that money went to ultra-right-wing militant organizations, who have zero respect for democracy or freedom. Essentially, the USA bought itself a (fascist) private army to take control (or at least try to) over the natural resources in East Ukraine and Crimea. Russia responded rather predictably to that. Some might even argue that they had every right to do so. I'd love to see Americans react, if Russia were to sponsor some kind of anti-US militia in Alaska, that would subsequently take control of state (military bases with missile launch facilities included). I'm pretty sure that US citizens would call that for what it is: an act of aggression. No, the reason Russia doesn't invade Poland or the Baltic countries isn't because of NATO. Ironically, if those countries are at risk in any way, it's probably rather because of NATO. NATO (and its members) keeps insisting that the organization is defensive in nature only, yet its actions tell a rather different story (and it has done so for a long time, at least since the '90).

quonn 6y ago
Alaska is part of the US. Ukraine is not part of Russia. Everything else in your comment is also factually wrong or even a deliberate lie just like the ones you spread in your other replies here.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  If only you could see the irony in your response. I guess that you have to be oblivious to it. But thank for providing a little piece of entertainment for me today.

nix23 6y ago

>Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine Yeah and stop d one in armenia.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky You’re literally describing the value of the security guarantee.