5 ms·

> .so ukraine joining nato is not that much different Yeah it is, the Baltics are already in NATO. Ukraine joining would not significantly change the balance o

by rosndo 5y ago

> .so ukraine joining nato is not that much different Yeah it is, the Baltics are already in NATO. Ukraine joining would not significantly change the balance of power in the region. Cuba on the other hand was far more significant because the Soviet Union did not otherwise have assets so close to the US. Also the US never invaded Cuba in the way Russia invaded Ukraine. Their actions were more comparable to Russian support of DPR and LPR.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
But russia has to stop nato somewhere... it was too weak to do it with the baltics, and it's doing that now. USA definitely had the plan for a war with cuba, but it luckily didn't happen. They did start many other wars in the meantime, mostly on the other side of the world.
- rosndo 5y ago
  Nato is a defensive alliance, why exactly does Russia need to stop it? NATO would never attack Russia, a nuclear power capable of ending the world as we know it. > USA definitely had the plan for a war with cuba, but it luckily didn't happen This is a really weird way to write “USA decided not to fight a war with Cuba”, everybody makes all kinds of plans.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Look... i live in the balkans... i had nato planes flying over my head, bombing a country <300 miles away... say what you want, but nato is far from just defense. Also, who was nato defending in afghanistan? Iraq? ...? And there's a difference between a "lets prepare, just in case if cuba attacks" and "let's make a false flag attack, and kill our own people, so we can attack cuba".
    - nradov 5y ago
      NATO was defending the USA in Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by a terrorist organization sponsored by the government of Afghanistan. The alliance specifically invoked Article 5 the day after the attack.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        rosndo 5y ago
        What direct action did NATO conduct in Iraq?
        nradov 5y ago
        Stop lying. NATO didn't conduct any direct action in Iraq for the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation. Some NATO members independently chose to join the US led coalition but others didn't. The alliance itself played no role. This is a basic matter of historical fact. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm
    - rosndo 5y ago
      >Iraq NATO has has only engaged in non-combat missions in Iraq, in support of the local government. NATO has never fought in Iraq. The US is not NATO, it would do you well to do some basic research before throwing around misguided criticism.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Nato is a defensive alliance Well, for a defensive alliance it sure has been on the offensive for the best part of 50 years
    - rosndo 5y ago
      Even if you disagree about that, could you really imagine NATO attacking Russia? E: Unfortunately can’t reply below because of HN throttling, but yes, a month ago I moved several of my employees out of Ukraine because of Russian troop buildup on the border. Wars don’t start overnight, everyone who hadn’t buried their head in sand knew this was a likely outcome.
      - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        Could you really imagine russia attacking ukraine a month ago?
        jounker 5y ago
        He said that he had already pulled out his Ukrainian employees. Not only did he believe, he just said that he believed strongly enough that he took concrete steps affecting other peoples lives.
        ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        He edited his post after the reply
        cutemonster 5y ago
        Putin did already, year 2014
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  >But russia has to stop nato somewhere Yes, at their own borders. Their jurisdiction ends there. All other nations have the right of self-determination and don't have to care about Russia's thoughts. If they won't like it, they could sanction Ukraine or something, don't you think?
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Well yeah, but the same stands for USA and many other nato countries, that are currently occupying foreign lands... And there are many of them. This is not the good guys vs the bad guys here, this is basically stalin and hitler not agreeing divison of poland. I live in a small balkan country, and we also have our soldiers in kosovo, syria, libanon etc... what right do we have to point the finger at russia? USA is currently bombing somalia. China is looking greedily at taiwan... etc. If "everyone else" can do it, why not putin? If not putin, why do we let usa do it? Ukraine is just another equivalent of iraq, afghanistan, etc. This would be a great time to say "stop" in nato, start acting as just a defensive organization, stop all the nato members meddling abroad, and say "NO" to both putin and USA, and everyone else who wants anything outside their own borders.
    - sissjdb 5y ago
      >USA is currently bombing somalia. This is bordering on dishonest. US is supporting the legitimate Somalian government against a terror group famous for it’s attacks on schools. You could sort of compare this to Russia supporting the Syrian government, despite their legitimacy being questionable. This is something they have hardly faced international criticism over, beyond downright war crimes.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>the Baltics are already in NATO. Ukraine joining would not significantly change the balance of power in the region. Just look at a map. There's a reason "Turn the map around" is a mantra in professional military officer schools in the West: it's essential to understanding your adversary. Russia's land border with Estonia and Latvia is ~325km long, straddling Lakes Peipus and Pihkva. This is a small frontage, and fairly easy for Russia's massive army to defend. There is only 1 MSR/highway (M-9) that leads to Russia from these Baltic States, and the distance is just about 570km. The operational combat range of an M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 MBT is ~450km. So they can't reach Moscow from NATO territory without stopping to refuel a good distance short of the capital. Now let's add a NATO-member Ukraine to the mix. Not even including Crimea, the Russian-Ukrainian land border is over 1200km long. That is a LOT of frontage to protect. It features 2 MSRs/highways with direct access to Moscow, 3 if you took a detour to secure Voronezh (not an easy task). If you use subsidiary roads from the closest part of Ukraine's border, before merging onto the M-3 highway, you can get to Moscow in about ~475km, JUST about the maximum range for tanks. So Russia would be risking shorting the invasion distance to their capital by 20%, putting it in range of a mechanized lightning thrust. It would also massively complicate their ability to mass combat power on their border because their NATO front would quintuple in length. It would give the US the option of putting anti-ballistic missiles in eastern Ukraine, closer to potential Russian launch locations and probably making it easier to achieve boost-phase intercepts of ICBMs. That undermines the strategic deterrence balance of power/MAD. US ABMs in Eastern Europe is something Russian leadership has been bitching about for 15 years. For some reason we keep pretending to not consider their concerns legitimate. That's a WHOLE lotta downsides. What is the UPSIDE, for Russia, of a NATO-member Ukraine, though? Pretty much nothing. So Russia's leadership did some risk mitigation calculus and they figured that immediate economic damage was more acceptable than the highly-negative long term Expected Value of a NATO Ukraine. Even if the probability of NATO attacking is low, the damage potential is astronomical. Keep in mind this is a country who's arguably most important holiday commemorates the war where they lost 25+ million lives fighting off an invasion from a hostile alliance on their western border. That's still in living memory for them. Where they miscalculated was a) Putin's perceptions of the Ukrainian popular sentiment and b) their military's actual ability to pull off a nearly-bloodless blitz of Kiev to facilitate a regime change. The Russian military is looking hella-incompetent right now. I think if Kiev had fallen in <72hrs, there wouldn't even be sanctions against Russia today.

by rosndo 5y ago

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

But russia has to stop nato somewhere... it was too weak to do it with the baltics, and it's doing that now. USA definitely had the plan for a war with cuba, but it luckily didn't happen. They did start many other wars in the meantime, mostly on the other side of the world.

rosndo 5y ago
Nato is a defensive alliance, why exactly does Russia need to stop it? NATO would never attack Russia, a nuclear power capable of ending the world as we know it. > USA definitely had the plan for a war with cuba, but it luckily didn't happen This is a really weird way to write “USA decided not to fight a war with Cuba”, everybody makes all kinds of plans.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Look... i live in the balkans... i had nato planes flying over my head, bombing a country <300 miles away... say what you want, but nato is far from just defense. Also, who was nato defending in afghanistan? Iraq? ...? And there's a difference between a "lets prepare, just in case if cuba attacks" and "let's make a false flag attack, and kill our own people, so we can attack cuba".
  - nradov 5y ago
    NATO was defending the USA in Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by a terrorist organization sponsored by the government of Afghanistan. The alliance specifically invoked Article 5 the day after the attack.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      - rosndo 5y ago
        What direct action did NATO conduct in Iraq?
      - nradov 5y ago
        Stop lying. NATO didn't conduct any direct action in Iraq for the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation. Some NATO members independently chose to join the US led coalition but others didn't. The alliance itself played no role. This is a basic matter of historical fact. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm
  - rosndo 5y ago
    >Iraq NATO has has only engaged in non-combat missions in Iraq, in support of the local government. NATO has never fought in Iraq. The US is not NATO, it would do you well to do some basic research before throwing around misguided criticism.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Nato is a defensive alliance Well, for a defensive alliance it sure has been on the offensive for the best part of 50 years
  - rosndo 5y ago
    Even if you disagree about that, could you really imagine NATO attacking Russia? E: Unfortunately can’t reply below because of HN throttling, but yes, a month ago I moved several of my employees out of Ukraine because of Russian troop buildup on the border. Wars don’t start overnight, everyone who hadn’t buried their head in sand knew this was a likely outcome.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      Could you really imagine russia attacking ukraine a month ago?
      - jounker 5y ago
        He said that he had already pulled out his Ukrainian employees. Not only did he believe, he just said that he believed strongly enough that he took concrete steps affecting other peoples lives.
        ajsnigrutin 5y ago
        He edited his post after the reply
      - cutemonster 5y ago
        Putin did already, year 2014
KptMarchewa 5y ago
>But russia has to stop nato somewhere Yes, at their own borders. Their jurisdiction ends there. All other nations have the right of self-determination and don't have to care about Russia's thoughts. If they won't like it, they could sanction Ukraine or something, don't you think?
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Well yeah, but the same stands for USA and many other nato countries, that are currently occupying foreign lands... And there are many of them. This is not the good guys vs the bad guys here, this is basically stalin and hitler not agreeing divison of poland. I live in a small balkan country, and we also have our soldiers in kosovo, syria, libanon etc... what right do we have to point the finger at russia? USA is currently bombing somalia. China is looking greedily at taiwan... etc. If "everyone else" can do it, why not putin? If not putin, why do we let usa do it? Ukraine is just another equivalent of iraq, afghanistan, etc. This would be a great time to say "stop" in nato, start acting as just a defensive organization, stop all the nato members meddling abroad, and say "NO" to both putin and USA, and everyone else who wants anything outside their own borders.
  - sissjdb 5y ago
    >USA is currently bombing somalia. This is bordering on dishonest. US is supporting the legitimate Somalian government against a terror group famous for it’s attacks on schools. You could sort of compare this to Russia supporting the Syrian government, despite their legitimacy being questionable. This is something they have hardly faced international criticism over, beyond downright war crimes.

CapricornNoble 5y ago

>>>the Baltics are already in NATO. Ukraine joining would not significantly change the balance of power in the region. Just look at a map. There's a reason "Turn the map around" is a mantra in professional military officer schools in the West: it's essential to understanding your adversary. Russia's land border with Estonia and Latvia is ~325km long, straddling Lakes Peipus and Pihkva. This is a small frontage, and fairly easy for Russia's massive army to defend. There is only 1 MSR/highway (M-9) that leads to Russia from these Baltic States, and the distance is just about 570km. The operational combat range of an M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 MBT is ~450km. So they can't reach Moscow from NATO territory without stopping to refuel a good distance short of the capital. Now let's add a NATO-member Ukraine to the mix. Not even including Crimea, the Russian-Ukrainian land border is over 1200km long. That is a LOT of frontage to protect. It features 2 MSRs/highways with direct access to Moscow, 3 if you took a detour to secure Voronezh (not an easy task). If you use subsidiary roads from the closest part of Ukraine's border, before merging onto the M-3 highway, you can get to Moscow in about ~475km, JUST about the maximum range for tanks. So Russia would be risking shorting the invasion distance to their capital by 20%, putting it in range of a mechanized lightning thrust. It would also massively complicate their ability to mass combat power on their border because their NATO front would quintuple in length. It would give the US the option of putting anti-ballistic missiles in eastern Ukraine, closer to potential Russian launch locations and probably making it easier to achieve boost-phase intercepts of ICBMs. That undermines the strategic deterrence balance of power/MAD. US ABMs in Eastern Europe is something Russian leadership has been bitching about for 15 years. For some reason we keep pretending to not consider their concerns legitimate. That's a WHOLE lotta downsides. What is the UPSIDE, for Russia, of a NATO-member Ukraine, though? Pretty much nothing. So Russia's leadership did some risk mitigation calculus and they figured that immediate economic damage was more acceptable than the highly-negative long term Expected Value of a NATO Ukraine. Even if the probability of NATO attacking is low, the damage potential is astronomical. Keep in mind this is a country who's arguably most important holiday commemorates the war where they lost 25+ million lives fighting off an invasion from a hostile alliance on their western border. That's still in living memory for them. Where they miscalculated was a) Putin's perceptions of the Ukrainian popular sentiment and b) their military's actual ability to pull off a nearly-bloodless blitz of Kiev to facilitate a regime change. The Russian military is looking hella-incompetent right now. I think if Kiev had fallen in <72hrs, there wouldn't even be sanctions against Russia today.