NATO being able to put nukes in Ukraine would mean that they could reach Moscow in five minutes. This is a red line for Russia.
Serious question: why should Ukraine be a red line when NATO could already put nuclear weapons in Latvia, which is about the same distance from Moscow?
They’re not happy about Latvia either, and the current demand is that NATO rolls back to where it was in the 90s. However, when Latvia joined NATO, Russia was in no position to make any kinds of demands. Situation today is very different than it was then.
Wouldn’t that totally invalidate the point of NATO, if Russia (whose expansion NATO was founded to curb) can just demand that countries that already joined it should leave it?
The point of NATO was invalidated when USSR fell. NATO has been responsible for practically all the instability in Eurasia since then, and the sooner this alliance falls apart the better off the world will be. The countries NATO assimilated should’ve never been admitted into NATO based on the agreements made between NATO and Russia in the 90s.
Serious question: why should Ukraine be a red line when NATO could already put nuclear weapons in Latvia, which is about the same distance from Moscow?
They’re not happy about Latvia either, and the current demand is that NATO rolls back to where it was in the 90s. However, when Latvia joined NATO, Russia was in no position to make any kinds of demands. Situation today is very different than it was then.
Wouldn’t that totally invalidate the point of NATO, if Russia (whose expansion NATO was founded to curb) can just demand that countries that already joined it should leave it?
The point of NATO was invalidated when USSR fell. NATO has been responsible for practically all the instability in Eurasia since then, and the sooner this alliance falls apart the better off the world will be. The countries NATO assimilated should’ve never been admitted into NATO based on the agreements made between NATO and Russia in the 90s.