You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] 12225328? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I have said it before, but I think it would have been smarter to leave the corridor of countries bordering Russia from Finland to Ukraine as mutually assured neutral buffers. That would have left Russia less encroached, and still give a solid, justifiable reason to slap Russia's hand if it overextends.

1
0

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I oppose NATO membership for Ukraine for geographical reasons. It's already too late as the country has been effectively dismembered and is locked in a simmering hot war. Neutrality in the Baltics though would effectively turn them into Russian bitch states as there is no war guarantee if Russia attacks. How is that substantially different from Finland's former position given geographical proximity?

You may be right though. No one wants a nuclear war over Estonia. But it's mostly a Russian attitude problem. Baltic NATO membership does not meaningfully add to the threat against Russia except for a hypothetical ground invasion which is kinda laughable even in theory and virtually impossible in practice. Our forces would get overrun in the Baltic countries in a weekend. We're not doing a Barbarossa on Moscow. And Baltic NATO membership does nothing to enhance our missile deterrent. It's also unclear how much Moscow really resents Baltic NATO membership in separation from the push east in general. I think it is all mostly an excuse for them to complain. They know if we were not there these states would be hostile, scared, and would be looking for other arrangements. Meaning nuclear weapons. We don't need nuclear proliferation in Eastern Europe.