28 ms·

Mexico was used in that analogy just because it's on US borders. If this analogy seems unrealistic to you, try replace Mexico with Cuba. Could two independent

Mexico was used in that analogy just because it's on US borders. If this analogy seems unrealistic to you, try replace Mexico with Cuba. Could two independent countries (USSR and Cuba) agreed to place nukes close to US borders in the 60's? Legally, sure they can. Does US agree with it? Even if WW3 was the case they will never allowed it. Same thing now with Ukraine. If Ukraine joins NATO, their troops will be on russia south border, which is unacceptable for Russia. And russian government thinks about it as an existential threat. Invasion is the direct result of failed negotiations between Russia and NATO about Ukraine neutrality.

throwrqX 5y ago
All the countries Nazi Germany first invaded were on their borders too. The Cuba situation is a bit different but in the modern day I would say the US should allow it, but either way it's also a moot point because Russia can loiter their nuclear subs around the US anyway. Ukraine has no chance of joining NATO too (and never did while the conflict in eastern Ukraine continued). NATO troops are already on their borders in the Baltics. Invasion is the result of Putin's delusional idea of wanting to make Russia great again USSR style because if he wanted them to never join NATO all he had to do was continue the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
- vandermik 5y ago
  > Ukraine has no chance of joining NATO too (and never did while the conflict in eastern Ukraine continued). Then why not declare it on paper with both Ukraine and NATO guarantees? That's all Russia wanted during negotiations last few months. > NATO troops are already on their borders in the Baltics. Yes, and Russia been told for many years it will not happen. That's why Russia now wants it to be legally declared. Not just promise.
  - throwrqX 5y ago
    > Then why not declare it on paper with both Ukraine and NATO guarantees? That's all Russia wanted during negotiations last few months. It is on paper that they cannot join while in active conflict? > Yes, and Russia been told for many years it will not happen. That's why Russia now wants it to be legally declared. Not just promise. Gorbachev himself admitted there was no such formal agreement.
    - vandermik 5y ago
      > Gorbachev himself admitted there was no such formal agreement. "There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," Secretary of State James A. Baker told Mr. Gorbachev in 1989 The National Defense archives of George Washington University declassified this discussion on 12 December 2017. You can look it up.
      - throwrqX 5y ago
        I highlight the words "formal agreement". Either way, those words were said when the Soviet Union still existed and was assumed to continue existing for the future.

throwrqX 5y ago

All the countries Nazi Germany first invaded were on their borders too. The Cuba situation is a bit different but in the modern day I would say the US should allow it, but either way it's also a moot point because Russia can loiter their nuclear subs around the US anyway. Ukraine has no chance of joining NATO too (and never did while the conflict in eastern Ukraine continued). NATO troops are already on their borders in the Baltics. Invasion is the result of Putin's delusional idea of wanting to make Russia great again USSR style because if he wanted them to never join NATO all he had to do was continue the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

vandermik 5y ago
> Ukraine has no chance of joining NATO too (and never did while the conflict in eastern Ukraine continued). Then why not declare it on paper with both Ukraine and NATO guarantees? That's all Russia wanted during negotiations last few months. > NATO troops are already on their borders in the Baltics. Yes, and Russia been told for many years it will not happen. That's why Russia now wants it to be legally declared. Not just promise.
- throwrqX 5y ago
  > Then why not declare it on paper with both Ukraine and NATO guarantees? That's all Russia wanted during negotiations last few months. It is on paper that they cannot join while in active conflict? > Yes, and Russia been told for many years it will not happen. That's why Russia now wants it to be legally declared. Not just promise. Gorbachev himself admitted there was no such formal agreement.
  - vandermik 5y ago
    > Gorbachev himself admitted there was no such formal agreement. "There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," Secretary of State James A. Baker told Mr. Gorbachev in 1989 The National Defense archives of George Washington University declassified this discussion on 12 December 2017. You can look it up.
    - throwrqX 5y ago
      I highlight the words "formal agreement". Either way, those words were said when the Soviet Union still existed and was assumed to continue existing for the future.