5 ms·

> to not have a NATO supply line run straight up to a massive land border marching distance from Belgorod? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members. Russ

> to not have a NATO supply line run straight up to a massive land border marching distance from Belgorod? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members. Russia already has that massive land border on the west, marching distance from Saint Petersburg. I don't believe what Russian officials are saying about their justifications and goals is true. Russians are simply trying to expand their empire, like they were doing for centuries.

rabite 4y ago
That's obviously not tactically equivalent to the Ukrainian border. The Lithuanian-Polish border between the gap of Russia and Belarus is a mere 100 kilometers wide, with two viable routes for rapid transit of large armor. It is a chokepoint that Russia has always been confident that it can successfully hold if it came to blows. The Ukrainian border is over 2200 with dozens. Maybe Russia is simply doing as you say, I have no comment on that and cannot peer into the inscrutable psyche of Russian elites to know for a fact that they would have still invaded had there been no NATO expansion, but the assertion that the Baltics are strategically equivalent to Ukraine in a NATO-Russia conflict is laughable nonsense. I love Ukraine and its people and am heavily personally invested in the future of the country. My children are Ukrainian citizens. When people say things that are basely untrue it does not help promote quick conflict resolution or prevent further bloodshed. Circulating falsehoods doesn't help anyone.
- Const-me 4y ago
  They are comparable. The most efficient shipping method is by sea, the fastest one is by air. The importance of that chokepoint is debatable. Flying distance to Moscow is different but not substantially so, 450 versus 600 km. There's nothing too important in Belgorod or Rostov, while Saint Petersburg is 2-nd most populated city, and has industries related to the military. Historically, Russian governments also viewed these places as strategically important. They annexed these lands by force, twice: after the Great Northern War of 1700–1721, then once again after WW2.

rabite 4y ago

That's obviously not tactically equivalent to the Ukrainian border. The Lithuanian-Polish border between the gap of Russia and Belarus is a mere 100 kilometers wide, with two viable routes for rapid transit of large armor. It is a chokepoint that Russia has always been confident that it can successfully hold if it came to blows. The Ukrainian border is over 2200 with dozens. Maybe Russia is simply doing as you say, I have no comment on that and cannot peer into the inscrutable psyche of Russian elites to know for a fact that they would have still invaded had there been no NATO expansion, but the assertion that the Baltics are strategically equivalent to Ukraine in a NATO-Russia conflict is laughable nonsense. I love Ukraine and its people and am heavily personally invested in the future of the country. My children are Ukrainian citizens. When people say things that are basely untrue it does not help promote quick conflict resolution or prevent further bloodshed. Circulating falsehoods doesn't help anyone.

Const-me 4y ago
They are comparable. The most efficient shipping method is by sea, the fastest one is by air. The importance of that chokepoint is debatable. Flying distance to Moscow is different but not substantially so, 450 versus 600 km. There's nothing too important in Belgorod or Rostov, while Saint Petersburg is 2-nd most populated city, and has industries related to the military. Historically, Russian governments also viewed these places as strategically important. They annexed these lands by force, twice: after the Great Northern War of 1700–1721, then once again after WW2.