Another day, another ruthless Russian non-invasion. But, while I was typing this, there's something fishy started in Donbass. The local government is evacuating civilians to Russia. Looks like something is about to start.
There was an explosion of a gas pipeline in Lugansk. Seems like a perfect timing...
You seem to be ignoring one key factor in why NATO would almost certainly never invade Russia (aside from a myriad of smaller reasons that you have hand-waved away), nuclear deterrents.
As long as Russia has a nuclear deterrent it's simply not going to happen.
It also forgets that while the border dispute is ongoing, it's impossible for the Ukraine to join NATO, as this effectively blocks them.
I didn't forget about this, I said before - the nuclear shield is Russia's only relaible defense for now. But no one knows whether RF can always rely solely on nukes. Knowing about the development of NATO missile defense system in Europe (that is claimed to be directed against Iran) it is natural to prepare for the worst.
I know there is a rule that a country with territorial disputes cannot join NATO, but as the talks about Ukraine's status in NATO continue and progress, it would be naive for Russia to rely on NATO's own rules that they can rewrite anytime.
Russian people need to accept that they don't get to use other nations as a buffer zone anymore, and that anybody standing up for that, isn't threatening Russia's borders. I've nothing against the Russian people at all, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Putin to stoke the paranoia as justification for expanding Russian influence to the point of invading neighbouring states.
I was referencing your comment about being able to launch short range missiles. NATO could already deal significant damage to Moscow and most of the major Russian cities without the need of Ukrainian territory, and the distance between the Baltic NATO members and Moscow isn't that different to Ukraine-Moscow. Yes, a second front in western Russia would be an advantage for troop deployment, but such action could only come after a sustained softening of all military infrastructure by air and long range missiles. At that point, i.e. the brink of the end of the world... I'm not sure Ukraine's membership, or not, of NATO would be relevant.
I doubt China would stand by while Western powers and Europe extended their influence to Chinese borders whilst significantly reducing Chinese global influence, and if Russia alone wasn't enough to dissuade an attack, Russia and China together certainly would be.
Barbarossa failed and pretty much lost Hitler the war, and that was with Stalin believing that Hitler wouldn't attack (FWIW I think it's very sad that many people in Europe and the US forget about the massive, massive death toll on the Eastern front). But, the Nazi's didn't occupy Russia, they didn't even get to Moscow. And yeah, the technology of war has changed, which is why it makes it far less relevant to need Ukraine, and why any European NATO allies are less likely sign up for an attack in the first place... even ignoring the nuclear deterrent, it's within Russia's capability to strike most European capitals with ALCM's, Russia keeps flying Bears capable of carrying such weapons up to UK airspace to remind us of this - why would we risk our own cities when we don't even want to invade?
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether Putin wants Ukraine under Russian influence in order to expand its own borders, or it simply wants to keep it as a buffer zone thanks to 1940's paranoia, the point is, Ukraine isn't his, nor Russia's, to make that decision for. If Ukraine want to join NATO that's their call, but it seems they very much don't want to join Russia.
To the northwest border of Russia, there is Finland, a country that had been neutral since the beginning of the Cold War, being neither in NATO nor in the Warsaw Pact. And it's still a buffer zone, but it doesn't shake in fear about Russia trying to invade it. If Ukraine was another Finland - an adequate, stable and negotiable neighbour without NATO troops on its territory (AFAIK there's only one NATO training center located in Finland), I think the RF would be fine with it. Actually, Ukraine used to be like this - until 2014...
Now, look, I think of NATO invasion of Russia as of a purely hypothetic scenario that would take very many "if's" to become possible. But it's not like it's completely impossible in not too distant future (during our life time). The political climate is unstable today, no one can predict what happens the next decade, or two decades. Things can change suddenly and harshly. That's why mitigating this threat is an important thing for RF to do, but NOT at cost of starting an actual war right now. Which is why I believe there won't be an invasion of Ukraine anytime soon. Or even if it does happen, the status of Ukraine in NATO won't be the main reason.
But, like I said before, we, mere citizens on the Internet, can only speculate and guess, but there are probably many things we don't know. What we have is just theories of what's happening. One of these theories is that Kremlin is 'simulating' the preparation for invasion (this 'simulation' may even include disinforming the US intelligence who's telling Ukraine it is about to be invaded) to cripple Ukraine's economy and make it more negotiable - because of expectation of war, foreign investments are taken away, flights are being cancelled, oligarchs ran away with their money, and more. On Twitter and other social media, Ukrainians are joking that "it's Russia who's invading but it's Ukraine who's being imposed sanctions on". As a part the infowar, this would also discredit the US intelligence and mainstream media who will be delaying the supposed invasion again and again.
But this is just another theory. There might be plans on all sides that we can't even guess about.
Putin has already launched one unjustified war to annex land that isn't his nor Russia's. That's a pretty good indication that he will do it again since it worked the first time. He might not order an invasion of Ukraine today, but it's foolish to rule out the likelihood he won't do it in the future.
If you mean Crimea, it didn't take a war for Russia to retake it. The RF military seized control of the peninsula without a shot (except the warning shots).
If you mean Donbass, where war is present, you're wrong again, because Russia is not annexing them. Putin clearly stated that he still wants the Minsk agreements to be working. And these agreements (also supported by the UN Security Council) require that the Donetsk and Lugansk regions get a special status
within Ukraine. In other words, Moscow wants Donbass to stay in Ukraine but with additional rights such as the right to use Russian as official language and to elect the local self-government. However, Kiev doesn't even want to comply with these agreements. They say following them would cause Ukraine to collapse (yes, they openly confess their state is so fragile that giving its own citizens a bit more freedom in national self-determination would destroy it).
As for the US media reporting their predictions of a Russian invasion, they're not just making it up. It's a common move by intelligence agencies to give a briefing to the press and allow them to report it. It shows Russia that the US knows and that we're not hiding the fact that we know. There is likely very creditable intelligence that shows Russia was, or still is, planning an invasion. The US military budget is greater than the GDP of most countries, we throw enough money at it to have the best in the world.
Is it the same intelligence that expected the Afghan goverment to last half a year against Taliban after US withdrawal?
And you really don't think there wouldn't be massive causalities? NATO wouldn't target civilians, but given where the Russian military build-up is civilian causalities and the destruction of their homes would almost certainly happen.
I don't doubt. But you said earlier that NATO won't invade Russia because "there are no grounds for it". Aren't you contradicting yourself?
What's even stranger is why Russia is so concerned with NATO being on its border when it's already on its border. Never mind that less than three miles of water actually separates the US and Russian border and for about half the year you could theoretically walk across it.
To the West of Alaska across the Bering strait is Chukotka, a poorly populated area covered in forests, tundra and barely any roads. An F-35 can reach it in 15 minutes... to do what? To bomb some village populated by few hunters, or sink some fishing boats on the shore?
Invading Russia through Chukotka and crawl through the wild lands of East Siberia all the way over 6000 km to Moscow (where the "war criminal" Putin is waiting to be arrested) would be an extremely stupid idea.
Ukraine would be a
wholy different story.
A reason I can think of is Ukraine serves as an interest because it allows for better access to the Black Sea and allows naval transport to Africa much more effectively.
I don't doubt that and access to the Black Sea seems like the most logical explanation as to why Russia wants Ukraine.
Gentlemen, I know Russian geography isn't your stongest side, but it won't take too long to look at the map and see that RF already has a good access to the Black Sea. And even better after the bridge to Crimea is built.
Hell, Russia even stoops as low as to dope up a 15-year-old girl so they can win an Olympic medal in its quest to be relevant.
The banned substance entered her body in a microdose by accident and CAS allowed her to continue participating, but you didn't bother learning about such "little" details before making such awkward accusations.
apnews.com
www.timesofisrael.com
