5 ms·

If "This country might sign a defence pact against me invading" makes you invade then you want to invade.

danbruc 5y ago
This is not how Russia perceives NATO, in their view Ukraine would not sign up for protection from Russia but for threating Russia.
- vandreas2 5y ago
  They perceived that their ethnic brothers would join a defensive alliance against them? Is that extreme paranoia or were they planning to attack anyway and seized the chance now?
  - danbruc 5y ago
    Again, Putin does not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance, he sees it as an organization that aggressively spreads in order to increase the influence and power of the west and the US in particular. Putin is worried - whether justified or not - that US nukes will end up right at his borders.
    - davorak 5y ago
      > Putin is worried - whether justified or not - That seems too strong a statement. Unless you have personal or expert insight you do not know Putin is thinking. > - that US nukes will end up right at his borders. I thought there was no real advantage to moving nuclear weapons close to borders any more. I am no expert, my impression was the static location made them vulnerable to attack and counter measures. Submarine launch platforms were the priority for this reason. If that's true then it would not make sense for Putin to have any real worry about this. Though it might make for a good public argument.
      - danbruc 5y ago
        That seems too strong a statement. Unless you have personal or expert insight you do not know Putin is thinking. Putin has always said that an eastward NATO expansion to the borders of Russia is unacceptable as this poses a security thread to Russia. And because it is hard to know what somebody thinks I will just assume that he thinks what he says unless there are good reasons to assume he was consistently lying about this concerns for decades. I thought there was no real advantage to moving nuclear weapons close to borders any more. I am no expert, my impression was the static location made them vulnerable to attack and counter measures. For a first strike it might still be good to be as close to the target as possible because it minimizes reaction time. And for a first strike you are not so much worried about them being in a static location. But I was a bit sloppy there, I just wrote nukes but I am not actually sure what kind of military assets would be the most worrisome. Maybe it would be an anti ballistic missile system close to your border that weakens your nuclear posture. Maybe it would just be a hand full of military bases with a few hundred tanks. In the end it doesn't really matter, I think a NATO presence close to Russian borders is unlikely to be a security thread to Russia, no matter what kind of assets, but Putin thinks otherwise.
        davorak 5y ago
        > And because it is hard to know what somebody thinks I will just assume that he thinks what he says unless there are good reasons to assume he was consistently lying about this concerns for decades. This seems native, there is a history of politicians and political parties hiding their motivations, or at least some of, for years/decades. For example it seems plausible that Putin thinks it hurts his personal power or his friends rather than hurting Russia or Russians at large. I can not tell, and it would take considerable insight to tell, the difference between that and Putin thinking of Russian security, but being mistaken about what would increase security the most. > For a first strike it might still be good to be as close to the target as possible because it minimizes reaction time. And for a first strike you are not so much worried about them being in a static location. First strike is not really important in my understanding. I thought the current doctrine was there was no way to first strike enough assets to prevent massive retaliation. There is no victory with nuclear war only mutual destruction, first strike or not. > But I was a bit sloppy there, I just wrote nukes but I am not actually sure what kind of military assets would be the most worrisome. Maybe it would be an anti ballistic missile system close to your border that weakens your nuclear posture. Maybe it would just be a hand full of military bases with a few hundred tanks. > > In the end it doesn't really matter, I think a NATO presence close to Russian borders is unlikely to be a security thread to Russia, no matter what kind of assets, but Putin thinks otherwise. I think this leaves us in a place where we do not have any concrete example of how Putin thinks NATO's threat to Russia will be substantially changed with Ukraine joining NATO.

This is not how Russia perceives NATO, in their view Ukraine would not sign up for protection from Russia but for threating Russia.

vandreas2 5y ago
They perceived that their ethnic brothers would join a defensive alliance against them? Is that extreme paranoia or were they planning to attack anyway and seized the chance now?
- danbruc 5y ago
  Again, Putin does not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance, he sees it as an organization that aggressively spreads in order to increase the influence and power of the west and the US in particular. Putin is worried - whether justified or not - that US nukes will end up right at his borders.
  - davorak 5y ago
    > Putin is worried - whether justified or not - That seems too strong a statement. Unless you have personal or expert insight you do not know Putin is thinking. > - that US nukes will end up right at his borders. I thought there was no real advantage to moving nuclear weapons close to borders any more. I am no expert, my impression was the static location made them vulnerable to attack and counter measures. Submarine launch platforms were the priority for this reason. If that's true then it would not make sense for Putin to have any real worry about this. Though it might make for a good public argument.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      That seems too strong a statement. Unless you have personal or expert insight you do not know Putin is thinking. Putin has always said that an eastward NATO expansion to the borders of Russia is unacceptable as this poses a security thread to Russia. And because it is hard to know what somebody thinks I will just assume that he thinks what he says unless there are good reasons to assume he was consistently lying about this concerns for decades. I thought there was no real advantage to moving nuclear weapons close to borders any more. I am no expert, my impression was the static location made them vulnerable to attack and counter measures. For a first strike it might still be good to be as close to the target as possible because it minimizes reaction time. And for a first strike you are not so much worried about them being in a static location. But I was a bit sloppy there, I just wrote nukes but I am not actually sure what kind of military assets would be the most worrisome. Maybe it would be an anti ballistic missile system close to your border that weakens your nuclear posture. Maybe it would just be a hand full of military bases with a few hundred tanks. In the end it doesn't really matter, I think a NATO presence close to Russian borders is unlikely to be a security thread to Russia, no matter what kind of assets, but Putin thinks otherwise.
      - davorak 5y ago
        > And because it is hard to know what somebody thinks I will just assume that he thinks what he says unless there are good reasons to assume he was consistently lying about this concerns for decades. This seems native, there is a history of politicians and political parties hiding their motivations, or at least some of, for years/decades. For example it seems plausible that Putin thinks it hurts his personal power or his friends rather than hurting Russia or Russians at large. I can not tell, and it would take considerable insight to tell, the difference between that and Putin thinking of Russian security, but being mistaken about what would increase security the most. > For a first strike it might still be good to be as close to the target as possible because it minimizes reaction time. And for a first strike you are not so much worried about them being in a static location. First strike is not really important in my understanding. I thought the current doctrine was there was no way to first strike enough assets to prevent massive retaliation. There is no victory with nuclear war only mutual destruction, first strike or not. > But I was a bit sloppy there, I just wrote nukes but I am not actually sure what kind of military assets would be the most worrisome. Maybe it would be an anti ballistic missile system close to your border that weakens your nuclear posture. Maybe it would just be a hand full of military bases with a few hundred tanks. > > In the end it doesn't really matter, I think a NATO presence close to Russian borders is unlikely to be a security thread to Russia, no matter what kind of assets, but Putin thinks otherwise. I think this leaves us in a place where we do not have any concrete example of how Putin thinks NATO's threat to Russia will be substantially changed with Ukraine joining NATO.