Comments by "jeppen" (@jesan733) on "HistoryLegends"
channel.
-
2
-
@Seasails-w4q the argument has always been "Russia couldn't allow NATO to place missiles in Ukraine," with the reasoning being the closeness to Moscow shortens the missile travel time. However, the Baltics is roughly as close, so that argument doesn't fly.
I find it bordering on nonsensical that Russia was worried about land invasion. At least before this war, Russia had both the largest artillery arsenal in the world and the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. So it could stop any invader both through the same artillery lockdown of enemy forces as is in play now, and through nuclear deterrence.
Add to that, that NATO countries have been disarming themselves since the cold war, with even big NATO countries having miniscule armies and as we've seen, too little ammo to even fight a decent war. The US also withdrew almost all assets (both nukes and troops) from Europe and halved its total military since the cold war.
Add to that that NATO is a bunch of complacent traders, not warriors. They want their comfy lives built on trade and democracy to continue, they don't want costly and risky major wars. Germany and continental Europe deliberately made themselves dependent on Russian gas to prove friendly intent.
Also, NATO and the US refused to give Ukraine heavy weaponry before the war to not provoke Russia. Furthermore, Russia could keep blocking NATO membership forever by just keeping Crimea. (NATO would refuse to let anyone join who has territory occupied.)
In no way does Russia's neighboring countries have "extreme" NATO military bases. US/NATO force commitments have been low.
So the idea that Russia felt threatened is completely wrong. It attacked Ukraine out of disdain for Western weakness, not out of fear of Western strength.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2