You're missing a small thing - NATO had had various plans for antimissile defences in countries in Central and Eastern Europe ( Poland, Czechia, Romania if memory serves me right). Those defences would potentially invalidate Russia nukes, and that's scary. ( Which is why there was a treaty limiting antimissile defences during the Cold War, to avoid one side thinking they can win a nuclear exchange). So Russia has plenty to be scared of, and then there's the imperialism, exporting problems, having a cause for the people to rally around, etc.

War crimes and abhorrent nonetheless. I hope at least this time the responsible end up in The Hague.

I think the defences would be useful against countries will very limited nuke arsenal. For example Iran. The is probably no defence that would protect you against hundreds of nukes. In a real nuke strike the attacker would probably fire many simultaneously, accompanied with decoys.

That is BS. Russia has enough subs that can launch a nuclear apocalypse from the bottom of any ocean.

The only reason Putin hates NATO is that it stops him from invading any country he wishes.

The US has antimissile defenses on ships ( the Aegis system), and the whole thing started as ship-first, presumably against subs.

No, nothing works against subs since they can easily move and launch from a place far from any defensive umbrellas.

They can be shipped fedex or dhl with tracking and delivery confirmation for an extra 3$.

Regarding the last part, Putin is trying to find out. Nukes or not, if the "defensive" alliance, that used to be your sworn enemy for almost 5 decades (Putin used to be a KGB Colonel) sets up shop right across your border I understand why you might get worried a bit. Don't forget, that defensive alliance was invading countries as well since the 90s. Usually under the pretext of spreading democracy.

Does that justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine? No, absolutely not. Does it mean NATO could have been a tad more cautious when it comes to Russians security interests? Yes. Now it's to late for that so. And as usual it is innocent people, just wanting live their lives in peace, that pay the price.

> Regarding the last part, Putin is trying to find out.

Ok, so when Putin finds out NATO won't confront an invasion, then the Kremlin will back off their aggressions now, right? Now that they've found out there's no way NATO threatens the motherland? Does that sound right to you?

I'll make a guess. I've been on side "Russian invasion is imminent" for the past four months. I've been hearing a whole lot of "nothing to see here. Russia has no plans to invade. Just military drills. West should stop being threatening." for months. They were all dead wrong (sooo many on this site as of just days ago). So I'm inclined to believe I'm a bit more prescient on these issues.

Putin still won't back off, knowing Russia is safe from NATO, because that's not the issue.

Oh, you got me wrong. If Putin finds out NATO won't got to war over Ukraine, he will try again with other non-NATO countries. Or even smaller NATO countries like the Baltics. China might try too, with Taiwan. Just to name some of the more obvious candidates.

Good points.

But isn't the real threat against Putin that the ideas of democracy spread via word of mouth?

I think problem with Ukraine is that Ukrainians and Russians have close ties and if Ukraine succeeds in becoming a western country their relatives in Russia will want to do so to.

That sure plays a role. Not that this word of mouth spreading of democracy worked out so well lately. But yeah, if I were Putin I would prefer a war in Ukraine over a potential civil war over my rule in Russia any day of the week.

One cannot ignore the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in this whole mess so.