38

The current Russian troop buildup close to Ukraine and the exercise in Belarus are partially justified by Russian security interests which, in particular, mean that Russia very much opposes NATO membership of Ukraine.

It seems clear that NATO would not admit Ukraine in the foreseeable future. But assuming Ukraine joins at some point: How would that affect (harm) Russian security?

  • Having NATO troops in Ukraine would of course facilitate a ground attack. Does anybody in Russia or NATO seriously consider that remotely plausible, even in the future? (I'd have thought that that was exceedingly unlikely given nuclear deterrence and the lack of any interest in starting a direct war with Russia.)
  • Would Ukraine offer a particular advantage for stationing ballistic missiles or anti-ballistic defense (or something similar) that current NATO territory does not?
  • In that sense, is the situation similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Here, my understanding is that at the time, missiles in Cuba (and Turkey, for the US missiles) posed a serious threat in addition to the existing delivery systems.)
  • Is there some other aspect?

Edit: Another question (Why would Russia care about NATO troops on its borders if it has nuclear weapons?) asked about similar aspects, but is not quite the same because it does not consider any non-invasion harm to Russia's security.

Joel Harmon
  • 133
  • 1
  • 1
  • 5
Toffomat
  • 555
  • 4
  • 14
  • 28
    Someone voted to close without explanation. I think this question is legit and well formulated, and it should remain open. – Evargalo Feb 21 '22 at 08:56
  • 5
    I don't understand the question. The answer seems fairly obvious to me - it's for the same reason Ukraine feels threatened by the Russian forces massed across the border. It doesn't matter if the hostile forces are actually going to invade; their very presence is scary. – Allure Feb 21 '22 at 09:43
  • 3
    @Allure I guess that's an answer, but I don't really understand it: AFAICT Ukraine feels threatened because Russian invasion is considered a real possibility; Ukraine doesn't feel threatened by NATO forces in Poland. So part of the question is whether Russia does thin an invasion is at least a possibility. – Toffomat Feb 21 '22 at 09:51
  • 1
    @Toffomat so same thing. If Ukraine joins NATO and NATO decides to deploy weapons there (which they can, it's their territory now) Russia is going to feel threatened. – Allure Feb 21 '22 at 09:52
  • 11
    @Toffomat as for whether Russia does think an invasion is at least a possibility - it's always going to be a possibility. In the Russian point of view NATO promised not to expand, but they did; they claim to respect other's territorial sovereignty, but they violated Serbian sovereignty by supporting Kosovo independence claiming it is "sui generis"; they claim to be a defensive alliance, but they effected regime change with their intervention in Libya. Do you trust NATO? – Allure Feb 21 '22 at 10:02
  • 7
    @Allure It's not so much about trust; rather it seems clear to me that an invasion of Russia would be so obviously stupid that no one would seriously think about it, and so the "security interests" are more likely to be about something else (e.g. missile defense). But your answer seems to be that an invasion is seen as a significant risk? – Toffomat Feb 21 '22 at 11:43
  • 1
    @Toffomat I wouldn't say Russia considers an invasion a major risk now, but who's to say it won't be in the future? All it takes is for America to elect another Trump-esque president and it can easily be on the cards. – Allure Feb 21 '22 at 11:56
  • @MartinDrozdik it's because the answer seems so obvious that I don't understand the question. Presumably the OP is looking for some non-obvious answer (or asking some question other than the one I think is asked), because otherwise they wouldn't have asked the question. – Allure Feb 22 '22 at 10:24
  • @Allure So you actually don't understand the reason why such a, for lack of a better word, "dumb" question is being asked. Sorry, I misunderstood. I think you overestimate the understanding an average person has about these things. Most of this stuff is new for me. – Martin Drozdik Feb 22 '22 at 11:00
  • 1
    Well, for starters it would have just started WW3. – Valorum Feb 22 '22 at 11:46
  • 2
    There doesn't necessarily have to be a credible threat for Russia to say there is a credible threat, and it may be politically advantageous for them to exaggerate. – Zibbobz Feb 22 '22 at 14:01
  • 1
    @Toffomat You should try to see it from historical point of view, like in my answer. – convert Feb 22 '22 at 14:26
  • Related: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23382/why-would-russia-care-about-nato-troops-on-its-borders-if-it-has-nuclear-weapons – JonathanReez Feb 23 '22 at 00:39
  • Does this answer your question? Why would Russia care about NATO troops on its borders if it has nuclear weapons? – JonathanReez Feb 23 '22 at 00:40
  • not it would not effect at all, since Russia is besicaly defenceless against Nato non-nuclear forces. – user184868 Apr 18 '22 at 03:00

7 Answers7

35

One key question is the plausibility of a preemptive, conventional or nuclear counterforce strike against the Russian nuclear force. For much of the Cold War, there was a commonly held belief that both sides possessed a survivable second strike capability, like nuclear missile submarines, mobile missiles, and hardened silos, and that even after a preemptive strike there would be more than enough Soviet missiles left to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.

Now the US is working on both ballistic missile defenses and conventional strike capabilities. Back during the Cold War, it was agreed that missile defense was destabilizing, hence the ABM Treaty. As of now, US missile defense plans are on a much smaller scale than pre-ABM-Treaty. I would say that on paper, Russian concerns are unfounded for now and for years to come. Russia might have different ideas than I have about

  • the American understanding of acceptable damage in a war against Russia,
  • the numbers and readiness of Russian SSBNs,
  • the resilience of the Russian early-warning and command-and-control systems.

If those points are worse than I believe, then Russia would be threatened by small numbers of US interceptors and missiles near their border.

Russia might also be looking two or three decades ahead, and worrying that it cannot afford an arms race against the West. A simplistic interpretation of the end of the Cold War might be that President Reagan threatened to develop and deploy SDI (aka Star Wars) and that Gorbachev knew that the Soviet economy would be unable to keep up.

You might note that Russia is not just demanding political control over Ukraine, but also a rollback of the NATO enlargement of recent decades. NATO forces in the Baltics or Romania are as bad as potential NATO forces in Ukraine in this regard.

A different perspective might be that the Putin regime (as opposed to Russia itself) is threatened by a Western-style democracy in a society that is culturally close to Russia -- the Russian people might demand the same. Russia claims that the string of Color Revolutions were Western-engineered regime change, not the will of the people.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • 10
    Your last point seems spot-on to me, that's why I was sceptical about the justification put forward. Regarding missile defense and counterforce strikes: Does Ukraine offer that much of an advantage, i.e. is the Russian nuclear force concentrated close by, and/or would (most/enough?) ICBMs fly such that they can be intercepted from Ukraine? – Toffomat Feb 21 '22 at 07:02
  • 17
    @Toffomat, it isn't an all-or-nothing question, it is a cumulative effect. If there are radars in Poland and in Ukraine, they are surely more effective than radars only in Poland. That might be enough to turn unacceptable damage into acceptable damage for a future American President. Or at least allow that President to bluff and blackmail. – o.m. Feb 21 '22 at 07:07
  • The difference is that while Cuba being "in the Soviet camp" caused concern in Washington, and even an attempted, but poorly supported invasion by exiles, actual deployment of Soviet missiles there caused a much more serious confrontation between the superpowers. I'm sure Russian leadership can appreciate the difference, but whether they choose to admit in public that it exists, after they have predicated their whole political careers on waving the NATO scarecrow at home for decades.... is a different matter. – the gods from engineering May 10 '22 at 15:41
  • I'm pretty sure that if the US chose, post INF scrapping, to fill the Baltics, and/or Poland with medium-range nuclear tipped missiles, Russia would have much more real concerns than they presently have. There is a question here in which answers assert that a ground invasion is easier to do from Ukraine than from the Baltics, but "as the missile flies", the distance to Moscow is about the same. (And Finland, which seems intent on joining NATO, isn't much further in that regard.) – the gods from engineering May 10 '22 at 15:58
  • One of your points is that if the number and readiness of Russian SSBN's is lower than is widely believed/publicized, they would have significantly more cause for concern. This seems quite possible, given the observed state of readiness of their conventional forces over the past year, the significant maintenance requirements of nuclear missiles, and the fact that those missiles are one of the hardest pieces of defense infrastructure for an outside observer to recognize as unserviceable. – Ryan Jensen Jul 13 '23 at 21:36
23

The Russian heartland (Moscow, Saint Petersburg, etc) is on the famously flat European Plain. Most of Ukraine is also on that plain, and there's no natural barrier like mountains or a river along the Russian-Ukrainian border. This means that it is (relatively) easy to invade Russia from Ukraine. If Ukraine were to join NATO, it would mean NATO weaponry and troops at a shorter distance to Moscow than before, separated only by easily-traversed terrain, and now covering most of the western Russian border. Ukraine is also too close to the so-called "Volgograd gap". The Russian state has an existential fear of being invaded again, and so they of course see this as a threat. Also there is a financial aspect: the closer NATO is to Russia, the more expensive it is to be able to defend against them.

Note that this isn't limited to Ukraine. If you look at a map of the European Plain you may notice a striking similarity to the European part of the old Soviet sphere of influence. That's no coincidence: Russia has long desired, and used to have, a buffer zone on the European Plain, so that hostile powers would have to traverse, say, East Germany, Poland, and Belarus or Ukraine before getting to Russia proper, rather than being right at Russia's "doorstep" so to speak. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the following events, a lot of that buffer zone has gone, and that makes the Russians nervous.

Reasonable or not, this seems to be how the Russians see it and, in my opinion, it explains their actions in general.

(Disclaimer: I am not a geopolitics expert. Most of what I know on the subject is from the YouTube channel Caspian Report, which I can recommend if you want a fuller explanation.)

mystery
  • 375
  • 1
  • 4
  • 2
    What is the Volgograd gap? I can't find anything defining it. – neph Feb 22 '22 at 16:58
  • 1
    @neph Ah, sorry, Google results are more sparse than I thought they were. It's the strip of land between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. If you can capture that then Russia is cut off from those seas and loses control over the Caucuses. – mystery Feb 22 '22 at 19:44
  • 3
    @neph The strip of land between the Black and Caspian Seas is mostly the Caucasus and the southern Kuban. The Volgograd gap is a not-so-precisely-defined region in the northern Kuban, where Ukraine and Kazakhstan are 'closest' and Russia is 'narrowest'. The Don and Volga pass through here, controlling Russia's access to the Caspian and Mediterranean, as well as the Caucasus. –  Feb 23 '22 at 20:52
  • 3
    Sorry, have to DV. Do you know how many Western troops there were in the Eastern European part of NATO, before Putin invaded Ukraine? Or even how many there are now? Compared to how many troops Russia has on its Western border. Countries like Poland, Hungary, or Romania have poor quality military that is no real threat to Russia, certain not in an offensive manner. – the gods from engineering Mar 10 '22 at 23:42
  • 1
    And if you look at a map, the distance from the Baltic countries to Moscow is about the same as from Ukraine https://images.app.goo.gl/CeeZjgSaoCJjHJvF6 – the gods from engineering Mar 10 '22 at 23:48
  • 1
    "Reasonable or not, this seems to be how the Russians see it" but the very question is whether it poses a threat, not whether a threat is perceived. I cannot stab someone on the street because I feel threatened, I only can if the is an actual threat. Especially a country like Russia, with so many systematic lies, will just say whatever it wants. – Mayou36 Mar 11 '22 at 22:35
  • 3
    Russia acts based on who is a potential threat tomorrow, not who is directly threatening it today. – mystery Mar 13 '22 at 08:50
  • 2
    This answer seems a bit flawed: what about Lithuania? This is already NATO and has the same distance to Moscow and is even way shorter to SPB. Also, to station troops (in the absurd case that NATO would want to), a country doesn't need to be in NATO (Ukraine could simply allow it). Furthermore, just being in NATO doesn't automatically allow other NATO countries to station their troops there (if not in war). – Mayou36 Mar 14 '22 at 12:48
  • 4
    @Mayou36 The Russian leadership aren't happy about the Baltic States being in NATO either, but it's perhaps manageable for them so long as no more states join. Ukraine's border with Russia is twice the length of Latvia and Estonia's combined! – mystery Mar 14 '22 at 22:04
21

The situation is definitely similar to the Cuban missile crisis, but this is not the main point. The more important point is the historical view. The conflict between Russia and the West didn't start with the Cold War, it goes back centuries. During that period the West tried to invade Russia many times, the last such attempt was in 1941. This was a very traumatic experience for all Russians and is still present in their minds. From that point of view NATO troops on Russia's borders are associated with the Western troops on the borders of 1941. From that point of view Russia sees the West as an aggressor, while the West has exactly the opposite view. Some actual events, like intervention in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, confirm that Russian point of view.

When talking about history, one should also keep in mind that Ukraine, other than the Baltic states, was a core part of Russia for centuries. Kiev was even one of the first capitals of Russia and is an important place for the Orthodox Church.

By including Ukraine and Georgia NATO would get control over the whole Black See and Russia would loose access to it.

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
convert
  • 1
  • 24
  • 115
  • 186
  • 27
    There's a lot of disinformation presented in this answer. (e.g. West invasions). But the worst disinformation is the one that Kiev was one of the first capitals of Russia. It was the capital of the state Kiev and of the Kievan Rus' (a thousand years ago). Claiming that the sole successor of Kievan Rus' is nowadays Russia is like Romania claiming Rome as the sole successor of the Roman Empire. Romania, as well, as Italy and many other countries (including Russia) claim succession of the Roman empire, but I don't see Romanian troops trying to recapture Rome. Will we see Russian troops though? – Andrei Feb 21 '22 at 16:13
  • 15
    @Andrei, I believe it is a good description of the view of many Russian decisionmakers. In politics, perceptions are just as important as the objective truth. – o.m. Feb 21 '22 at 16:59
  • 17
    @Andrei: Not sure what else you should call Germany's Operation Barbarosa besides a western invasion. Just because the Germans of the time were led by the modern era's premier bogyman doesn't make them "non-western". – SoronelHaetir Feb 21 '22 at 22:36
  • 14
    The two main points made are quite true: Russia has been repeatedly invaded from the West (different forces, but all western/european) and WW2 (I think they call it the great motherland war or great patriotic war) is still very fresh in russian memory, due to the unimaginable toll it took on the country. We tend to forget that when we see our politicians sable-rattling. – Tom Feb 21 '22 at 22:46
  • 2
    @Tom maybe people rattling their sables are what's really upset the Russians? – Alan Birtles Feb 22 '22 at 09:21
  • 8
    @Andrei So you calling invasions by Napoleon and Hitler fakes? One of the reasons Russia sees itself as the sole successor of Kievan Rus, is because both state were run by the same dynasty. – convert Feb 22 '22 at 10:50
  • 6
    @convert It's worth pointing out that "the west" is not monolithic. "The west" today is still (thus far) lead more by the UK and US than by France and Germany, i.e. "the west" (modern) were quite active in the demise of "the west" that invaded Russia. For the more pedantic above that state that Germany wasn't non-western simply by having Nazis in charge, I would point out that 1) Nazi beliefs are antithetical to "traditional western values" (poor name as they are by no means exclusive to "the west") and 2) that to really be pedantic, east and west are relative and the Earth is "round." – ttbek Feb 22 '22 at 12:44
  • 3
    @Tom Russia has repeatedly invaded from the East, taking Ukraine and Poland and Finland at various points in time. Operation Barbarosa was not a Western invasion; if we're clumping "the West" together, the Soviet Union started a war with the "West" by invading Poland. The poor suffering Russia, who have spent a decade of the last 500 years under the heel of foreign invaders. So traumatic. I'm sure the Poles and Estonians agree. – prosfilaes Feb 22 '22 at 14:33
  • 5
    @prosfilaes Operation Barbarosa was not a Western invasion, but what it was then? It was not just Germany involved in this operation but many its alies, like Italy, Romania and some other western countries. – convert Feb 22 '22 at 14:39
  • 12
    Using "The West" to describe the source of an invasion is deliberate weasel wording. "The West" did not attempt to invade Russia. No such event ever took place, nor will it ever take place. A specific western country invading other countries, including other western countries, cannot possibly be considered "The West" invading. – barbecue Feb 22 '22 at 18:29
  • 2
    @convert Is it an invasion if you follow an invading enemy force back into their nation? Russia invaded the West, and the West pushed back. Or Russia invaded Poland, and the Axis (sans Japan) invaded Russia. If you want to spin it as a Western invasion, it was in response to Russia invading the West. – prosfilaes Feb 22 '22 at 18:35
  • 7
    @barbecue I am telling you how it looks from russian point of view. If "The West" is wrong name for a coalition of western countries, how you would call it? – convert Feb 22 '22 at 18:47
  • 1
    @convert If you divide it between the West and Russia, then that's the truth. If, like me, you see Germany and Russia as co-aggressors against their neighboring countries to the west of Russia, then it's not a Western invasion. What do you call the Axis? Try "the Axis", a name that includes some Western and (Eastern) countries that fought against the group generally known as "the Allies", which also had Western and Eastern countries. – prosfilaes Feb 22 '22 at 20:29
  • 3
    @barbecue Are you refering to Hitler Stalin pact? USSR did colaborate with Hitler, but who didn´t colaborate with Hitler in one or an other way? Showing Poland as just a victim is wrong, as it has helped Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia. – convert Feb 22 '22 at 20:38
  • @convert I think you were replying to prosfilaes. – barbecue Feb 22 '22 at 20:59
  • @barbecue Sory, you right, I was replying to prosfilaes, the same for my previous coment. – convert Feb 22 '22 at 21:01
  • 4
    @djnavas Take a look at the date, when the answer was writen, it was long befor the curent events in Ukraine. What exaactly in the answer you see as opinion based? – convert Feb 26 '22 at 11:17
  • 2
    @Andrei The Kievan Rus were the ancestors of modern Russians, and from whom the Russians rake their name. Thus, Kiev can legitimately be called one of the first Russian capitals. – nick012000 Mar 06 '22 at 00:50
  • 4
    @Andrei Also Kievan Rus is just the name historians using, the state itself clled just Rus. – convert Mar 06 '22 at 12:02
  • 2
    @nick012000 but what is the point that you are trying to make? Yes, they are loosely related to nowadays Russians (and all nowadays slavs), but they are obviously not the same people, if not for any other reason than the fact that they're a thousand years apart. Nowadays Russians took the name from their ancestors just like Romanians did, but to me it sounds ridiculous to say that Rome was Romania's first capital. – Andrei Mar 06 '22 at 15:38
  • 2
    @convert you are of course right about the fact that Kievan Rus is the name historians use, but that's for a good reason. Nowadays Russia claims the same name and there's nothing wrong with that, therefore historians used a qualifier to make the distinction between the 2 states (the historical, and the current one) as they are obviously very different countries. Old Russia (Kievan Rus) and new Russia are not more similar than the old Romania (Eastern Roman empire) and new Romania, but Putin tries to claim legitimacy over a thousand year old dead "country" because of name similarity. – Andrei Mar 06 '22 at 15:44
  • 2
    @Tom Since we're talking about western invasions, let's talk about the Kievan Rus. It disappeared because of eastern invasions from Mongolia. Further, Russia was invaded by vikings from the North, by Turks from the South and Chinese from the East, and that's an extremely oversimplified history. At each moment in time there was some risk from one side and not from the other. Putin tries to make it today as if the West is aggressive with the only argument that it always was, when actually it wasn't, apart from the times it was. Why isn't Russia invading Mongolia due to eastern historical risks? – Andrei Mar 06 '22 at 15:54
  • 2
    @Andrei The first russian tsar was a descendant of the rulers from Kiev. – convert Mar 06 '22 at 18:54
  • @Andrei Because Mongolia's basically a Russia puppet state. – nick012000 Mar 06 '22 at 20:07
  • 2
    @nick012000 Mongolia is not a puppet state of Russia since more then 30 years. However Mongolia poses no thread to Russia at the moment. – convert Mar 07 '22 at 12:47
  • @convert It might not be directly controlled by Russian troops anymore, but it's still clearly aligned with Russia and China politically - which is unsurprising, because it's a country with them on either side of it. – nick012000 Mar 07 '22 at 12:54
  • @convert It doesn't matter whether Poland was a "victim" or not; it's clear that in WWII, the first military engagement the Soviet Union had with anyone to the west of them was when they invaded Poland. If you want to lump the West together, the first aggressive move between the West and the Soviet Union was Russia's. Otherwise, you have to look at the whole pattern, which shows Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting about who controls which parts of Europe. – prosfilaes Mar 07 '22 at 18:37
  • 2
    @Andrei there are only disinformation from you. "Kievan Rus" term was created in 19-th century. It was originaly called "Rus". By the way, Ladoga (862 y) or Novgorod (864 y) was the first capital of Rus. People in Russia and modern Ukraine is literally one nation (genetic match f.e.). – Egor Oct 18 '22 at 20:18
12

A membership in NATO would enable Ukraine to be a country that is prosperous, democratic, and allied with the West militarily and economically. It would then serve as an example to the Russian people that they, too, can accomplish such a feat with a popular uprising similar to Maidan. Putin prefers to stay in power until his death, so that option is not suitable for him - for reasons that are only too obvious.

Ukraine as a member of NATO means viable non-Putin’s Ukraine. It does not affect Russian security. But it affects the security of the current dictator of Russia, former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. The so called NATO threat is a lie that serves to conceal Putin’s true motives.

References/sources provided on request.

[EDIT, May 10 2022]

REFERENCES:

According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" (Russian: «цветные революции», romanized: tsvetnye revolyutsii) as a "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties."[47]

Government figures in Russia, such as Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu (in office from 2012) and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (in office from 2004), have characterized colour revolutions as externally-fuelled acts with a clear goal to influence the internal affairs that destabilize the economy,[48][49] conflict with the law and represent a new form of warfare.[50][51] Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia must prevent colour revolutions: "We see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called colour revolutions led to. For us, this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia".[52]

The 2015 presidential decree The Russian Federation's National Security Strategy (О Стратегии Национальной Безопасности Российской Федерации) cites "foreign-sponsored regime change" among "main threats to public and national security," including[5][53]

'the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious extremist ideology, foreign and international non-governmental organizations, and financial and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and social situation—including through inciting "color revolutions"—and destroying traditional Russian religious and moral values'

Colour revolution - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

Minimum Requirements for NATO Membership. Fact sheet prepared by the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs, June 30, 1997. https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html

  • Abkhazia is considered a puppet state that depends on Russia.[34][35] The economy of Abkhazia is heavily integrated with Russia and uses the Russian ruble as its currency. About half of Abkhazia's state budget is financed with aid money from Russia.[36] Most Abkhazians have Russian passports.[37] Russia maintains a 3,500-strong force in Abkhazia with its headquarters in Gudauta, a former Soviet military base on the Black Sea coast.[38] The borders of the Republic of Abkhazia are being protected by the Russian border guards.[39]
  • Donetsk People's Republic – is considered to be a puppet state which is supported by Russia[40][41]
  • Luhansk People's Republic – is considered to be a puppet state which is supported by Russia[40][41]
  • South Ossetia has declared independence but its ability to maintain independence is solely based on Russian troops deployed on its territory. As South Ossetia is landlocked between Russia and Georgia, from which it seceded, it has to rely on Russia for economic and logistical support, as its entire exports and imports and air and road traffic is only between Russia. Former President of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity claimed he would like South Ossetia eventually to become a part of the Russian Federation through reunification with North Ossetia.[42]
  • Transnistria – is sometimes considered a puppet state supported by Russia.

Puppet state - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
  • 4
    "References/sources provided on request." -> Please, I do request them. – Evargalo Feb 23 '22 at 09:21
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philipp Feb 24 '22 at 21:20
  • 7
    So where are References/sources? NATO is not making a country democratic, Turkey is the best example and if going back in history there are much more such examples. – convert Feb 28 '22 at 20:46
  • @Timur Shtatland Turkey was an actual example, there are some more from the past, like Grece for example. Poland is also not the best example for democracy. In the West the curent political events are called "Putinisation". – convert Mar 05 '22 at 20:56
  • @convert The "current political events" aren't called Putinisation; it's easy to find "Putinisation" has been used back to 2016, and it's a rare word, only occasionally used to describe anything. "In the West" is a weird phrasing here; is there any evidence it's not used in Indian or Japanese English-language writing? It feels like an arbitrary box. – prosfilaes Mar 11 '22 at 15:35
  • 2
    @prosfilaes Sorry my bad english, by curent events I was not tallking about events hapening right now, they are already something like 1 year old. – convert Mar 11 '22 at 15:38
  • 2
    Why NATO membership was not offered to Russia in 1990s? No 'example' would be necessary. – Tauri Mar 13 '22 at 17:23
  • @TimurShtatland, one possible reason, just from answer we both commenting. "A membership in NATO would enable Ukraine to be a country that is prosperous, democratic, and allied with the West militarily and economically.". Replace Ukraine with Russia here. What changes? – Tauri Mar 14 '22 at 08:06
  • 1
    @Vikarti Because European countries would put their veto to Russias membership. – convert Mar 18 '22 at 23:49
  • @convert Georgette Mosbacher, former US ambassador in Poland, lately said "much of what reached the West was the result of Russian disinformation. Both the Union and America accepted it uncritically." – Tadeusz Kopec Mar 19 '22 at 14:51
  • 2
    @Timur Shtatland Chechnya is part of Russia, so how Russia can invade its own teritory? In Syria Russia is suporting the government of the country, so how can this be called invasion? – convert Mar 19 '22 at 16:24
  • 2
    @Timur Shtatland USA have comited war crimes in Iraq and Afganistan, so you are realy hypocritic, no ofence. – convert Mar 19 '22 at 22:16
  • 2
    We are still waiting for references and sources. This is one really bad answer. – dosvarog May 09 '22 at 21:09
8

Addition to @o.m.

Moscow itself is very important for Russia. One Missile defence region allowed by the ABM treaty was guarding Moscow (USA's one guards one of their complexes with silo-launched ICMB). Missiles from Ukraine leave too little time to react and order counter-attack. This means that the central command could be destroyed before it could react.

One possible solution for the loss of the high command is Perimeter / Dead Hand (Система Периметр). There were tests of its components. There are no clear confirmations on anything related to it. Main idea is if there is possibility of attack, it's put in 'danger' mode. If its computer systems decide there is no high command anymore, special command missiles will be launched. Those missiles will transmit launch permissions for all nuclear forces. Except it is only a partial solution.

NATO missiles in Ukraine could mean that Perimeter should be kept in danger mode constantly, it's unclear how reliable its 'danger' mode is.

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 7
  • 24
Tauri
  • 310
  • 1
  • 5
  • 2
    Nobody wants to nuke Moscow. Whatever for? If Putin's forces stay within their own borders we don't even think about them. This is the 21st century. Civilised people do not invade their neighbours any more. – RedSonja Mar 14 '22 at 07:39
  • 1
    @RedSonja, Cold War heritage. Too much trust issues. Logic behind this is that it's better that nobody have ability to do so, without paying for it dearly. – Tauri Mar 14 '22 at 07:51
  • But that's the issue of Russia. The west long left the cold war. As RedSonja correctly pointed out: the west doesn't even think about invading Russia, why? But more on your answer: Latvia is about the same distance to Moscow (and very close to SPB). Isn't that posing the same threat? Also, I really don't understand your answer overall, what exactly are you telling? Also, are you suggesting that Russia is having its central command in the middle of Moscow? I really don't understand what you are trying to say, maybe you can expand a bit? – Mayou36 Mar 14 '22 at 12:45
  • @Vikarti you misunderstand what Putin is really afraid of. He's not afraid of getting Nuked by Ukraine. Ukraine already gave all its nukes away, willingly, to Russia. All Putin is afraid of is losing control of his population. Since his economy tanked, he needs to look like the restorer of the mighty Russian empire in order to prop his popularity up. Unfortunately he has instead scored a massive own goal. – it's a hire car baby Mar 14 '22 at 15:21
  • @samerivertwice I didn't said he is afraid of getting nuked BY UKRAINE. Ukraine is not relevant here on it's own. NATO is. Also, I don't think you are right on population control issues, ask somebody inside Russia -:) (no matter if it's opposition or not) – Tauri Mar 15 '22 at 04:01
  • @Mayou36 High command bunker - no. Head of goverment office,etc - yes. Also, are you sure Russia think 'west doesn't even think about invading'? As far as I understood, it's more like 'current goverments of western countries say they don't want to so at this time.' Also, as far as I understood, Latvia (and other Baltic countries) understood Russian position on missile bases(even if they are missle defence bases like Poland's) and don't have them. – Tauri Mar 15 '22 at 04:14
  • 2
    @Vikarti somebody's been Putin some crazy ideas in your mind. A land invasion of Russia would be madness for any nation on Earth. We just want to get on with our lives and not have to worry about Russian tanks rolling down our streets blowing up our homes, hospitals and schools, like is happening in Ukraine. – it's a hire car baby Mar 15 '22 at 08:36
  • @samerivertwice Please note I never tell what I think on those ideas. "Also, are you sure Russia think X" != I personally think X (it also don't mean opposite). As far as I understood, for purposes of this question, what non-Russians thin is irrelevant, even if it's truth. What Putin thinks is relevant (btw, Putin is NOT alone in this opionion, it's rather common idea in Russia even before Putin become president). I think it's mutual trust issues. – Tauri Mar 15 '22 at 09:16
  • 2
    @Vikarti leaders often promote these ideas of imaginary enemies to pull their populations closer to them. – it's a hire car baby Mar 15 '22 at 09:18
  • @Vikarti no. Simply no. Please re-read the question: "How would Ukraine joining NATO affect Russian security?". Where is Putin? Where is "What Russia thinks"? Nowhere. If the question ask: is it dangerous if a kid crosses the highway alone, the question is NOT whether the kid perceives it as dangerous but whether it is. We want to use here an objective assessment of the situation, that's what the question asks for. Please stop this propaganda stuff and argue with facts and reasoning. – Mayou36 Mar 16 '22 at 21:56
7

NATO is a defensive alliance. Nobody in the West wants war. It exists only to prevent the expansion of dictatorship westwards via force.

The only security being affected, is the security of Putin's thieving regime. Preventing Ukraine joining the EU is Putin's real goal here. Imagine if Ukraine (Europe's largest country) becomes as prosperous as Germany through free and fair trade without gangsters controlling everything of value by force. It would become increasingly clear to Russians over the border, who are getting their wealth leeched away into Putin and his friends' pockets, just how damaging Putin's kleptocratic regime is to them and to Russia. That could destabilise Putin's control of the country.

it's a hire car baby
  • 302
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
    Europe's largest country is Russia. – dosvarog May 09 '22 at 21:19
  • 2
    @dosvarog I have no particular desire to disagree with you - one could equally argue large parts of Russia are in Asia, and parts are in the Arctic. The point I thought salient when describing it thus, is it's larger than Germany, France, etc. and therefore in terms of resources, it has the potential to be economically larger that Germany if free from dictatorship and corruption. – it's a hire car baby May 09 '22 at 21:35
  • Size of a country has nothing to do with its economy even in Europe. Netherland are smaler then Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, but have a much larger economy. – convert Jul 05 '22 at 18:04
  • @convert "nothing to do with it", really? Tell me when the GDP of the Falkland islands exceeds that of China. – it's a hire car baby Jul 11 '22 at 08:39
  • @samerivertwice Falkland islands is not even a country. What I said is that size of a country is not always proportional to its GDP. – convert Jul 11 '22 at 10:03
  • @convert Ukraine has the potential for an economy larger than Germany, given its geography and population. Putin doesn't want a powerful and wealthy democratic Ukraine showing Russians how good they could have it if Putin's fingers weren't in their wallets. – it's a hire car baby Jul 12 '22 at 10:39
  • @samerivertwice Germany has double as big population and a history of 150 years as prosperative county, so you can´t compare to Ukraine. – convert Jul 12 '22 at 10:48
  • But it has double the land and resources. Germany was rebuilt virtually from scratch after the 2nd world war. – it's a hire car baby Jul 12 '22 at 10:51
  • Land and resources don´t play such role nowdays, Russia has a lot of both, so what. You can build from scratch, but never rebuild, as for rebuilding you need it to be existing befor. – convert Jul 28 '22 at 12:53
  • @convert All that is supportive of my original post. Russia is limited by the hands of crooks in everybody's pockets. With democracy, capitalism and proper equality of opportunity, it would be the biggest economy in the world. – it's a hire car baby Aug 01 '22 at 09:45
  • Not going to discus about the rest, as it´ll be offtopic, but there is defenetly capitalism in Russia. – convert Aug 01 '22 at 10:34
1

Probably it would not

NATO itself is a defensive organization and cannot call all its members, hey, let's go after Russia today. As such, it does not posses lots of threat by itself, even if some of its aggressive members would. These aggressive members cannot direct all NATO to attack the target they point the finger to. Who choose to join, it is they choice.

When countries just sign an agreement to provide protection to one another in case when somebody attacks, only the aggressor seriously planning to invade them in the future would object. By seriously opposing NATO Russia recognizes itself it has exactly these plans.

And, finally - how much more support for NATO the current Ukraine would provide in addition if accepted as NATO member? Would it not allow NATO troops on they (not yet occupied) territory otherwise? Unlikely. Nuclear weapons? Even Poland now does as much as asking NATO to bring these into they territory. I am under impression, Ukraine would now provide any assistance NATO asks for anyway. Rusia have assured this itself, by starting the invasion. Now Russia can only scare with nuclear war against this scenario, but this possibility would remain in any case.

Stančikas
  • 21,514
  • 1
  • 52
  • 113
  • 2
    "NATO itself is a defensive organization and cannot call all its members, hey, let's go after Russia today." In Yugolavia, Iraq and Lybia it has worked, as that countries have not ataced any NATO member. – convert Oct 17 '22 at 18:06
  • @convert You've never heard of Pan Am flight 103? Or of Iraq shooting at US planes? – Acccumulation Oct 18 '22 at 00:08
  • 1
    I don't think you will be happy if I am from Russia will go into your 30-y house and pick one room to protect it as peaceful organization against your non-democratic home usage. Historically, Ukraine should not join any block as it has been wroten in his "Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine". If it will, Russia can cancel its Sovereignty and pull everyting legitly back. – Egor Oct 18 '22 at 19:59
  • @Egor I think that part of the whole issue here is that Ukraine does not consider themselves "a room in Russia's house." If your neighbour decided to tell you who could and could not visit you in your house, would you be fine with that? – cjs Nov 02 '22 at 13:28
  • @cjs It´s not about visiting, if your neighbour would invite your main enemy gues you would not be hapy having that enemy siting with a gun just next dore. – convert May 18 '23 at 23:42
  • @convert You might not be happy about it, but there's not a lot you can do about it. If you are allowed to decide who can visit your neighbour's house, the prinicple of reciprocity says that your neighbour can also decide who can visit your house, and that way lies madness. ¶ And let's not forget that if Putin achieves his apparent aim of making Ukraine and Belarus essentially provinces of Russia, this does not solve his problem; he'll just be adding yet more NATO countries directly on his borders. – cjs May 19 '23 at 05:31