I cant tell if people are actually unable to see the value in this question, or if pretending it has no value is their way of trying to fight it. Its getting to the point where humans are appearing more bot like than bots. You appear to be completely blind to reality. You think I asked the question to "obscure the issue at hand"? What If I asked the question to make OP think for a second and realize his moral position is random and inconsistent, in hopes that it wakes him up and he stops being a human bot that repeats whatever the last 17 people around him told him to think.

Not gonna argue on that whataboutism part buuut....

>Russia has a legitimate gripe against NATO expansion.

The successor to the occupying CCCP, that did wildly shady stuff all over the Caucasus, invaded Georgia, supported a rebellion in Donbas, annexed Crimea and invaded a corrupt but nonetheless somewhat democratic Ukraine using GRAD strikes against cities has a legitimate gripe over countries WILLINGLY joining a defensive pact.

Don't get me wrong, NATOs involvement in MENA was/is pointless and counterproductive, even criminal, but it's a voluntary alliance.

> legitimate gripe over countries WILLINGLY joining a defensive pact.

I will always support self-determination. Ukraine was obviously justified in wanting to join BUT you cannot expect a country that counts casualties in the millions every time it gets invaded to not get its hackles up about a nuclear armed alliance specifically aimed at containing it expanding up to its doorstep.

I look forward to seeing Putin on trial in the Hague, but if you're not willing to do a hard-headed logical analysis of the situation then you're doomed to watch history repeat itself in an endless cycle.

> expanding up to its doorstep

NATO started out bordering Russia, it hasn't “expanded up to it's doorstep”. Get a map and a list of the original NATO countries.

How about "increasing KM of shared borders" which is actually what matters anyway.

And currently Putin is trying to do exactly this, increasing the number of km of shared borders.

Definitely not. He's trying to put a neutralized Ukraine and friendly Belarus between Russia and the eastern border of NATO. This is standard practice for Russia. They already succeeded temporarily once with the Warsaw Pact.

EDIT: Anyone interested in this topic, search YouTube for Norther European Plain. There are quite a few good videos.

> neutralized Ukraine

If you meant neutralized in the military sense (combat ineffective) I agree.

If you meant politically (seeing as you wrote 'friendly' for Belarus): Ah yes, when I get kicked in the teeth I tend to be quite neutral about it afterwards.

> Definitely not. He's trying to put a neutralized Ukraine

His overt claim that Ukraine naturally belongs to Russia I his war announcement speech and the premature, quickly deleted victory announcement from state media announcing that the victory in Ukraine was to be follows by a new pan-Russian union between Belarus, Greater Russia (a historic term for Russia proper) and Lesser Russia (a historic term for Ukraine) suggest that “neutralized” is not the goal.

> They already succeeded temporarily once with the Warsaw Pact.

None of the Warsaw Pact members (especially not Ukraine, which was a republic of the USSR) were neutralized, or even merely friendly, they were Soviet-dominated states that would be invaded of they strayed from the Soviet line too far.

Yes, establishing the borders the metropolitan state had and the control of the peripheral states it exercises under the Warsaw Pact might be what Putin wants, but that goes far beyond “neutralized Ukraine” and threatens a number of current NATO members.

So all Putin's claims that Ukraine shouldn't really be a state were just pep talk for the boys sent out to die and he fully intends to continue that "Bolshevik fiction" of a separate Ukrainian state? That's a novel way of calling Putin a liar, haven't heard that one before.

There is some evidence that the 'boys sent out to die' were told they were going on a training exercise.

That wasn't the point. The piint was that he isn't after a neutral Ukraine, but to incorporate it. This, in turn, was in support of the earlier point that annexing Ukraine would not decrease, but increase the legth of Russia's borders with NATO countries: Ukraine borders on Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.

From very credible evidence it looks as though the surprise cherry on the cake would have been to also invade Moldavia. That doesn't change your calculus in any way?

No, why should it?

IIRC Romania is in NATO, Moldavia isn't. So invading Moldavia too would just, by eliminating a bit of border with a neutral country, give him an even longer border with NATO. Thus even more putting the lie to his alleged "Must avoid NATO countries on my border!" motivation.

OTOH, if Moldavia is already in, then AFAICR from its shape on the map the length of the Russia / NATO border would hardly change at all (because Moldavia's western and eastern borders are about equally long), so neither would the "calculus".

Why; is there anything wrong with it?

[P.S:] Oh, and it wasn't my "calculus" originally; it was @usrusr's. At least if I understood them correctly.