3 ms·

There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This coul

by ovi256 5y ago

There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. Also, it's only Russia's fault it has no friends.

danbruc 5y ago
There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. I completely agree, after all that is the situation with Norway. And as I said, I am not claiming that there were no such attempts nor am I blaming one side or the other that this didn't lead to a solution. I am just opposing this notion that sovereignty is all that counts and therefore Russia's opinion can not possibly matter. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. This I just can not understand. If you have a thousand tanks a thousand kilometres away from my border, then you are a smaller threat than if you have your thousand tanks right at my border, even if the only difference is that it takes you some time to drive to my border which gives me some time to prepare for your attack. We can argue all day long how big a difference it makes, but I can not see how you can argue that bringing NATO assets closer to the Russian border threatens Russia less than having the further away.
- ovi256 5y ago
  > This I just can not understand. Russian propaganda works hard to make people equate "Ukraine in Nato = NATO tanks on RU border, NATO nuclear weapons in Ukraine" which we've both agreed is false. I agree that NATO weapons on the RU border are a threat to Russia, but then they're already in the Baltic countries, so how would Ukraine be different ? All this points to a good old "might makes right" spheres of influence competition.

by ovi256 5y ago

There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. Also, it's only Russia's fault it has no friends.

danbruc 5y ago

There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. I completely agree, after all that is the situation with Norway. And as I said, I am not claiming that there were no such attempts nor am I blaming one side or the other that this didn't lead to a solution. I am just opposing this notion that sovereignty is all that counts and therefore Russia's opinion can not possibly matter. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. This I just can not understand. If you have a thousand tanks a thousand kilometres away from my border, then you are a smaller threat than if you have your thousand tanks right at my border, even if the only difference is that it takes you some time to drive to my border which gives me some time to prepare for your attack. We can argue all day long how big a difference it makes, but I can not see how you can argue that bringing NATO assets closer to the Russian border threatens Russia less than having the further away.

ovi256 5y ago
> This I just can not understand. Russian propaganda works hard to make people equate "Ukraine in Nato = NATO tanks on RU border, NATO nuclear weapons in Ukraine" which we've both agreed is false. I agree that NATO weapons on the RU border are a threat to Russia, but then they're already in the Baltic countries, so how would Ukraine be different ? All this points to a good old "might makes right" spheres of influence competition.