Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Putin Will Never Invade Ukraine: 3 Reasons For u0026 Against - TLDR News" video.

I really don't understand the idea of preventing Ukraine joining NATO by essentially threatening an invasion. In fact this likely would do the opposite with Ukraine wanting to join even faster and the West possibly moving towards it more quickly once the dust settles. What is even more Worrying for Russia is that Sweden and Finland now are actually more likely to join NATO than ever before, this after refusing for decades. If they'd join NATO has another way of threatening Russia's second largest city in case of war and could lock down the baltic sea much more strongly.
71
And this reflection is hurting Russia? Europe now will even more look to diversify things like gas imports, Some non-NATO countries (like Finland and Sweden) or becoming closer to joining NATO than ever and Ukraine now has an even worse view regarding Russia and likely will move even more closely to the west. If Putin's idea was to force the west to back off and to keep Ukraine neutral, he essentially will have achieved the complete opposite.
5
@bjrnhjortshjandersen1286 I'd like to have an EU army and in that case NATO could be replaced by a just a regular defensive alliance, though it would come down to more or less the same. Even if NATO seizes to exist, I don't really care, but there certainly need to be a united EU army before that time imo. As for the need of a credible enemy for a defensive association, I completely disagree. A defensive alliance doesn't really need a clear enemy, it is usefull eitherway. It will diminish the chance of conflicts between members (due to the other members wanting a peacefull resolution) and it defends all members against any attack, whether it comes from a clear enemy or not. A defensive alliance in of itself can never hurt, it just can't be turned into a more offensive one. And NATO definitely isn't likely to transform to an offensive one, too many members are against that. Sure some members might cooperate regarding offensive actions, but that happens regardless of NATO. The only time NATO can be seen as an offensive alliance was Afghanistan, but this was in response to the 9/11 attacks, so it can still be considered a defensive action (though due to the more borderline nature of that situation several members only contributed the bare minimum/no combat troops). Russia overall definitely doesn't need to fear more from the west. Its entire history is one of constant expansion since it conception, ofcourse this sometimes will cause an invasion/war at some point by another power. Even during WW2 there are credible sources that indicate Stalin hoped that the European powers would bleed themselves dry in a war between them, so that then the USSR could invade and easily take over European lands, the Nazi German invasion just came +-2 years too early. At this moment no one really wants a conflict with Russia and definitely doesn't want to invade it. Russia doesn't have anything to fear from Europe or the US unless they themselves make the first move. Russia's problem is it is stuck in a 'war is necessary to grow power' hard power mentality, while Europe is more looking to the economy and soft power. The more powerfull EU countries rather want peace and good relations with Russia and the US focus has shifted to China and the South China Sea. If NATO is a threat to Russia, it is all due to Russia's own doing (more specifically their leadership). This is really shown by the Ukrainian situation. There was really not a movement of Ukraine joining NATO, at best just speculative discussions. By now acting as if Ukraine would join NATO soon, Russia likely has just sped up its future ascension and even made other neutral countries (ie. Sweden and Finland) move closer to joining NATO than ever before.
4
@bjrnhjortshjandersen1286 Russia has reason for invading Europe, just no logical ones. However leaders don't always think logical. Invading the USSR wasn't a logical decision for Nazi Germany at that point, before the UK was out of the war, nevertheless Hitler decided to invade.
3
@csuporj It would be awkward to let Russia-s enemy build military bases in a russian speaking territory. And like I said, NATO wouldn't built military bases there, they are not stupid. Russian is the most common first language in the Donbas and Crimea regions of Ukraine, and the predominant language in large cities in the east and south of the country. And? German was the predominant language in Sudetenland, Austria and Danzig, so are you saying that Nazi-Germany was justified in taking those regions and when Poland refused, to invade it? France is the predominant language in Southern Belgium, does this mean it has the right to take it? Spanish is the predominant language in most parts of South/central America, does this mean Spain can claim it? Ofcourse not, purely talking about language is non-sensical. The Alps didn't stop the occupation of South Tyrol. You do realize there already were German troops in Italy before the occupation as allies, right? A buffer btw doesn't necessarily stop a war/invasion, rather makes it more difficult.
2
@tidy4445 I wouldn't equate it to the cuban missile crisis. Just because it would enter NATO, doesn't mean missiles etc need to be put there, it can also just end up as a guarantee of defence in case of Russian (or someone elses) aggression. Also a lot of the pro Russian population already is in the Donetsk-Luhansk rebel region and overall sentiment in Ukraine towards Russia has severally lowered over the past years. I am not saying Ukraine in NATO is the best outcome, but if Russia keeps pulling stunts like this, it is all but a guarantee that is will happen in the future. If Russia does invade and occupies half the country, it will be the most pro Russian part and this will likely push the Western part into NATO, if Russia occupies all of Ukraine, it will definitely spark a new cold war. I guess we'll see how events unfold in the coming months.
1
@martinboskovic1009 "The Russian army is there as a deterrent in case Ucraine invades Donbas." For that even a 1/10th or max 1/5th of the troopconcentration is necessary. No way Ukraine would try anything with that and if it does that are more than enough troops to stabilize the Donbas front and gather troops for a further invasion of Ukraine. wars are expensive You know what is also expensive? Mobilizing so many troops at the Ukrainian border. Sure a war is more expensive, but it isn't like this isn't. By which standards? Usually you compare it to a high in recent times, like 2013, when GDP was 800 billion dollars higher, or a drop of 35%. Though to be fair, compared to other European power, the Russian economy on average has taken a similar trend (or better yet, between nations hit hard by the economic crises like Italy and those that recovered, like Germany), and it is more that the 2013 high was unusual. Nevertheless is the the impact of the European sanctions following Crimea's annexation and the Donbas/Luhansk conflict clearly visible. And considering this and the fact that around 20% of Russia's current GDP is dependent on trade with the EU and the US, future heavier sanctions could really cause another great fall in Russia's GDP (and thus spending power for example into its military). If countries like Turkey, Korea and Japan can also be convinced to participate in sanctions (unlikely for the eastern countries, but you never know in case of war), this would be even more problematic. In the end Russia is always better off if they have friendly relations with the west, or at least Europe, both from an economic and geopolitical aspect, not even conquering Ukraine would trump that. This likely is just a play in internal Russian reasons more than anything else, invading Ukraine would at best be a side effect.
1
@kadarabdi9829 There already was a civil war happening in Lybia, soft power then is not really usefull.
1
@Member_zero The predecessor of the EU was formed first and foremost to prevent any future war and for economic reasons. Bonding together to remain relevant is only a later notion.
1
@csuporj I think you need to look up on Switzerlands history, it wasn't created as a bufferzone, the Swiss themselves are responsible for creating their country. Russia should build military bases in Mexico near the US border Russia would first need to convince Mexico to allow it, which won't happen. Besides who is saying anything about building military bases in Ukraine? The US doesn't have any bases in European countries bordering Russia (except if you consider Kaliningrad), despite the Baltics bordering Russia and being in NATO. The US isn't interested in a base in Ukraine.
1
@csuporj Switzerland is a neutral country that wasn't worth the effort of attacking it. It is as simple as that. It is not usefull as a bufferstate. A bufferstate between which countries? Germany and Italy? Austria borders Italy and for most of Switzerlands existence it was was a part of Germany or a close ally. Besides, the Alps already formed a natural buffer. So how is Switzerland exactly a bufferstate, for which countries? Why would a defensive military pact expand? To defend that new member, to strengthen the alliance and as more selfish reason to increase the influence of other members in that country. If there was no threat to Ukraine or Ukraine didn't want it, it doesn't matter. Switzerland, Finland and Sweden aren't in it either. If Ukraine doesn't ask to become a NATO member, it won't. If Russia didn't threaten it, it might never have joined NATO. But the Crimea's annexation and support of the Donbas-Luhansk rebels by Russia doesn't exactly give Ukraine a safe feeling. And strategically it also makes sense. If Russia would ever decide to invade Europe/NATO (practically no chance of that though), By heaving Ukraine as a member this would be extra territory Russia would need to take and maintain and an extra way for NATO to counterattack.
1
@bjrnhjortshjandersen1286 UK always remained a threat, even if just due to their blockade of the naval supply routes and possible naval landings. That the USSR wasn't ready is not necessarily something the Germans knew from what I remember, though I might be wrong. Anyway Stalin didn't expect an attack exactly because it wasn't logical. However while Stalin was a pragmatist, Hitler was an ideologue. Hitler made the decision to invade the USSR on his own while on retreat at the Eagle's nest. Hitler apparently convinced himself that the UK wouldn't make peace because they hoped the USSR would eventually come to their aide, and believed that by defeating the USSR, the UK would eventually accept peace terms. It is possible that his hatred for the USSR clouded his judgement. Germany wasn't at all ready for the Russian invasion from just a logistical standpoint alone. It is possible that Putin really believes that the west is out to get him and Russia. I find that unlikely, but the possibility always exists.
1
@bjrnhjortshjandersen1286 That is my point, leaders don't always need to act rationally, because they might not be thinking rationally. Leaders can even change while in control.
1