4 ms·

> Securing the borders from what? Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers. Securing good natural bord

> Securing the borders from what? Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers. Securing good natural borders has been a major national security concern for Russia for centuries and up until the fall of Soviet Union they had secured all of them. They have been winning those back gradually over the last couple of decades. > If he was worried about NATO he would be beefing up troop deployments along the borders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia where he has withdrawn troops The Baltic states are likely future targets. Thankfully they've been doing so badly in Ukraine they are being forced to withdraw forces from other areas and debasing their ability to achieve those future aims. > They have nuclear weapons and would have a justifiable reason in using them if they were wantonly invaded Firstly, there are numerous scenarios where Russia is not wantonly invaded but perhaps different powers use salami tactics either directly or by proxy that wouldn't justify nukes at any particular point. Secondly, Russia may not want to rely on its ability to maintain nuclear weapons long-term especially while its industrial base decays, the result of its crumbling education system unravels, and its demographics rapidly decline. Regardless, it's much better strategically to have good defensive geography and nukes. > It seems so many want to run away from the straightforward situation...Everything else is a sideshow at best, and Russian propaganda at worst. The idea that Russia wants a secure border geography and that Ukraine is a barrier to that is not new nor controversial. The (continued) invasion of Ukraine was long expected and the high level reasons long known.[1][2] 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ru... 2. https://zeihan.com/russias-twilight-war/ https://zeihan.com/russias-twilight-war/

ericmay 4y ago
> Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers. Russia has nuclear weapons. They can say that they are worried about being invaded but I certainly reject that as an argument worth consideration. > The Baltic states are likely future targets. Thankfully they've been doing so badly in Ukraine they are being forced to withdraw forces from other areas and debasing their ability to achieve those future aims. Agreed and I think initially (I certainly posted) he intended to break NATO by testing the resolve of the alliance in the Baltics, where had he actually had success in Ukraine would have invaded the Baltics and likely took them quickly as well which would have left the US and NATO allies in the position of continuing a war and reconquering land. I think what he miscalculated was that the US was quite serious about protecting the Baltic states and would have for sure gone to war with Russia directly over them. > The idea that Russia wants a secure border geography and that Ukraine is a barrier to that is not new nor controversial. It is in the sense that there was ever any desire to "be secure" as that is a new talking point designed to cause uncertainty in what is desired. It's mostly just about claiming territory perceived to be historically lost and other elements such as this are part of an ongoing propaganda campaign. Putin himself tells you this over and over again in his speeches. Ideas like NATO on the doorstep are recent propaganda tools because NATO has "been on the doorstep" for awhile. It also seeks to remove agency from nations in forming their own security partnerships.
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > Russia has nuclear weapons. Nukes aren’t the trump cards you seem to think they are. In fact I would go so far as to say that nukes are essentially useless outside of deterring being destroyed by nukes or otherwise imminently existentially threatened. Even then they’re no guarantee as no one knows if MAD would actually be triggered in the event of a devastating attack. Regardless, salami tactics and other less-than-total-defeat strategies are likely to be quite effective at avoiding anything too grave to provoke a nuclear response because they can be conducted in such a way that suicide by MAD remains irrational. > NATO has "been on the doorstep" for awhile Not very long by European standards. It is obviously an ongoing concern for Russia having an enemy military alliance next door and that is also not a controversial statement. What country wouldn’t be gravely concerned by that? However, this is a long term strategy regardless of NATO and they have been executing it systematically for decades by gradually capturing the defensive geographies around Russia. They see it as existentially necessary to do this and that’s why they have to be stopped in Ukraine.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > Nukes aren’t the trump cards you seem to think they are. The idea that NATO would invade Russia on its face is ridiculous, as you know, especially considering it’s a defensive arrangement. The idea that nuclear weapons don’t protect Russia from such an attack is also ridiculous, as you know. But if you believe that they do not protect Russia, it doesn’t follow to then antagonize a far superior military force and risk invasion and destruction. > Not very long by European standards. Not a relevant point > It is obviously an ongoing concern for Russia having an enemy military alliance next door and that is also not a controversial statement. It’s an ongoing self-inflicted concern, to be certain. But you can choose two options: countries can decide their own security arrangements, or might makes right. If you remove agency from Ukraine you simply give license to other countries such as China or the United States to act as they see fit. > However, this is a long term strategy regardless of NATO and they have been executing it systematically for decades by gradually capturing the defensive geographies around Russia. They see it as existentially necessary to do this and that’s why they have to be stopped in Ukraine. If this is what you and/or Russians believe then the United States should immediately go to war with Russia, especially since nuclear weapons aren’t trump cards and they should invade before Russia secures these natural borders you speak of since the two nations are adversaries and there is no reconciliation. Although I’m still wondering what the point would be.

ericmay 4y ago

> Russia has been invaded by land countless times over the centuries as it has few natural barriers. Russia has nuclear weapons. They can say that they are worried about being invaded but I certainly reject that as an argument worth consideration. > The Baltic states are likely future targets. Thankfully they've been doing so badly in Ukraine they are being forced to withdraw forces from other areas and debasing their ability to achieve those future aims. Agreed and I think initially (I certainly posted) he intended to break NATO by testing the resolve of the alliance in the Baltics, where had he actually had success in Ukraine would have invaded the Baltics and likely took them quickly as well which would have left the US and NATO allies in the position of continuing a war and reconquering land. I think what he miscalculated was that the US was quite serious about protecting the Baltic states and would have for sure gone to war with Russia directly over them. > The idea that Russia wants a secure border geography and that Ukraine is a barrier to that is not new nor controversial. It is in the sense that there was ever any desire to "be secure" as that is a new talking point designed to cause uncertainty in what is desired. It's mostly just about claiming territory perceived to be historically lost and other elements such as this are part of an ongoing propaganda campaign. Putin himself tells you this over and over again in his speeches. Ideas like NATO on the doorstep are recent propaganda tools because NATO has "been on the doorstep" for awhile. It also seeks to remove agency from nations in forming their own security partnerships.

nyokodo 4y ago
> Russia has nuclear weapons. Nukes aren’t the trump cards you seem to think they are. In fact I would go so far as to say that nukes are essentially useless outside of deterring being destroyed by nukes or otherwise imminently existentially threatened. Even then they’re no guarantee as no one knows if MAD would actually be triggered in the event of a devastating attack. Regardless, salami tactics and other less-than-total-defeat strategies are likely to be quite effective at avoiding anything too grave to provoke a nuclear response because they can be conducted in such a way that suicide by MAD remains irrational. > NATO has "been on the doorstep" for awhile Not very long by European standards. It is obviously an ongoing concern for Russia having an enemy military alliance next door and that is also not a controversial statement. What country wouldn’t be gravely concerned by that? However, this is a long term strategy regardless of NATO and they have been executing it systematically for decades by gradually capturing the defensive geographies around Russia. They see it as existentially necessary to do this and that’s why they have to be stopped in Ukraine.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > Nukes aren’t the trump cards you seem to think they are. The idea that NATO would invade Russia on its face is ridiculous, as you know, especially considering it’s a defensive arrangement. The idea that nuclear weapons don’t protect Russia from such an attack is also ridiculous, as you know. But if you believe that they do not protect Russia, it doesn’t follow to then antagonize a far superior military force and risk invasion and destruction. > Not very long by European standards. Not a relevant point > It is obviously an ongoing concern for Russia having an enemy military alliance next door and that is also not a controversial statement. It’s an ongoing self-inflicted concern, to be certain. But you can choose two options: countries can decide their own security arrangements, or might makes right. If you remove agency from Ukraine you simply give license to other countries such as China or the United States to act as they see fit. > However, this is a long term strategy regardless of NATO and they have been executing it systematically for decades by gradually capturing the defensive geographies around Russia. They see it as existentially necessary to do this and that’s why they have to be stopped in Ukraine. If this is what you and/or Russians believe then the United States should immediately go to war with Russia, especially since nuclear weapons aren’t trump cards and they should invade before Russia secures these natural borders you speak of since the two nations are adversaries and there is no reconciliation. Although I’m still wondering what the point would be.