> 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 considerin

> 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.