So I’ve heard this rocket argument for a long time, never been presented with verifiable sources but I’ve also though that it seems plausible that the US would and indeed have done this. So if we take this as fact, which I’m not saying I do, but if – wouldn’t invading and annexing Ukraine basically inch Russia even closer to these missiles? I see Poland and Romania right there, and they are in fact NATO members are they not?

Also, what strategic value does Ukraine have, that for instance the Baltic countries (also NATO members) do not? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that the “Russia doesn’t like NATO and Ukraine becoming a member is a bridge too far” argument feels more like a straw man than anything else.

I’m probably just too dumb to get it, so if someone more enlightened would like to clarify why invading Ukraine helps the Russian anti NATO effort I’d be much obliged!

It really doesn't. The strategic value is in securing the coast for good (Crimea was still kinda exposed), clearing up the wild-west they themselves created around Donbass, and providing a new avenue for gas pipelines, effectively neutering any Ukrainian leverage over Russia forever and ever. The NATO-expansion argument is just propaganda, not even the Russians really believe it.

I don't think NATO-expansion argument is propaganda, but I do agree that that's not the reason for Russia's actions.

That's mostly because in terms of NATO war isn't allowed, thus generally speaking there's isn't a lot of reason to be scared of the huge army that NATO represents.

What's really annoying to me as a coder and gamer is that, strategically speaking what Russia did was logical and expected. I'm speaking from a point of view of if this was StarCraft, EU4, CK2 or Civ5. And from that point of view, my biased monkey brain is telling me that if US left the EU alone, there wouldn't be a possible WW3 brewing...

Mildly interesting note, my father is studying Multinational law thing and we were talking about the role of NATO, the function it serves. We got to that topic because my argument was that my country (Slovenia) should either stop having a military or focus on having few but very specialised units, because as it is now, it's mostly just a waste of money, that's because we've got a population of ~2 million and about ~4-7k military units, depending on how you count them. Regardless, it's a number that compared to other countries is not even note worthy. Which is why my argument was that our military in its current state is a waste of money. BUT because we're so small we don't really have air forces, which is where NATO comes in. Because we don't have air forces our air is protected by currently Hungarian forces and the ones from Italy a few years ago.

What I was trying to find out with the conversation with my father was, if there's a way to gain the protection of NATO without having an army. But sadly that's not possible, because too be in the NATO, you have to have an army... There also UN which could protect you, but there response isn't guarantied and the response time is much longer then NATO. Thus ima way you're kinda forced to have an army...

I would still prefer removing our army, I mean... We've got pretty lakes and nice mountains, also good wine, why would anyone want to attack us? :D

The US continued to keep NATO around, despite the end of the Cold War in the '90s, because it's a huge program for the American defense industry. NATO membership requires a country to have capabilities with certain standards, which largely force them to buy American weaponry. As such, they would never consider full membership for an army-less country, except maybe in very exceptional circumstances (the Vatican? Lol).

But I agree that in the modern world, conventional armies tend to be a massive waste of money. It's just that occasionally a Putin-level threat comes along, and at that point you'll be glad you have them.

This makes much more sense, thank you!

I'm not "enlightened", and you can draw your own conclusions. But they don't have to annex Ukraine, they can just mess it up and cripple its military. At the least, Putin's stated aim is "demilitarization" of Ukraine. As for the comparison with the Baltic states, I would note that this entire situation evolved over decades. Perhaps Russia would have more strongly opposed NATO membership for the Baltics had it been in a more powerful position when that was happening. Perhaps they thought that NATO-expansion would stop there. A lot has happened in the past 3 decades and some patterns are much more clear now than they were back then. One that Putin has repeatedly pointed to is that the USA is continuously supporting overthrow of governments that it doesn't like, even in the case of democratically-elected Yanukovich in Ukraine. Maybe Putin is paranoid to think the same can happen in Russia, maybe not. But I think in his view, maintaining the nuclear deterrent with the West is an existential concern, like it had been for the USSR. Having NATO missiles and bases in Ukraine is clearly a step in the wrong direction for that concern. I'm not saying that this justifies war or that Putin is right. I just think that Putin perceives himself as a cornered rat, and that from this perspective his actions make a lot more sense than just seeing him as deranged or a power-hungry demagogue. This perspective is laid out more fully in this talk by John Mearsheimer if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=120s

This is obviously a very sensitive topic at this time, and I hesitate even to post this comment. But I think everyone should be free to draw their own conclusions.

He talks about "neutral Ukraine", but what it does mean? Currently it is neither in NATO nor EU, seems neutral to me.

I'm sure you will be able to find better sources than that one.

This is a pretty low quality source for anything Russia related.

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/vladimir-putins-apologists-sp...

that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But it's not fact, and none of us are in Putin's head and know what he thinks. This is simply one perspective

It is a fact that your source is a Putin apologist.

You lack a basic understanding of the concept if you think it applies here.

> For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO.

Could it perhaps be related to the fact that they were promised neutrality (also by Russia) in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons... and then Russia invaded Crimea anyway?

The Ukraine NATO talks were the direct precursor to the Crimea invasion and were ongoing before that. Russia has black sea navy assets in Crimea and per NATO, Ukraine couldn't support Russian military assets in the country while simultaneously joining NATO. Russia needs them there, so they took Crimea proactively to preserve their naval position in the event Ukraine joined NATO.

>Russia needs them there, so they took Crimea proactively This is a weak argument. Why can't they build their own port on their own land?

It's not an argument, it is well documented fact. A cursory reading with any detail of the 2014 crisis will mention this. Russia has it's only warm water port in Crimea as per an agreement between Russia and Ukraine upon Ukraine's independence from the USSR. Ukraine joining NATO means Russia must withdraw from that port. This is militarily not an option for Russia, so you get the annexation of Crimea.

> For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO.

The reason is simple and trivial: because EU and NATO are much better friends than Russia. This is why countries willingly join it.