Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this “historic border” talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn’t come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
I’m honestly not entirely sure what you’re getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine?
No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they’re own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia.
Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn’t it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don’t see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You’re right about that common fear on article 5, I’m hoping it will never be tested haha.
Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this “historic border” talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn’t come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
Well it does. Russia is a federation composed of states with they’re historic borders.
I’m honestly not entirely sure what you’re getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine? No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they’re own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia. Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn’t it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don’t see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You’re right about that common fear on article 5, I’m hoping it will never be tested haha.
True, I dont want a nuclear war.
Historic borders are called like that because they are history, not current.
Well either keep those that are. Or kill more people to have em moved. Wich you like more?