[OrvalWintermute]

> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?

Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known.

The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE

The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo

You were saying?

[sorokod]

Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?

[OrvalWintermute]

If Ukraine (Borderland) is NATO controlled, it could have missiles within seconds (not minutes) of Moscow. This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction. It also enables NATO to bring to bear superior numbers, and greater technology advantages. It also eliminates a key port for Russia.

If Ukraine is split into Eastern (New Russia) and Western Ukraine, they will have avoided the worst possible outcome, but at significant cost.

If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep.

This game is merely about avoidance of the worst outcome at this point for the Russians

[credit_guy]

> This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction.

No it doesn't. The US can position Ohio-class submarines in the Baltic, or in the Black Sea, or in the Arctic Ocean. Their Trident missiles, even now 30 years after they were introduced, are still unparalleled. But they can’t strike every missile that Russia has, and in any case, not in just seconds, or even minutes. Russia is a big country; it has lots of road-mobile ICBMs. Those are simply impossible to eliminate in a first strike. Russia has for now, and for the foreseeable future, a guaranteed second strike.

As for the "missile defense", there was never enough confidence in any missile defense system. At this point in time, all missile defense systems can be trivially defeated by a saturation attack.

[guerrilla]

> If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep.

Zelensky already conceded to not going in NATO in March[1]... Russia partially withdrew after that (combined with the increasing cost of continuing to try to take Kiev), but I believe the current continuation is about taking the south, as I explained here [2], so it seems disingenuous to continue to claim some kind of self-defense case at this point.

1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukr...

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31550236

[OrvalWintermute]

The US came very close to war with Russian missiles in Cuba.

If they were far closer there could definitely be war.

[guerrilla]

Yes, and? Ukraine isn't going to be part of NATO, Zelensky already conceded and it's not even possible with a conflict in the country. So that mission is accomplished and is not the actual reason for the continuation of the war, as I said.

[sorokod]

Looks like Ukrainans are not interested in getting split up in the way you are proposing.

How about Finland? Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?

[landemva]

Ukraine and Zelensky had agreed to allow eastern Ukraine to have separatist elections and then be self-ruling. Zelensky didn't follow through with that.

' would receive self-governing status once they hold elections ' https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-agrees-to-election-in-occupi...

[guerrilla]

> Zelensky didn't follow through with that.

According to RFE/RL (US state media), Ukraine agreed to hold elections "once all armed formations leave the area." That's not something that happened between 2019 and the beginning of the war.

[mcv]

And Zelensky had to demand that. There can be no free election while a country is under occupation from a foreign nation.

I'm still for referenda in all disputed oblasts, including Crimea, but Russia has to end their occupation first.

[OrvalWintermute]

> Looks like Ukrainans are not interested in getting split up in the way you are proposing.

It was the Eastern Ukrainians that declared independence and broke away from Ukraine, after the coup that deposed a democratically elected albeit corrupt government.

Ukraine to Moscow is ~ 475 KM and lacks significant choke points.

Finland to Moscow is ~780 KM and involves a number of impediments, including a major city in St Petersburg

[guerrilla]

> Finland to Moscow is ~780 KM and involves a number of impediments, including a major city in St Petersburg

This isn't as relevant as it seems. Russia considers Murmansk critical because it hosts some of their largest military installations, including a very large portion of their nuclear deterrent. Russia has made clear that it would respond if heavy hardware were moved into Finland, although Putin claimed that they don't care as long as nothing changes physically.[1]

1. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/vladimir-putin-warns-ag...

[VictorPath]

If Finland was a threat outside Karelia, the USSR once mobilized could have marched in in 1945. Finland was not a threat then and it is not now.

[guerrilla]

Why would they be in a better position in 1945 (after losing millions) compared to 1940 when they were defeated by Finland [1]?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

[VictorPath]

The article you linked to says the result of the war was Finland ceded land to the USSR. It's a strange war that ends with the Victor ceding land to the defeated.

It's also a strange idea that a fully mobilized Soviet Union in 1945 could push the German army back to Berlin, but would be incapable of taking over Finland. Finland was there for the taking for the Soviet Union in 1945, but the USSR did not see any threat outside Karelia so did not pursue this. This would not have been much disputed at all back then.

[guerrilla]

> Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?

No, this isn't right. On the day that Finland announced they would apply, Putin said that it's not a problem as long as heavy NATO hardware wasn't moved into Finland or Sweden. If it were, he claimed, then they would respond. He was claiming that he doesn't care what people do on paper as long as the physical situation doesn't change. [1]

1. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/vladimir-putin-warns-ag...

[mcv]

Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda.

The issue isn't Ukraine becoming "NATO controlled" (all NATO members actually control themselves; NATO is a voluntary alliance), it's about keeping it Ukraine-controlled. Putin wants it to be controlled by Moscow instead, and that's why he invaded.

Besides, there are already NATO members close to Moscow. And you know why they joined NATO? Because Russia is also close to them. Putin-supporters keep arguing that Russia needs security guarantees, but completely ignore the security guarantees of Russia's neighbours. And Russia is clearly a far larger threat to its neighbours than those neighbours are to Russia. Few countries have as much buffer built in as Russia does. What right does Russia have to demand entire countries as additional buffer? Where is Ukraine's buffer?

> If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland)

Switzerland is not a buffer state. They're neutral because they choose to be. Chose, because Russian aggression is making even the Swiss consider choosing sides.

> that would have been the best outcome for Russia.

Because then Russia would be able to coerce and invade with impunity. Ukraine doesn't need neutrality, it needs security guarantees. Guarantees that Putin is clearly unwilling to give, and NATO is able to provide.

Putin's aggression is Russia's biggest enemy.

[OrvalWintermute]

> Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda.

Ukraine is actually controlled by the US State Department, and has been since the Maidan Coup overthrew a democratically elected leader.

It was Washington & Brussels that issued an Ultimatum to Yanokovych in https://youtu.be/ROTwyP5no08?t=381 that preceded the protests and led to the coup.

It was US State Department leaders that selected, rather than elected, Ukraine's leaders post-coup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

The US's own STRATFOR, Private CIA, even calls this a coup https://archive.ph/NAXCc

It was the Oligarch Kolomoisky that bankrolled Zelensky's campaign, providing him protection, a bodyguard, vehicles, and other resources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgli7TpINw

However, it is also known that Burisma hired Hunter Biden, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Report%20document...

and, Burisma is controlled by the Oligarch Kolomoisky https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine...

It was the US State Department that also sanctioned the Oligarch Kolomoisky for public corruption in 2021 https://www.state.gov/public-designation-of-oligarch-and-for...

[ipaddr]

The missiles that were going to be placed on the border of Russian inside Ukrainian now will be placed further away.

[pessimizer]

You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.

[OrvalWintermute]

There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.

[sorokod]

Or Finland?