4 ms·
> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encircleme
by OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?
Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known.
The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE
The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo
You were saying?
- sorokod 4y agoIsn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?
- pessimizer 4y agoYou can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.
- OrvalWintermute 4y agoThere is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.
- sorokod 4y agoOr Finland?
- OrvalWintermute 4y agoIf Ukraine (Borderland) is NATO controlled, it could have missiles within seconds (not minutes) of Moscow. This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction. It also enables NATO to bring to bear superior numbers, and greater technology advantages. It also eliminates a key port for Russia. If Ukraine is split into Eastern (New Russia) and Western Ukraine, they will have avoided the worst possible outcome, but at significant cost. If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep. This game is merely about avoidance of the worst outcome at this point for the Russians
- sorokod 4y agoLooks like Ukrainans are not interested in getting split up in the way you are proposing. How about Finland? Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?
- VictorPath 4y agoIf Finland was a threat outside Karelia, the USSR once mobilized could have marched in in 1945. Finland was not a threat then and it is not now.
- guerrilla 4y agoWhy would they be in a better position in 1945 (after losing millions) compared to 1940 when they were defeated by Finland [1]? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
- VictorPath 4y agoThe article you linked to says the result of the war was Finland ceded land to the USSR. It's a strange war that ends with the Victor ceding land to the defeated. It's also a strange idea that a fully mobilized Soviet Union in 1945 could push the German army back to Berlin, but would be incapable of taking over Finland. Finland was there for the taking for the Soviet Union in 1945, but the USSR did not see any threat outside Karelia so did not pursue this. This would not have been much disputed at all back then.
- guerrilla 4y agoThey were trying to take all of Finland but got their asses handed to them, taking barely any land and then giving up. A winter war in thick forests against an army of snipers was apparently very different than a tank and infantry war on a flat plain.
- ipaddr 4y agoThe missiles that were going to be placed on the border of Russian inside Ukrainian now will be placed further away.