[flagged]
There must be a name for this sort of false argument.
What Russia "wants" with respect to its neighbors is not the problem. It's the large scale ground invasion, indiscriminate killing of civilians, kidnapping children, torturing journalists, shelling cities to rubble.
There's absolutely nothing reasonable about Russia's attitude. You don't get to pick what clubs your neighbors decide to willingly join. Does Poland get to demand that Belarus not join CSTO? Does the US get to demand that Canada leave the IPCC?
We have evidence of this where the US almost triggerd nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, which again was a response to Jupiter nuclear missiles being stationed in Turkey.
So why would Russia be OK with hostile military bases all along its border?
How is that relevant? Nobody built any "forward operating and missile bases" in the entire Eastern Europe, and those that used to be in Western Europe have been largely dismantled in the decades that followed the Cold War. What "hostile missile bases" are you talking of? Can you name a single one?
I notice you avoided the hypothetical about China putting military bases along the US border in Mexico and Canada because there's no answer to that: everybody knows we would never accept it. So why should Russia?
That's quite a retreat from "building missile bases along borders".
But you're still wrong. NATO's primary role is to provide command structures and planning capabilities to coordinate multinational military responses. Military forces and installations remain under national control and are only made available to NATO command structures when member states voluntarily choose to contribute them to a specific mission. Essentially, NATO functions as a coordination bureau rather than a unified standing army.
As for Ukraine specifically, the prospect of joining NATO was shelved by Germany and France in 2008 due to Russian objections. Public support in Ukraine stood at 20-30%, and after a Russian-backed candidate was elected president in 2010, all efforts toward gaining membership were halted. The topic did not resurface until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
They already bordered Lithuania and Estonia, and Poland if you count Kalingrad. Their own actions have now brought Finland in, quadrupling the amount of Russia/NATO border they have. Oops.
Maybe Russia needs your proposed defensive army and huge border fortifications, if they're so petrified of a NATO invasion? The Wagner Group managed to roll most of the way to Moscow largely unopposed.
It seems most of the world a) wants the US to stop meddling but also b) blame them for whatever is broken abroad due to their inaction.
Sounds like Ukraine wanted to be part of the US Empire, rather than their own country.
With Finland having joined NATO in 2023 there is a land border with Russia, so…
But yes, as you touch on later land invasion through Ukraine is far more a threat to Russia than invasion through Finland.
And Lithuania/Poland, if you count Kalingrad.
It will happen. It is inevitable. That Russia has lost the war against Ukraine has been obvious for some time, and sooner or later the war will end with the frontlines remaining roughly where they are now, if not farther east. After that, NATO membership for Ukraine will be one of the few realistic options to prevent renewed Russian aggression.
As for the claim of "NATO on Russia's doorstep", a former Russian foreign minister has for decades described NATO as an organization that offers free security to Russia. This is because NATO binds its members together and stabilizes each individual country. This dynamic is evident in the current support for Ukraine: NATO countries consult extensively with one another before making decisions, because poorly thought out initiatives could endanger all allies. As a result, their actions are proportional, measured and clearly communicated well in advance. For a country allegedly concerned about its security, such neighbors would be a godsend.
But the truth is that NATO and other forms of international cooperation turns invasions of neighboring countries from winnable small wars into unwinnable quagmires, and that's what truly bothers the Russians. Foreign support has turned Russia's war against Ukraine into one of the greatest failures in Russian military history. In a month or two, the casualties will exceed one million, with very little to show for it.
What might you even do differently? Switzerland is mountainous terrain. One could conceivably hold off a column of armor with the right geography with an irregular militia; ied the start of the column and it blocks itself in a chokepoint. You can’t do that in the ukraine. It is board flat wheat fields. You can mine it which both sides have done by now but that is about all you can do defensively over such a porous surface for mechanized infantry. There is no hold point. Frankly it is bewildering to me why russia did not take over the country in 30 days or so considering. This should have been a desert storm situation for russia. Clearly something is going right defensively to protract this war for so long on the part of ukraine.