Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

Again, the Baltic states joined in 2004, putting NATO right up on Russia's border, but this is now a bridge too far?

There are several key factors - at the very least would be geography and logistics. That said, I doubt it helped.

tl;dr - Baltics-to-Moscow = like fighting through Louisiana; Kharkiv-to-Moscow like fighting through eastern Colorado.

The closest major population center of the Baltics is roughly 535 miles away from Moscow and 1000 miles away from the industrial heartland of Russia; inbetween is one of Europe's largest chain of wetlands, marshes and swamps with direct access to only 1 major highway to the capital - outside of that it's almost entirely mud roads not fit for heavy machinery. Additionally there is a low amount of commercial traffic in the region and few population centers, making it ideal for supremacy of sea and sky  - not for staging a full expeditionary force on Moscow.

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles; major industrial targets are now within 670 miles, with Tula - a major arms production center - within 300 miles of Kharkiv. In comparison to the border with the Baltics being a natural deterrent mixed with Belarus, the border between Russia and Ukraine is a well developed region - and one suited for military travel, as thousands of years of roving warbands in the region have bloodily proven.  

This not only opens the way for arial supremacy for NATO within Russia's own airspace, but also adds 3 more direct highways to the Russian capital and several more to the industrial regions; this surrounds Moscow on 2 fronts and allows the possibility of an easy encirclement to the east - stripped of any access to the oceans, deprived of it's productive and oil reserves, and backed against a frozen tundra.

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

I'm sure Putin was aware of things like attack jets and SRBMs that could be based in the Baltics in 2004. It's not like we're stuck with 1942 technology. But since you want to go down a rabbit hole and look at geography, go take a look at a map, and then imagine what controlling the Baltics might do to Russian maritime trade coming from St Pete.

Viewing NATO as an existential threat to Russia is silly. If NATO wanted to snuff out Russia, it could have done so with ease in 1996, yet it didn't.

[Leonardo17]

Here's a bit of history.

Probably Henry Kissinger and John Pilger were about as far apart as two people can be, on the subject of US foreign policy. But both of them warned, over ten years ago, what would happen if the US tried to bring Ukraine into NATO.

When did this American initiative to lure Ukraine into NATO happen? Be specific. I want dates, diplomats involved, any memoranda of understanding composed, and so on.

You won't, because you cannot, because -- wait for it -- it never happened.

Russian shill.

In fact it’s the exact opposite that happened. In 1994, Belarus + Kazakhstan + Ukraine gave all their nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for guarantees that they would not be attacked by Russia. And it was the US that convinced them to do so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3ndxglwxo
 
The kremlin is taking facts, turning them 180 degrees and saying “You violated past agreements” when they were the ones who did exactly that.

Belaqua on Iraq:
 
- Yes this is true. George W. Bush’s action set a precedent for Putin. Now Putin is saying “If you attack Iraq for non-existing biological weapons who are you to tell me to stop in Ukraine / Georgia / Central Asia / Moldova or the Baltic states?”
 
- But we have to get there. More armies and military spending will not do this alone. We need a rules based world order. We need some political rules. We need some rules of trade (I’m thinking on the tariffs imposed on China, yes these are also very unfair).
 
On China: The EU has recently adopted more “fair” rules on Chinese and other goods. If (for instance) China is subsidizing its electric cars in a Leninist way, the EU is imposing more tariffs on these to protect its industries. Same on agriculture. Agricultural products that are produced outside the EU (with less regulation on pesticides etc.) are submitted to more taxes or other incentives are put in practice to protect EU farmers.
 
Trump on the other hand is acting like a philistine. “25% on this one, 10% on this one, another 10% on that one”. I really think he is on his way to becoming the worst US president ever.

[Thumpalumpacus]

When did this American initiative to lure Ukraine into NATO happen? Be specific. I want dates, diplomats involved, any memoranda of understanding composed, and so on.

You won't, because you cannot, because -- wait for it -- it never happened.

Russian shill.

In fact it’s the exact opposite that happened. In 1994, Belarus + Kazakhstan + Ukraine gave all their nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for guarantees that they would not be attacked by Russia. And it was the US that convinced them to do so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3ndxglwxo
 
The kremlin is taking facts, turning them 180 degrees and saying “You violated past agreements” when they were the ones who did exactly that.

Let's not confuse @Belacqua with facts, the boy is chasing his own tail enough as it is.

[The Architect Of Fate]

To destroy all of whites points.

1. No, Russia entering into a defensive alliance with Canada would not be a provocation nor would establishing bases here be a provocation and it sure as heck wouldn't be a justification for an invasion unless the Russians actually did something aggressive which we would have ever reason to believe they would.


2. An attack from the Baltic with medium-to-long-range missiles could and would be as devastating a ground invasion from Ukraine were not in the 1940s technology has come a long way.


3. Joining NATO is not a provocation and there is literally zero evidence NATO intended to engage in offensive actions against Russia from Ukraine Russia by contrast has shown a total eagerness to invade it's neighbours.


This is all bullshit apologetics Russia had no justification to invade Ukraine period.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There are several key factors - at the very least would be geography and logistics. That said, I doubt it helped.

tl;dr - Baltics-to-Moscow = like fighting through Louisiana; Kharkiv-to-Moscow like fighting through eastern Colorado.

The closest major population center of the Baltics is roughly 535 miles away from Moscow and 1000 miles away from the industrial heartland of Russia; inbetween is one of Europe's largest chain of wetlands, marshes and swamps with direct access to only 1 major highway to the capital - outside of that it's almost entirely mud roads not fit for heavy machinery. Additionally there is a low amount of commercial traffic in the region and few population centers, making it ideal for supremacy of sea and sky  - not for staging a full expeditionary force on Moscow.

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles; major industrial targets are now within 670 miles, with Tula - a major arms production center - within 300 miles of Kharkiv. In comparison to the border with the Baltics being a natural deterrent mixed with Belarus, the border between Russia and Ukraine is a well developed region - and one suited for military travel, as thousands of years of roving warbands in the region have bloodily proven.  

This not only opens the way for arial supremacy for NATO within Russia's own airspace, but also adds 3 more direct highways to the Russian capital and several more to the industrial regions; this surrounds Moscow on 2 fronts and allows the possibility of an easy encirclement to the east - stripped of any access to the oceans, deprived of it's productive and oil reserves, and backed against a frozen tundra.

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

I'm sure Putin was aware of things like attack jets and SRBMs that could be based in the Baltics in 2004. It's not like we're stuck with 1942 technology. But since you want to go down a rabbit hole and look at geography, go take a look at a map, and then imagine what controlling the Baltics might do to Russian maritime trade coming from St Pete.

Viewing NATO as an existential threat to Russia is silly. If NATO wanted to snuff out Russia, it could have done so with ease in 1996, yet it didn't.

He seems to think NATO is going to try an operation barbarossa they wouldn't need to.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There are several key factors - at the very least would be geography and logistics. That said, I doubt it helped.

tl;dr - Baltics-to-Moscow = like fighting through Louisiana; Kharkiv-to-Moscow like fighting through eastern Colorado.

The closest major population center of the Baltics is roughly 535 miles away from Moscow and 1000 miles away from the industrial heartland of Russia; inbetween is one of Europe's largest chain of wetlands, marshes and swamps with direct access to only 1 major highway to the capital - outside of that it's almost entirely mud roads not fit for heavy machinery. Additionally there is a low amount of commercial traffic in the region and few population centers, making it ideal for supremacy of sea and sky  - not for staging a full expeditionary force on Moscow.

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles; major industrial targets are now within 670 miles, with Tula - a major arms production center - within 300 miles of Kharkiv. In comparison to the border with the Baltics being a natural deterrent mixed with Belarus, the border between Russia and Ukraine is a well developed region - and one suited for military travel, as thousands of years of roving warbands in the region have bloodily proven.  

This not only opens the way for arial supremacy for NATO within Russia's own airspace, but also adds 3 more direct highways to the Russian capital and several more to the industrial regions; this surrounds Moscow on 2 fronts and allows the possibility of an easy encirclement to the east - stripped of any access to the oceans, deprived of it's productive and oil reserves, and backed against a frozen tundra.

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

Try really hard to understand this: preventing illegal Russian expansion is not the same as attacking Russia.

Boru

No no you see stopping the bully from picking on the other kids is an attack ......

[The Architect Of Fate]

So to sum up there no strategic justification for Russia's invasion.

- Joining a defensive alliances is not a provocation whether it's Ukraine or Canada 

- NATO can and always could lay waste to Russia without  Ukraine the idea NATO building bases in Ukraine was such an overstep is absurd  

- Preventing Russian expansion is not an attack on Russia nor is it a provocation

[Mister Agenda]

The people of Ukraine voted for Yanukovych, who promised neutrality between NATO and Russia. But he was expelled by a violent putsch and replaced by a NATO-sponsored guy, even though everybody knew this was serious provocation.

By 'replaced by a NATO sponsored guy' do you mean the people of Ukraine voted for Zalinsky?

[The Architect Of Fate]

The people of Ukraine voted for Yanukovych, who promised neutrality between NATO and Russia. But he was expelled by a violent putsch and replaced by a NATO-sponsored guy, even though everybody knew this was serious provocation.

By 'replaced by a NATO sponsored guy' do you mean the people of Ukraine voted for Zalinsky?

Glad someone was able to make something out of Bels big blob of nothing burger and delusional blame shifting

[Belacqua]

The people of Ukraine voted for Yanukovych, who promised neutrality between NATO and Russia. But he was expelled by a violent putsch and replaced by a NATO-sponsored guy, even though everybody knew this was serious provocation.

By 'replaced by a NATO sponsored guy' do you mean the people of Ukraine voted for Zalinsky?

Poroshenko came after Yanukovych. "Sponsored" may be too strong a word for me to use. If he got in at that time, it means the US thought he was OK. He was in favor of NATO alliance but didn't have the popular support for it at the time. He is a billionaire and generally aims for integration with Europe rather than Russia, or careful neutrality. In other words, he doesn't look neutral. 

Zelensky was sponsored by Kolomoisky, an Israeli/Ukrainian billionaire, who used his media power to get Zelensky elected. Zelensky promised peace with Russia, which made him popular. 

Since then Kolomoisky has been found guilty of various scandals, and his bank has been taken over by the state. I don't know the extent of his real crimes, since all of the politics involved means that people accuse each other of all kinds of stuff.