4 ms·

At first, I would've agreed with your position but I don't at this point. Russia said they wouldn't invade Ukraine because: -Russia is holding military exerci

At first, I would've agreed with your position but I don't at this point. Russia said they wouldn't invade Ukraine because: -Russia is holding military exercises, you're being paranoid -Nobody invades a european country on a wednesday (ok, that's true. They did it on a tuesday) -Russia is pulling back troops. -Russia will pull back troops as soon as the military exercises are done. So (previous) sunday. (or not!) -Russia isn't invading Ukraine, we're just sending peacekeeping forces into the region that we declared independent of Ukraine. etc... These aren't negotiation tactics to resolve future NATO membership concerns. These are stall tactics to position their military. What Russia did strengthens the resolve of Ukraine to seek an alliance with NATO although they wouldn't qualify for membership. The more likely reason is that Russia hopes to undermine NATO. By taking Ukraine and putting themselves at the border of NATO countries, they can test if there's going to be a 2 tiered NATO. Countries for which the alliance is willing to invoke art. 5, and countries they are willing to abandon to avoid a world war.

vkou 5y ago
Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries. And it seems obvious to me that it would prefer a neutral buffer zone, instead of encirclement. Removing the first option from the table in 2013 forced the question of the second one. I can't see how any of this could have worked out well, starting from the moment that Ukraine membership in NATO became a serious political subject.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries Technically, Ukraine’s entire population being whisked into another dimension and its borders being impassable walls of force would also put Russia at the border of NATO countries (as would, for that matter, NATO not expanding after 1949), because Norway (1949), Lithuania (2004), Latvia (2004), Estonia (2004), and Poland (1999) all exist (and Lithuania and Poland surround a non-contiguous piece of Russia, even.) And that's just counting land borders, otherwise you have to also consider the USA (1949), Turkey (1952), and Bulgaria and Romania (2004).

vkou 5y ago

Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries. And it seems obvious to me that it would prefer a neutral buffer zone, instead of encirclement. Removing the first option from the table in 2013 forced the question of the second one. I can't see how any of this could have worked out well, starting from the moment that Ukraine membership in NATO became a serious political subject.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries Technically, Ukraine’s entire population being whisked into another dimension and its borders being impassable walls of force would also put Russia at the border of NATO countries (as would, for that matter, NATO not expanding after 1949), because Norway (1949), Lithuania (2004), Latvia (2004), Estonia (2004), and Poland (1999) all exist (and Lithuania and Poland surround a non-contiguous piece of Russia, even.) And that's just counting land borders, otherwise you have to also consider the USA (1949), Turkey (1952), and Bulgaria and Romania (2004).