16 ms·

There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Especially for countries near unfriendly countries like Ru

• jacquesm 5y ago
  > Will NATO come for let’s say Latvia or Lithuania? I honestly don’t think so. I fear that you are right. And with Kaliningrad pretty much ideally positioned to pull another Donbass the stage is set for a lot of misery in Poland, Lithuania and possibly even Latvia and Estonia.
  • enkid 5y ago
    Ukraine is not part of NATO. The Western response is very different for Ukraine then it would be for a NATO country.
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      We'll see about that. I wouldn't put too much stock in that if that country is Latvia, Lithuania or possibly even Poland. If it were Germany, France, Finland, Sweden or the UK it would likely be a different matter. Article 5 of the treaty is nice in principle, but those principles have never been put to a real test (in some circles this is called the 'Riga test' for a reason).
      • hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
        > We'll see about that. I understand your pessimism but we are talking about the most powerful military organization on the planet. If for some strange reason they decide they give up protecting their borders, they might as well not exist. If Russia decides to invade Latvia and NATO does nothing, the whole pact might as well dissolve itself as it serves no function.
        • jacquesm 5y ago
          The problem is that the rest of Europe doesn't really 'know' Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, they are just names to them. Possibly some people would be able to point them out on a map but the vast bulk of the people has absolutely no link with those countries on account of them being geographically isolated. Their only direct connection is a less than 50 km wide strip of border between Poland and Lithuania with exactly two roads running through it and relatively little cross border traffic. There is little tourism and not that much in terms of import or export from that region where people will associate whatever product they are looking at with the Baltics. A co-defense pact makes sense from a military perspective, especially because the Baltics are pretty useful as forward bases. But from a 'hearts and minds' perspective there isn't all that much there. And I'm saying that as someone who has a very direct connection with the Baltics and who has spent collectively probably close to a year (or even more by now) there. Ask any Western European in which country Riga is situated, or Vilnius or Kaunas or even Tallinn and you're likely going to get a wrong answer or no answer at all. By contrast even Finland would do quite well.
          • sam_lowry_ 5y ago
            Mind that Baltic countries have been popular tourist destinations for Europeans.
            • jacquesm 5y ago
              Popular tourist destinations for Europeans are France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Germany, the UK, Austria, Greece, Russia, Portugal, Poland etc. Even Romania sees more tourism than all of the Baltics combined, and Romania is pretty far down the list of tourist destinations. I don't know how you define 'popular' but in my circle I'm the only person that has visited the Baltics for something other than work.
      • tanelpoder 5y ago
        It's worth mentioning that Finland and Sweden are not NATO member states.
        • jacquesm 5y ago
          That is true, at the same time they are part of the EU and part of the EU co-defense pact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po... They also collaborate on NATO exercises, and the reverse is also true: NATO partakes in Swedish and Finish military exercises.
• danlugo92 5y ago
  The only good outcome for the whole world is Putin and allies being ousted out of power and replaced by actual non-warmonger democrats. Imagine a future with Russia in the EU, best timeline. Nobody wants nuclear war, maybe some kind of super-sanctions would be the only recourse for the west, cut them off everything, and I mean everything.
  • kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Too bad Germany blundered by making themselves dependent on Russian gas to survive.
    • tpush 5y ago
      Germany is not dependent on Russian gas to survive, Russia's just the cheapest source of it.
      • sam_lowry_ 5y ago
        I guess the OP referred to the exit from nuclear power. This exit was a big mistake. Netherlands are rushing up to build new nuclear plants. Belgium seeks ways to reverse its exit plan. France has never stopped beefing up its nuclear industry. Only Germany is behaving irrationally.
  • patriagreca 5y ago
    Shout-out to a fellow imperialist! Let's oust govs that we don't like yaaay
    • bovermyer 5y ago
      I think the implication was that the Russian people should decide to oust Putin, rather than an external sovereign power doing it.
  • ivan_gammel 5y ago
    Russia in EU would mean also Russia in NATO. Russia wanted to join NATO in 1990s and the answer of the alliance was "No". IIRC, one of the reasons behind that was that this means direct border with China. China is more important and there were hopes that China will democratize as it integrates itself into global economy, so that was an unnecessary risk. The times have changed, now everyone talks about containment - having Russia as part of the biggest military and economic alliance in history would mean a lot for it. But this also means including a right wing conservative power with the economy of the similar size to Germany, twice more people, nuclear weapons and ideology similar to the one of Poland or Hungary. Making Putin leave (or waiting until he dies) will not be enough to change this.
• bserge 5y ago
  Latvia and Lithuania are in NATO, you genius. If they don't send troops, the whole organization is pointless and will fall apart. The same probably applies to the EU, as well.
• rmind 5y ago
  Just a few points: - The Budapest Memorandum was, unfortunately, not legally binding. Not justifying the lack of support from the West, but just pointing out an important aspect. - North Atlantic Treaty is legally binding. Also, the Baltic States already host a small multi-national contingent of NATO troops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence - It is also worth noting that the EU has mutual defence clause as per Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union. Nobody knows what legal or practical effect it would have though.
  • MagnumOpus 5y ago
    Anything in international treaties is only as legally binding as the enforcement measures behind them. As a small country, no international treaties are ever legally binding. After all, what could the government-in-exile of Latvia do after a Russian invasion if the US president or UK PM decided after a focus group session that going to war with Russia over the Baltics is not a vote winner?
    • bingohbangoh 5y ago
      NATO troops being actively stationed in the Baltics is a little different. Ukraine doesn’t have anything that I’m aware of.
      • jacquesm 5y ago
        20K troops or thereabouts. No tanks, no planes, just some artillery.
        • qwytw 5y ago
          That's irrelevant, their purpose is to act as a deterrent. By invading Russia would also directly attack American, British, German, Canadian etc. soldiers which not something their governments can just ignore. Anyway it's not the 1930's, considering the current political and economical environment there is absolutely no rational reason for Russia to invade the Baltic states (unlike eastern Ukraine or Crimea). What would they gain by doing that, 5 million people none of whom want to be a part of Russia and a shitload more sanctions (assuming if it does not escalate into a full-scale war with the west which is again something Russia has nothing to gain from).
• tomp 5y ago
  I'm certain that Israel's nukes and their strategic air strikes against Iran's nuclear/military facilities (preventing Iran from having nukes) contributes much more to their protection than a standing army. This situation is obviously amplified 10x in Lithuania (population 30% of Israel) vs Russia (population 170% Iran).
  • wongarsu 5y ago
    Israel has been in many conventional wars with it's neighbors since the day it was founded. In recent times their nukes protect them, but historically it was more about every man and women being either active military or reserve, along with an economy that is able to pay for being the best military in the region.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • atlasunshrugged 5y ago
      Didn't air power play a big part too back in the day?
    • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Somehow you missed out nearly US$4B a year of military aid from the US as a part of that equation (also nearly US$8B of loan guarantees).
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    And don't forget that in the Baltics there is a fairly large contingent of Ethnic Russians who are the perfect pretext for a liberation exercise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_the_Baltic_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_the_Baltic_states
    • atlasunshrugged 5y ago
      I disagree in Estonia and Lithuania. I think that 1) many ethnic Russians have seen the quality of life get much better living in these countries and while they may still hold many similar cultural values, would not want to live in Russia and 2) that the governments of the countries are well aware of the risk and have plans to counter it. Not so sure about Latvia.
• rpadovani 5y ago
  > Will NATO come for let’s say Latvia or Lithuania? I don't know about NATO, but I strongly hope that EU defends its territory integrity. And I am not sure Russia wants to find out either…
  • piokoch 5y ago
    How EU will do this? NATO is very clear about not being able to defend Baltic countries, they just don't have sufficient militarily presence. Polish army is currently even to weak to protect Poland, maybe this will change in next 10 years, as there are significant investments into army and military industry planned, but not now. EU would have to deploy immediately at least two heavily armed divisions to be able to protect Polish-Belarusian border (which is in reality Polish-Russian border and would be first attack direction to cut supply chains from Polans) and attack Kaliningrad, what is the key in Baltic countries defense. Nothing happens in EU without Germany agreement, so the question is: will German army going to engage? Germany is busy cutting trade deal with China and starting Nord Stream 2 which would provide Russian gas for Germany, so the answer is clear.
    • karpierz 5y ago
      The Polish army isn't meant to be able to defend Poland, it's meant to provide enough time for NATO to respond (which they're capable of within 72 hours). That, combined with the logistical challenges of a Russian invasion and the lack of motivation for the Russians to do so makes it very unlikely that they would attack. More details on the logistical issues within the Russian army: https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/ https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-...
    • sofixa 5y ago
      > Nothing happens in EU without Germany agreement That's just not true. Even if Germany decides to not help, they couldn't stop individual countries, like France or Italy from helping.
    • rmind 5y ago
      NATO has more than enough military power to defend, as long as it has enough political will and freedom to act. I think that is what the debate is about. Also, I would not underestimate Poland. The country spends 2.2% of its GDP on military and has been gradually increasing the expenditures further. Moreover, Poland has been making very major acquisitions of modern equipment and capabilities (something Ukraine is currently just dreaming of -- see one of my posts above) as separate budget lines. It is on the track to become one of the main military powers in the EU and is certainly a very credible power to resist Russia.
• Dolores12 5y ago
  > where whole country is also an army Yeah, imagine whole Russia is an army.
  • sam_lowry_ 5y ago
    That was pretty much the case for USSR in Cold War. A country can last this way for several dozens of years at the cost of depleting economic resources. And USSR was twice as big and populous as Russia is today.
• myth_drannon 5y ago
  But did Ukraine really had nukes? Physically yes, but not operationally. "Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate" It's like saying Turkey has nukes...Does it? Or Turkey hosts US's strategic bombers armed with nuclear bombs.
  • adrr 5y ago
    Ukraine had the people and means to make them operational. It also currently has the means to create new nuclear weapons with uranium mines, research reactors and nuclear physics expertise. Also expertise to create ICBMs. Russia has ensured that no nuclear nation will ever disarm because treaties are just a piece a paper and world will just sit back and do nothing when it is violated.
    • myth_drannon 5y ago
      That's just a pure speculation, could or could not. Ukraine is a semi-failed state with an ongoing civil war(and was for decades), it can't create anything new unfortunately. Improve some old Soviet technology maybe, but ICBMs... The discussions should not be about weapons but on how Ukraine can pull itself from the current hole it dug in.
      • artem247 5y ago
        "Ukraine is a semi-failed state with an ongoing civil war(and was for decades)" It is a pure lie, there was no conflict in 1991-2014. What's a semi-failed state? How do you define it? "how Ukraine can pull itself from the current hole it dug in" What do you mean by digging a hole?
• underscore_ku 5y ago
  there are already NATO battalions in Latvia and Lithuania. Albania, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain contribute to the Canadian-led battlegroup in Latvia; Belgium, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway provide contributions to the German-led battlegroup in Lithuania; France and Iceland contribute to the UK-led battlegroup in Estonia; and Croatia, Romania and the United Kingdom are part of the US-led battlegroup in Poland. etc. it's so funny how many people comment without knowing anything about NATO or EU
  • MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    [dead]
  • scottLobster 5y ago
    The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members. I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia that was, in the words of one of the Generals managing it, "worse than 1939". In the simulation the Polish forces held out for less than a week. Meanwhile attempts for an ex-US EU military organization are little more than vague proposals, in part because the EU started out as a peace project and, frankly, much of Europe isn't used to seriously worrying about its military security (the most notable exceptions being France, the UK, Sweden and Finland, perhaps Greece but they have other issues). Some NATO members ran out of bombs during the freaking Libya campaign. They've been under the US umbrella for more than a generation, in some cases 2 or 3 generations. Honestly I'm not sure Europe can fight these days. It certainly doesn't want to (and after the 20th century who can blame them?). Sure almost every European nation (Poland included) has some badass special forces. Too bad those won't be enough if Russia decides to act with impunity.
    • johnchristopher 5y ago
      How does MAD and France/UK nuclear arsenal fits into this ? It is my impression Russia (and maybe the EU but since I live in the EU I suppose we are the goodies) is waging an attrition small skirmishes war (don't really know what the end game is though).
• kingkawn 5y ago
  Vietnam is a better example here. They are continually afraid of Chinese invasion based on nearly a millenia of war preceding the wars with western colonizers. They are at huge disadvantage economically and technologically to China. So every single high school student and college student is trained in guerilla warfare tactics, the entire country is outfitted with secret military installations, and they are ready to resist any invader so intensely that there is no hope of a meaningful occupation no matter the seeming military asymmetry. This has protected them for the last 50 years other than a brief border war with China in the late 70s and some ocean territory incursions by the Chinese navy. Most of those were fought off by swarming them with fishing boats.
  • dragonwriter 5y ago
    > They are continually afraid of Chinese invasion based on nearly a millenia of war preceding the wars with western colonizers And, more to the point, because of the most recent invasion by China, after the wars with western colonizers.
    • kingkawn 5y ago
      Referenced in my original comment as the war that took place in the late 70s…
  • refurb 5y ago
    Nope. Military training as a part of the basic high school curriculum went away a whole ago. Vietnamese youth are about making money now. I don’t disagree the govt is prepared to counter China but they are also investing in a lot of other things.
    • kingkawn 5y ago
      I have been to Vietnam right before the pandemic and witnessed with my own eyes active training of high school and college students using mock AK-47s. The cultural focus of the students of course is their economic future in peace time, but the foundation of that peace for a small and otherwise vulnerable nation is the maintenance of their strategic deterrence, which continues to this day.
• georgecmu 5y ago
  For a much more evenhanded -- and hence rare -- take, you may wish to read this very recent commentary from Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the USSR[1]. He has the advantage of being an observer who is (a) very informed and (b) disinterested. The following paragraphs are worth reading, even if you fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint[2]. Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adjacent to its borders, as any other country would be and the United States always has been. It has signaled repeatedly that it will stop at nothing to prevent NATO membership for Ukraine. Nevertheless, eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO has been an avowed objective of U.S. and NATO policy since the Bush-Cheney administration. This makes absolutely no sense. It is also dangerous to confront a nuclear-armed power with military threats on its border. When I hear comments now such as, “Russia has no right to claim a ‘sphere of influence,’” I am puzzled. It is not a question of legal “rights” but of probable consequences. It is as if someone announces, “We never passed a law of gravity so we can ignore it.” No one is saying that Ukraine does not have a “right” to apply for NATO membership. Of course it does. The question is whether the members of the alliance would serve their own interest if they agreed. In fact they would assume a very dangerous liability. I point this out as a veteran of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. At that time I was assigned to the American embassy in Moscow and it fell to my lot to translate some of Khrushchev’s messages to President John Kennedy. Why is it relevant? Just this: in terms of international law, the Soviet Union had a “right” to place nuclear weapons on Cuba when the Cuban government requested them, the more so since the United States had deployed nuclear missiles of comparable range that could strike the USSR from Turkey. But it was an exceedingly dangerous move since the United States had total military dominance of the Caribbean and under no circumstances would tolerate the deployment of nuclear missiles in its backyard. Fortunately for both countries and the rest of the world, Kennedy and Khrushchev were able to defuse the situation. Only later did we learn how close we came to a nuclear exchange. As for the future, the only thing that will convince Moscow to withdraw its military support from the separatist regimes in the Donbas will be Kyiv’s willingness to implement the Minsk agreement. As for the Crimea, it is likely to be a de facto part of Russia for the foreseeable future, whether or not the West recognizes that as “legal.” For decades, the U.S. and most of its Western allies refused to recognize the incorporation of the three Baltic countries in the Soviet Union. This eventually was an important factor in their liberation. However, the Crimea is quite different in one key respect: most of its people, being Russian, prefer to be in Russia. In fact, one can argue that it is in the political interest of Ukrainian nationalists to have Crimea in Russia. Without the votes from Crimea, Viktor Yanukovich would never have been elected president. One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same). When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed. Furthermore, Russians would argue that the U.S. is interested in territorial integrity only when its interests are served. American governments have a record of ignoring it when convenient, as when it and its NATO allies violated Serbian territorial integrity by creating and then recognizing an independent Kosovo. Also, the United Sates violated the principle when it supported the separation of South Sudan from Sudan, Eritrea from Ethiopia, and East Timor from Indonesia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Matlock_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Matlock_Jr. [2] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasno_analysis_-_matlock_ukraine_-_dec._2021.pdf https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn...
• stopglobalism 5y ago
  Pretty sure the United States is Israel's army. Given Israeli infiltration into the US Military Intelligence Complex [1] [1] https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/orthodox-jewish-woman-to-head-nsa-s-new-cybersecurity-directorate-1.7574119 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/orthodox-jewish-woman-to-hea...
• VictorPath 5y ago
  > Russia trying grab bigger and bigger chunk of the territory You're a little late, the Russian military moved into the Crimea back when British red coats were still stationed in New York City, and they have been there ever since. On the contrary, the grab is the other way, the West is trying to push out Russian military bases in the Crimea which have existed for centuries. When is the US going to close up the Guantamano Bay military base, something the Cuban government has been asking for decades?
• tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  IIRC, it was NATO that signed an agreement that they won't expand to the east when Russia / USSR agreed to withdraw its army from the East Europe. It was the Russia / USSR that agreed to let Ukraine alone as long as they guarantee human rights and equal status of ethnic Russian / Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine (but majority in East Ukraine and Crimea). It was the Russia and USA that agreed to restrict usage of the nuclear missiles in Europe. Guess who broke all those treaties and agreements and now has balls to accuse the opposite party for the current situation. Even thousands of years ago, Sun Tzu said you should not push your enemy to the wall where his only choice is to fight to death or just die, and NATO is still doing that. It's not how you de-escalate things, and I hope the reason would overcome, unless we want to experience a nuclear winter.
  • rmind 5y ago
    NATO never promised to not expand, see Myth 3 here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception...
    • tut-urut-utut 5y ago
      And the source of the analysis of the "myth" is Chatham House, an "independent" organization led by two ex British prime ministers and one ex MI5 member. Just look at the list of the Chatham House Prize winners [1] and try to find one person there that is not anti russian. I guess one could find State Department press releases less biased than this organization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House#Chatham_House_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House#Chatham_House_Pr...
    • VictorPath 5y ago
      Even your link does not say what you say. It says US secretary of state James Baker told Gorbachev NATO forces would not move east from Germany. Then it goes into that there is a lack of formal, legal enforcement of these promises, and how the US changed its mind later. So even this source with its leanings does not say what you say.
• mercy_dude 5y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong but the more I digged into this story more I find it is much more nuanced than this. So briefly here is what I think had happened: - Russia had a huge strategic deal to sell Germany petroleum and natural gas. This was years of diplomatic work and finally got to the point where this looked like a reality. - The settlement of the above deal would be in EUR bypassing the typical petrodollar settlement. - Ukraine was proposed to be added to NATO by US and other allies. - Russia started moving troops to Ukraine. - the above mentioned deal with Germany is now under question. One has to wonder if the last three points are correlated and second and the third points are correlated i.e. to keep the petrodollar dominance US is crafting this conflict by adding Ukraine to NATO.
  • varjag 5y ago
    Yes, you are wrong. USSR (and then Russia) were selling gas via existing lines to Western Europe since 1970s. The new pipeline is a bypass around Ukraine to remove any leverage against an invasion. Ukraine would love to join NATO (and no, you are not proposed there by other countries that's not how it works). However the US and other allies have cold feet to avoid pissing off Putin.
    • mercy_dude 5y ago
      Fair but you are not arguing why the events are not to be thought of being correlated. So if the natural gas deal with Germany is settled in EUR that seems to be a good enough reason to piss US off and start a proxy war. Why is the momentum for getting Ukraine to EU so strong now?
      • varjag 5y ago
        EUR (unlike say China's RMB, Cuban pesos or whatever they have in NK for money) is a freely convertible currency. Can you explain the mechanism by which settlements in Euros undermine anything, such that three (mutually confrontational) US administrations engage into conspiracy against Mother Russia? (For the reference, the old pipeline gas was also paid for in Euros) As to momentum for Ukraine ascension to NATO, I would love to live in that reality. Over here, Germany, France and several other NATO members strongly oppose even allowing Ukraine onto the roadmap.
• ginko 5y ago
  >There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Yugoslavia had that and a lot of good it did them.
  • exar0815 5y ago
    Except it actually did. Yugoslavia managed to stay reasonably independent during the cold war from both blocks. That the militarization of society cam home to roost after the breakup along the ethnosocial fractures is another topic tho.
• skissane 5y ago
  > There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Significant chunks of the Israeli population are de facto exempted from conscription (and with a low rate of voluntary enlistment from those communities as well)-most Haredi Jews, and most Israeli Arabs. Those two minorities together make up over 30% of Israeli citizens, and both minorities have an above average population growth rate (due to having more children and starting families at a younger age). The long-term risk this situation poses to Israel’s military security is a perennial topic of concern in Israeli media and politics
  • Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    There's also the issue that many in that 30% don't have the same outlook on the form or even existence of the Israeli state. In a conflict, they can become a problem from within. Many western countries likewise face a similar internal demographic structure that's ready to fracture the state and act against it for their own perceived benefit. Probably every large state has this to some extent but some are in denial while others already have systems of control in place to account for it.
• petre 5y ago
  There is also another way: building a nuclear weapons/ICBM arsenal. That's why there's always the topic of nuclear non proliferation among countries that already have this capability. But if Ukraine had nukes, it wouldn't have been invaded by Russia. Just like how Noth Korea isn't going to be invaded by anyone anytime soon.
• ed_balls 5y ago
  > Will NATO come for let’s say Latvia or Lithuania? I honestly don’t think so. Poland may, because they see Russia as a nr 1 threat. USA have to because they(NATO) will lose any credibility. If they won't Germany, Japan, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea and Taiwan will start nuclear programs right away. Nobody wants nuclear proliferation. This Russia-Ukraine issue is a negotiation tactic from Russia. There will be no invasion because it's too expensive to occupy a large country. Short term: Russia would like a land connection to Crimea, cause they have a problem with water. They don't want Ukraine in NATO. Long term: Russia negotiating position is weakening. They have army and natural resources. As world will be less dependent on carbohydrates, oil and gas in Siberia will be too expensive to extract.
• belter 5y ago
  I think people are not thinking this through well enough. Realize the Russians are willing to go to war over this. In no way would cross my mind to justify Russian actions, a regime I absolutely abhor. But maybe would be a good moment to not forget about the 40 years of strategic agreements, that supported peace in the last few years, and ask why these are being disturbed. Or are we to ignore the CIA operations in Ukraine of the last few years: "Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape-idUSBREA1601G20140207 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape-idUSBREA... What would be the reaction of the US if Russian forces would deploy to the other side of their border? Lets says Canada or Mexico? Because that is what would happen in Ukraine would join NATO. We know what happened when they tried Cuba.