|
Post by joetrinsey on Jun 26, 2024 19:46:19 GMT -5
Saying that Russia wants Ukraine (or at least Crimea) in order to have a warm-water port is reason to support the idea that they did NOT invade because of Ukraine making approaches to NATO. It means, instead, that they invaded Ukraine because they wanted the ports. You should make sure you at least read the full Wikipedia entry next time you’re trying to dunk on somebody.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 26, 2024 20:26:01 GMT -5
Two of the most central goals of Russian foreign policy are: 1. Maintain a cold-weather port. 2. Keep NATO out of Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup in Russia that threatened their base/port. Shockingly, they take military action. Leading into 2022, the talks of Ukraine joining NATO are increasing and Ukraine is already participating in military exercises including flying nuclear-capable aircraft within 20 miles of the Russian border to activate their nuclear defense systems. Shockingly, Russia takes military action. Obligatory: this doesn’t mean I support Russia. I think Russia is wrong. I am opposed to military aggression. Etc etc. I’m not saying what Russia did was right, only that it was predictable. The most important goal of Russia's military/foreign policy is to control/dominate its borders to provide maximum defense against foreign invasion/attacks [actually, it's probably more accurate to say the USSR here). One of the most important invasion routes historically is through the Carpathian gap at the border of Poland and Ukraine, which connects two large plains separated by the Carpathian mountains (Napoleon crossed at the Neimer river and thru present day Belarus, while Hitler went through Latvia and Estonia). This is not at all inconsistent with the goals you stated (although I think you meant to say warm weather port), but it also isn't necessarily consistent with the reality of modern warfare, or the actual/current capabilities of the Russian military, even if one accepts that the Russians assumed that Ukraine would remain a client state, or neutral, in the event of an actual invasion. I understand the argument that Ukraine's complete independence (as well as NATO membership obviously could have triggered Russia's reaction, but in reality, there have been several attempted invasions of Russia (7 or 8 maybe), some of which didn't involve a border with Ukraine, and since the Cold War, Russia has been trying to exert or regain control of those borders with mixed success (the eastern border with China, the areas of modern day Georgia/Moldova, etc.). I think paranoia is just as likely a reason for the invasion as any other.
|
|
|
Post by bobinmd on Jun 27, 2024 6:01:10 GMT -5
He would’ve never tried it under Donald Trump. Why? Ever hear from Hol why Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Orange had been President? Surely he has proof.😂
|
|