[KiwiJohnno]

The problem is any of those things are effectively a reward for Russia for starting the war and invading Ukraine in the first place. Why should Russia get any advantage out of the war that they 100% started?? And pay them compensation! What a suggestion!

Russia is a bully. What do you think will happen if we have to pay the bully off each time they start smashing up their neighbors stuff up or just making threats?

And as for withdrawing NATO forces - NATO is a purely defensive organization. Its purpose is to defend against just the sort of shit Russia has pulled with Ukraine. If Ukraine was part of NATO the war would not have happened.

NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has been, never will be. This is equivalent to a local crime lord complaining about being threatened by the police station down the road and demanding that the police station shuts down.

[codedokode]

> NATO is a purely defensive organization

Are nuclear missiles located in Europe and pointed to the East also "purely defensive" weapon? It doesn't help good relations when you have a gun pointed at your face.

[KiwiJohnno]

Yes, they are exactly that. The only (current) working deterrence/defensive strategy against an attack from nuclear weapons is the threat of a nuclear reprisal.

This has stopped a war directly between the major powers for the last 70 years and is known as MAD - Mutually assured destruction.

Its not a situation which anybody is comfortable with, but it works.

Honestly, this is basic cold war history stuff. Your question above shows you are either completely naïve or you consume way too much Russian propaganda.

[tweetle_beetle]

Defensive weapon is something of an oxymoron, apart from technologies like missile defense [1]. Putting that to one side, rational deterrence theory[2] suggests that:

(Probability of deterrer carrying out deterrent threat × Costs if threat carried out) > (Probability of the attacker accomplishing the action × Benefits of the action)

You could argue that Russia successfully destabilising the US (via Trump) and Europe (via Brexit and far right) is proof that nuclear missiles "pointed to the east" worked at defending against direct conflict and forced an alternative.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense?wprov=sfla1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory?wprov=sfla1

[dlahoda]

i thought they just point vertically? like other nuclear missiles.