3 ms·

This is what doesn’t make sense. If Ukraine joined NATO, they would never attack Russia, as it would escalate into a MAD scenario. Ukraine had no reason to atta

by jmpman 3y ago

This is what doesn’t make sense. If Ukraine joined NATO, they would never attack Russia, as it would escalate into a MAD scenario. Ukraine had no reason to attack Russia other than to regain Crimea, and Russia had no reason for Crimea other than their naval base, and of course the Russian speaking population in Crimea.

toyg 3y ago
> Ukraine had no reason to attack Russia other than to regain Crimea Having a direct flank open to NATO troops at any time, regardless of why they might be on the march, was always a strategic problem no matter what. It was less of a problem when such troops where a couple of borders away; it is a pretty big issue today. They tried to address it with the dirty war in Donbass, but clearly it wasn't going as well as they hoped. Putin just decided to try and cut the knot. Ironically though, by trying to claim the whole country and failing, he created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Before this, there was very little realistic chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO, nobody in the alliance wanted them in (not even Eastern countries for which it would be a useful buffer: they would lose the relevancy they get by being "the border"). Now, if they manage to maintain statehood by the end of this conflict, it will be politically difficult to keep them out. > Russia had no reason for Crimea other than their naval base That naval base is a key element of force-projection for Russia since boats had sails. They fought multiple wars for it and will not renounce it, short of catastrophic humiliation on the battlefield - something that today would probably involve exchanging nukes.
- jmpman 3y ago
  Germans doesn’t seem too concerned with French troops on its western border. Russia chooses to maintain its militaristic posture. It could also opt to end its militaristic ways, and join Europe.

by jmpman 3y ago

toyg 3y ago

> Ukraine had no reason to attack Russia other than to regain Crimea Having a direct flank open to NATO troops at any time, regardless of why they might be on the march, was always a strategic problem no matter what. It was less of a problem when such troops where a couple of borders away; it is a pretty big issue today. They tried to address it with the dirty war in Donbass, but clearly it wasn't going as well as they hoped. Putin just decided to try and cut the knot. Ironically though, by trying to claim the whole country and failing, he created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Before this, there was very little realistic chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO, nobody in the alliance wanted them in (not even Eastern countries for which it would be a useful buffer: they would lose the relevancy they get by being "the border"). Now, if they manage to maintain statehood by the end of this conflict, it will be politically difficult to keep them out. > Russia had no reason for Crimea other than their naval base That naval base is a key element of force-projection for Russia since boats had sails. They fought multiple wars for it and will not renounce it, short of catastrophic humiliation on the battlefield - something that today would probably involve exchanging nukes.

jmpman 3y ago
Germans doesn’t seem too concerned with French troops on its western border. Russia chooses to maintain its militaristic posture. It could also opt to end its militaristic ways, and join Europe.