Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Your forefathers did all that already once, and kept the status then for several decades.  It was called the Warsaw Pact. It is no secret that quite some Russian politicians cry for the loss of what once was their empire, and that they want to have it back. The more paranoid also demand it back as a pressure zone to NATO.
After the Crimean adventure, I fear you have no argument there to convince people that Russia prioritizes peace before anything else. Not to mention Syria. |
Only because we were invaded by NAZI Germans, where Eastern Europe was a valid buffer area and where every effort was made to industrialise the area (including Baltics).
Why would we do the same again, unless there is a NATO invasion happening? Further more, where would we get the capability to invade non-Baltics states, for example Poland or Romania?
If anything Crimea (and Ukraine crisis in general) shows that... we would not invade Baltics. The factors here are simple:
- Crimea, unlike Baltics, has military significance and pro-Russian majority.
- Crimea was a one off operation, unlikely to be ever repeated (and thus preparing for simmilar scenarios is a dumb waste of resources)
- Eastern Ukraine was not annexed despite it's pro-Russian majority and industrial capacity.
- There is no military capability being built in the north-western axis, if anything that operational-strategic axis has much less military build up than, say, south-western operational-strategic axis.
p.s. on Syria - we are there, supporting the legitimate goverment of Syria. Again, it is a separate matter from the Baltics or Ukraine.
p.p.s. using a quote from the meme paper by Gerasimov is sort of amusing by itself.