5 ms·

Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?

by sorokod 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago
You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.
  - sorokod 4y ago
    Or Finland?
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
If 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 ago
  Looks 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Why 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        They 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.
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        You are confusing 2 events. It's true that the USSR almost completely failed their first invasion of Finland. Though for reasons that are much much more complex than simple terrain imo. But after barbarossa, Finland then seized the opportunity to regain it's earlier losses and attacked the USSR, this time with german help. That didn't turn out well for the Finnish, and their situation was extremely dire by the end of WW2. Which is why they sued for peace in secret. The USSR could have taken the entirety of Finland at that point, and in fact the finnish government basically evacuated the capital. Why didn't stalin go for it? I guess we can't really know but from the wiki article: "Stalin's desire to crush Hitler quickly and decisively without distraction from the Finnish sideshow" concluded the war. Not only that, but for decades after the war, the Finnish communists (puppets to the kremlin) became extremely powerful politically. Finland was forced to hold trials against its own army, and for a time was completely subservient to the soviets. So if they really wanted to take over the entirety of Finland in 1940, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it in 1945.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > 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. Zelensky already conceded to not going in NATO in March[1]... Russia partially withdrew after that (combined with the increasing cost of continuing to try to take Kiev), but I believe the current continuation is about taking the south, as I explained here [2], so it seems disingenuous to continue to claim some kind of self-defense case at this point. 1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukraine-conflict-nato-russia-b2037181.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukr... 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31550236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31550236
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    The US came very close to war with Russian missiles in Cuba. If they were far closer there could definitely be war.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Yes, and? Ukraine isn't going to be part of NATO, Zelensky already conceded and it's not even possible with a conflict in the country. So that mission is accomplished and is not the actual reason for the continuation of the war, as I said.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction. No it doesn't. The US can position Ohio-class submarines in the Baltic, or in the Black Sea, or in the Arctic Ocean. Their Trident missiles, even now 30 years after they were introduced, are still unparalleled. But they can’t strike every missile that Russia has, and in any case, not in just seconds, or even minutes. Russia is a big country; it has lots of road-mobile ICBMs. Those are simply impossible to eliminate in a first strike. Russia has for now, and for the foreseeable future, a guaranteed second strike. As for the "missile defense", there was never enough confidence in any missile defense system. At this point in time, all missile defense systems can be trivially defeated by a saturation attack.
- mcv 4y ago
  Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda. The issue isn't Ukraine becoming "NATO controlled" (all NATO members actually control themselves; NATO is a voluntary alliance), it's about keeping it Ukraine-controlled. Putin wants it to be controlled by Moscow instead, and that's why he invaded. Besides, there are already NATO members close to Moscow. And you know why they joined NATO? Because Russia is also close to them. Putin-supporters keep arguing that Russia needs security guarantees, but completely ignore the security guarantees of Russia's neighbours. And Russia is clearly a far larger threat to its neighbours than those neighbours are to Russia. Few countries have as much buffer built in as Russia does. What right does Russia have to demand entire countries as additional buffer? Where is Ukraine's buffer? > If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) Switzerland is not a buffer state. They're neutral because they choose to be. Chose, because Russian aggression is making even the Swiss consider choosing sides. > that would have been the best outcome for Russia. Because then Russia would be able to coerce and invade with impunity. Ukraine doesn't need neutrality, it needs security guarantees. Guarantees that Putin is clearly unwilling to give, and NATO is able to provide. Putin's aggression is Russia's biggest enemy.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    > Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda. Ukraine is actually controlled by the US State Department, and has been since the Maidan Coup overthrew a democratically elected leader. It was Washington & Brussels that issued an Ultimatum to Yanokovych in https://youtu.be/ROTwyP5no08?t=381 https://youtu.be/ROTwyP5no08?t=381 that preceded the protests and led to the coup. It was US State Department leaders that selected, rather than elected, Ukraine's leaders post-coup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k The US's own STRATFOR, Private CIA, even calls this a coup https://archive.ph/NAXCc https://archive.ph/NAXCc It was the Oligarch Kolomoisky that bankrolled Zelensky's campaign, providing him protection, a bodyguard, vehicles, and other resources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgli7TpINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgli7TpINw However, it is also known that Burisma hired Hunter Biden, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Report%20documents.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Report%20document... and, Burisma is controlled by the Oligarch Kolomoisky https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine-money-laundering-gave-millions-to-ny-charities/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine... It was the US State Department that also sanctioned the Oligarch Kolomoisky for public corruption in 2021 https://www.state.gov/public-designation-of-oligarch-and-former-ukrainian-public-official-ihor-kolomoyskyy-due-to-involvement-in-significant-corruption/ https://www.state.gov/public-designation-of-oligarch-and-for...
ipaddr 4y ago
The missiles that were going to be placed on the border of Russian inside Ukrainian now will be placed further away.

Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?

pessimizer 4y ago

You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.
- sorokod 4y ago
  Or Finland?

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

If 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 ago
Looks 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Why 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        They 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.
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        You are confusing 2 events. It's true that the USSR almost completely failed their first invasion of Finland. Though for reasons that are much much more complex than simple terrain imo. But after barbarossa, Finland then seized the opportunity to regain it's earlier losses and attacked the USSR, this time with german help. That didn't turn out well for the Finnish, and their situation was extremely dire by the end of WW2. Which is why they sued for peace in secret. The USSR could have taken the entirety of Finland at that point, and in fact the finnish government basically evacuated the capital. Why didn't stalin go for it? I guess we can't really know but from the wiki article: "Stalin's desire to crush Hitler quickly and decisively without distraction from the Finnish sideshow" concluded the war. Not only that, but for decades after the war, the Finnish communists (puppets to the kremlin) became extremely powerful politically. Finland was forced to hold trials against its own army, and for a time was completely subservient to the soviets. So if they really wanted to take over the entirety of Finland in 1940, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it in 1945.
guerrilla 4y ago
> 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. Zelensky already conceded to not going in NATO in March[1]... Russia partially withdrew after that (combined with the increasing cost of continuing to try to take Kiev), but I believe the current continuation is about taking the south, as I explained here [2], so it seems disingenuous to continue to claim some kind of self-defense case at this point. 1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukraine-conflict-nato-russia-b2037181.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukr... 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31550236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31550236
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  The US came very close to war with Russian missiles in Cuba. If they were far closer there could definitely be war.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Yes, and? Ukraine isn't going to be part of NATO, Zelensky already conceded and it's not even possible with a conflict in the country. So that mission is accomplished and is not the actual reason for the continuation of the war, as I said.
credit_guy 4y ago
> This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction. No it doesn't. The US can position Ohio-class submarines in the Baltic, or in the Black Sea, or in the Arctic Ocean. Their Trident missiles, even now 30 years after they were introduced, are still unparalleled. But they can’t strike every missile that Russia has, and in any case, not in just seconds, or even minutes. Russia is a big country; it has lots of road-mobile ICBMs. Those are simply impossible to eliminate in a first strike. Russia has for now, and for the foreseeable future, a guaranteed second strike. As for the "missile defense", there was never enough confidence in any missile defense system. At this point in time, all missile defense systems can be trivially defeated by a saturation attack.
mcv 4y ago
Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda. The issue isn't Ukraine becoming "NATO controlled" (all NATO members actually control themselves; NATO is a voluntary alliance), it's about keeping it Ukraine-controlled. Putin wants it to be controlled by Moscow instead, and that's why he invaded. Besides, there are already NATO members close to Moscow. And you know why they joined NATO? Because Russia is also close to them. Putin-supporters keep arguing that Russia needs security guarantees, but completely ignore the security guarantees of Russia's neighbours. And Russia is clearly a far larger threat to its neighbours than those neighbours are to Russia. Few countries have as much buffer built in as Russia does. What right does Russia have to demand entire countries as additional buffer? Where is Ukraine's buffer? > If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) Switzerland is not a buffer state. They're neutral because they choose to be. Chose, because Russian aggression is making even the Swiss consider choosing sides. > that would have been the best outcome for Russia. Because then Russia would be able to coerce and invade with impunity. Ukraine doesn't need neutrality, it needs security guarantees. Guarantees that Putin is clearly unwilling to give, and NATO is able to provide. Putin's aggression is Russia's biggest enemy.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda. Ukraine is actually controlled by the US State Department, and has been since the Maidan Coup overthrew a democratically elected leader. It was Washington & Brussels that issued an Ultimatum to Yanokovych in https://youtu.be/ROTwyP5no08?t=381 https://youtu.be/ROTwyP5no08?t=381 that preceded the protests and led to the coup. It was US State Department leaders that selected, rather than elected, Ukraine's leaders post-coup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k The US's own STRATFOR, Private CIA, even calls this a coup https://archive.ph/NAXCc https://archive.ph/NAXCc It was the Oligarch Kolomoisky that bankrolled Zelensky's campaign, providing him protection, a bodyguard, vehicles, and other resources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgli7TpINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgli7TpINw However, it is also known that Burisma hired Hunter Biden, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Report%20documents.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Report%20document... and, Burisma is controlled by the Oligarch Kolomoisky https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine-money-laundering-gave-millions-to-ny-charities/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine... It was the US State Department that also sanctioned the Oligarch Kolomoisky for public corruption in 2021 https://www.state.gov/public-designation-of-oligarch-and-former-ukrainian-public-official-ihor-kolomoyskyy-due-to-involvement-in-significant-corruption/ https://www.state.gov/public-designation-of-oligarch-and-for...

ipaddr 4y ago

The missiles that were going to be placed on the border of Russian inside Ukrainian now will be placed further away.