> Take close note of their captured territory - this is the buffer zone that they think they need, whether you agree or not, to safeguard themselves from NATO f

> Take close note of their captured territory - this is the buffer zone that they think they need, whether you agree or not, to safeguard themselves from NATO forces they do not trust one bit. Take a close look of any map of Europe, please. Russian forces have been redeployed from the actual border with NATO into Ukraine, literally a thousand kilometers away from the closest NATO country. Defenses of St Petersburg, Kaliningrad and other key locations have been gutted in favor filling gaps in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Prigozin's march to Moscow demonstrated this perfectly; the divisions (like 4th Guards) meant for the defense of Moscow had been moved into Ukraine and there was no-one to stop him, the road to Moscow was wide open. Russia can afford to have nothing but police between Tallinn and St Petersburg only if they think that NATO poses no danger to them, otherwise it would be a key direction to fortify. > Would you tolerate it, as an American, if Russia put secret weapons-related bio-research facilities on your borders along Mexico, and if Mexico had structured its armed forces to be aligned with Russian military planners, preparing to "contain and control" the USA? I don't think so. There is no need to contrive scenarios when far more has been tolerated for decades. Russia has nuclear missiles literally in the middle of Europe and nobody makes a fuss about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4.jpg&w=1440 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://w... Last year they installed nuclear missiles in Belarus too, so they've put nukes as close to Europe everywhere they could. Where they can't reach by land, the use airplanes: for years, Russia has been flying nuclear bombers 50 miles off the coast of California.