- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Henry Kissinger's reason for Russian invasion of Ukraine wrong?
Posted on 9/28/22 at 11:44 am to Indefatigable
Posted on 9/28/22 at 11:44 am to Indefatigable
In Europe, the northern coastal plains take up a large area that is difficult to defend and prone to sweeping mechanized army advances. The narrowest choke point in this coastal plain is in Germany, near the historic border of East and West Germany. The further East one goes from there, the wider this plain becomes, making it increasingly less defensible. At that point, the only thing which protects the Russian interior from invasion is time, logistics, and weather.
Every time NATO has expanded eastward from West Germany, it has made Russia’s interior more and more difficult to defend by having it placed around a wider potential front with a starting point closer to that heartland. Finland and The Ukraine are necessary buffers because an invasion into Russia from those points are so close to the Russian heartland, and along such difficult to defend terrain, that an adequate defense would be nearly impossible. A large scale invasion force from Finland could besiege St. Petersburg on the first day while simultaneously severing communications between the Russian government and their nuclear arsenal on the Cola Peninsula, essentially eliminating the option of mutually assured destruction.
A full scale invasion launched from The Ukraine could reach the Kremlin in just a couple days, advancing along wide, flat, open land. Russia cannot adequately defend itself from full-scale invasions launched from either of those locations. Estonia is precarious enough as it is.
As such, it is not shocking that Russia is acting how it is. NATO aligned Finland and Ukraine would be orders of magnitude more dangerous for Russia than a nuclear soviet-aligned Cuba was for America in the 1960’s.
Every time NATO has expanded eastward from West Germany, it has made Russia’s interior more and more difficult to defend by having it placed around a wider potential front with a starting point closer to that heartland. Finland and The Ukraine are necessary buffers because an invasion into Russia from those points are so close to the Russian heartland, and along such difficult to defend terrain, that an adequate defense would be nearly impossible. A large scale invasion force from Finland could besiege St. Petersburg on the first day while simultaneously severing communications between the Russian government and their nuclear arsenal on the Cola Peninsula, essentially eliminating the option of mutually assured destruction.
A full scale invasion launched from The Ukraine could reach the Kremlin in just a couple days, advancing along wide, flat, open land. Russia cannot adequately defend itself from full-scale invasions launched from either of those locations. Estonia is precarious enough as it is.
As such, it is not shocking that Russia is acting how it is. NATO aligned Finland and Ukraine would be orders of magnitude more dangerous for Russia than a nuclear soviet-aligned Cuba was for America in the 1960’s.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 11:47 am to kingbob
I don't need a European geography lesson
It doesn't make it any more likely that Russia actually views NATO as an offensive military threat. OF COURSE that is what Russia says its primary concerns are. What else would they say? "We regret that Lenin and Khruschev gave this territory to Ukraine, and now we want it back"?
It doesn't make it any more likely that Russia actually views NATO as an offensive military threat. OF COURSE that is what Russia says its primary concerns are. What else would they say? "We regret that Lenin and Khruschev gave this territory to Ukraine, and now we want it back"?
quote:I think it is funny that so many people are willing to blindly believe the public line from a nation who spent the entire 20th Century institutionally perfecting obfuscation as a foreign policy tactic.
As such, it is not shocking that Russia is acting how it is.
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 11:48 am
Posted on 9/28/22 at 11:49 am to kingbob
No one is going to invade Russia though. This isn’t the 1930s and 40s. This is 2022. You don’t need to be right up on someone’s borders to attack them, especially whenever you and them are armed with nuclear weapons. No one is going to invade a country armed with nuclear weapons.
This whole idea that Russia needs to protect its borders from the West is asinine. It’s pure Russian propaganda, to try and make what they’re doing justified.
This whole idea that Russia needs to protect its borders from the West is asinine. It’s pure Russian propaganda, to try and make what they’re doing justified.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:42 pm to kingbob
quote:
A large scale invasion force from Finland could besiege St. Petersburg on the first day while simultaneously severing communications between the Russian government and their nuclear arsenal on the Cola Peninsula, essentially eliminating the option of mutually assured destruction.
Welcome to 1950. There are things called satellites now. There is no conceivable way that NATO is invading nuclear Russia.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News