4 ms·
> I must invade a neighboring country to prevent having NATO on my doorstep Even without involving Finland, it's worse than that. If he successfully invades an
by tommiegannert 4y ago
> I must invade a neighboring country to prevent having NATO on my doorstep
Even without involving Finland, it's worse than that. If he successfully invades and conquers Ukraine, he will certainly have NATO at his doorstep. I doubt this was his real reasoning.
Maybe the plan was to take only as much of Ukraine to show that he could, if he wanted to, take the whole. Effectively turning the Ukraine into a no-mans-land and maintaining the threat of "don't join NATO, or else..." And Finland doesn't have oil to profit from, so he likely had no plans of ever touching that wasp's nest.
I'm not a politician nor military strategist, but I prefer not underestimating powerful people when thinking about their strategies.
- cableshaft 4y agoTechnically NATO is already 'at their doorstep'. Norway, Estonia, and Latvia share a border with mainland Russia (with Estonia and Latvia being much closer to Moscow than Ukraine is), and Lithuania and Poland also directly border Kaliningrad, which is Russian territory, and Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey only have the Black Sea separating them.
- Animatronio 4y agoYes, but only technically. What matters is the advanced weapons system each of these countries has on its territory. Think Aegis Ashore and the likes of that. Otherwise, they're just empty land (from a military viewpoint).
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoIf we free ourselves of the bounds of what is technically true, then we can justify nearly anything. I'm not sure it's a productive line of reasoning.
- Animatronio 4y agoWhat are you trying to say here? Technically true is still true, so we should take it into account when making a decision.
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoThat we should take into account that NATO is already 'at their doorstep', regardless of which weapon systems are where, since they can be deployed anywhere later.
- Animatronio 4y agoThen you'll have no problem explaining this: https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2023/03/26/poland-nuclear-arms-in-belarus-are-further-threat-to-european-peace https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2023/03/26/poland-nuclear-arm... while also this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nuclear-wars-russia-putin-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/05/poland-us-nucl...
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoI'm not sure what part you are asking me to explain to you? They seem relatively self-explanatory.
- andrewflnr 4y agoHe won't have NATO next to the part of Russia "that counts", though, twisted logic though that may be. I think the original plan was to set up a puppet state as a buffer, anyway.