> Is Russia just suicidal?
Russia has no other choice. When USSR in 1962 [0] did something similar to USA, USA was not happy and it could end up really bad. How is this situation is different? National security is paramount.
Russia has no other choice. When USSR in 1962 [0] did something similar to USA, USA was not happy and it could end up really bad. How is this situation is different? National security is paramount.
No NATO country has ever invaded Russian soil and never will due to their massive nuclear arsenal.
I'm willing to admit Putin may have convinced himself and some Russians that there's a national security concern, but the evidence is severely lacking.
I never said it has to be nuclear missiles. Tomahawks will do for 800km range. And that's a threat for national security.
>I'm willing to admit Putin may have convinced himself and some Russians that there's a national security concern, but the evidence is severely lacking.
If your neighbor says your dog is a concern, you better listen to your neighbor and do not adopt 10 more.
If my irrational neighbor says my quiet, well-behaved dog is actually barking all day and night, growling at him as he walks by (even when the dog is inside), and if I don't stop it he'll break into my house and kill my dog: I keep my dog inside, put up some cameras, clean my gun and file a police report.
ps: the good thing the master is safe and fine. he will adopt another one just to annoy the neighbor again.
The comparison is that missiles in Cuba = "disturbs the Mutually Assured Destruction equation". Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Russia's near abroad....disturbs the MAD equation. That is the national security concern. It's the same thing Russia has been saying since....2007? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6599647.stm
Do you think Putin wants to until US ABMs are already deployed in a NATO Ukraine to then voice his concerns? That would be too late. Consider this a very drastic preemptive action, but it's entirely in keeping with Russia's approach to security in their near abroad for the past ~15 years, for anyone who has been paying attention.
Regardless, the only thing Putin has to fear from NATO ABM systems, and NATO membership for Ukraine in general, is an end to their ability to conquer Eastern Europe militarily.
I'm sorry if that explanation doesn't suit Russian paranoia, but I see no upside to tolerating said paranoia either. And neither, apparently, does Ukraine, despite standing to lose the most in this situation.
Around 9/11, the Russians were focused on Chechen insurgents and terrorists, and our relations with them thawed significantly: https://carnegieendowment.org/2001/10/24/u.s.-russia-relatio...
Later in the 2000s, Russia discussed NATO and EU membership but had generally been rebuffed. Still, they tried to maintain dialogue with NATO, even after slapping down Georgia: https://euobserver.com/news/27890. I think they considered their point made about keeping NATO in check, but we didn't get the message.
For about 15 years, Putin ran Russia without even possessing the capability for a major nation-state offensive in Europe. That changed with the reformation of the 1st Guards Tank Army, stationed west of Moscow, in 2014. The question so few people are investigating is "What are the things WE ("the West", generally speaking) have done to trigger the changes in Russian foreign policy? This is the introspection that I find deeply lacking. Everyone just chalks it up to "clearly he's a megalomaniacal madman! Nothing else needs be said!"
Exactly this. The western world has this infallible belief that what they are doing if right and everyone else is wrong. They don't even stop to think the consequences. They are doing things which if reciprocated they won't accept and they say .. Oh we just want to spread democracy everywhere"