Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. It would be similar to Russia placing their bases and weapons into Canada or Mexico.
No, it does not. A number of Eastern European countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons.
Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member? Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every month.
Say that to Libya or Yugoslavia that were attacked. NATO is not exactly just a "defensive agreement" as is being currently propagandized.
Yet. There were murmurs about moving them from Germany to Eastern Europe.
Additionally - US has DCAs (Defense Cooperation Agreement; straightly bilateral, nothing to do with NATO) with most EE countries. Nobody knows, what they brought there, US is certainly not telling anyone. The nukes might be already there.
And Russia is big, they have an immense second strike capability from land and from the sea. Wladiwostok is 8000km away from Kiev.
On the other hand i cannot think of a critical role played by ICBM's in Central Europe, could your share some insights?
Tactical weapons are not deterrence but actually meant to be used. Nobody will use a tactical nuke for the can of worms it represents. Whatever target can be found for a tactical weapon, it's not important enough to justify a nuke and basically start WW3.. They're a leftover of 50/60s doctrine.
Please engage based on arguments, and do not do personal attacks even if you don't like them.
It is not silly idea, it is Russian misinformation. "The corrupt fascist gay West we are under constant attack by wants to put army on our borders," except in nicer words.
Russia could have asked for this guarantee if it really cared about, it wasn't even a topic of discussion.
Ukraine had nukes and gave them up. Nukes in Ukraine would be such a ridiculous topic that Putin didn't even dare to bring up.
They did exactly that, only to be ignored, and denied that they could even ask for it.
> it wasn't even a topic of discussion.
Whaaat? It is public, you won't have any trouble to find it.
> Ukraine had nukes and gave them up.
Soviet Union had nukes, not Ukraine.
Trump's first impeachment was related exactly to this.
Russia is powerless to stop this, since any attack on a NATO country would likely trigger a counterattack.
Hence, instead, Russia must prevent these countries joining if they want to ensure no nukes on their border.
There is nothing threatening about a country joining a defense alliance.
Or you can just beat them up any time they look at other options.
This is a game of “who blinks first”. I doubt normally US would use nukes to defend a tiny unimportant country like Latvia or Slovenia, if under attack. Russia knows this too.
Someone crazy like Trump just might, though.
And they aren't happy about it. At the time, they weren't in a position to do much about it though.
For that to happen they would have to first turn into a tyranical shithole like Russia where an impotent old man can do as he pleases.
They don't start with nukes. They first murder journalists, bomb their own appartments, poison opposition leaders.
They only country in the world which is remotely close to doing a first strike is Russia, and perhaps North Korea.