@Based Boy reply bug
Yet Russia still needs to prepare for war as a matter of national security. If that was not the case, and nuclear war meant certain doom and there was no way to protect yourself from it, then US would not spend money on anti-nuclear defense systems. It might seem unreasonable now, but there is no telling what capabilities US and NATO would have even in a 10 years from now.
The current missile defense system is more tailored to counter "rogue nations" like North Korea. Obviously it would also be used against Russian launches, but such an event would be an exercise in mitigating losses because millions would die. It's still doom.
Another aspect is that it makes sense to invest in technology ahead of time, so that when it becomes feasible you already have expertise.
As long as it can change trajectory it should be enough to throw modern calculation centers off. If it can do that, than this should be enough to bypass anti-missile defenses at least with the higher chance than other methods of delivery.
As people often say, the phone in your pocket has more computing power than NASA had when they put the man on the moon.
You really can't throw modern calculations off. Control theory is really advanced and with affordable computer chips you can run the calculations for an intercept course at obscene rates.
First you say that guaranties can't protect Ukraine from second Russian invasion, then you say that neutral Ukraine would be nothing more than Russian economic puppet and now you say that people might vote wrong if Ukraine would be neutral? I don't care if Ukraine will become international hub for election observers with the most secure elections in the world, if they want it. I don't care if they would elect the most pro-Western, gayest man in existence or the most corrupt vatanigger that graced this Earth. What i care about is that they add 2 points in there constitution that states 1. Can not be a member of military block 2. Can not station military bases of foreign powers on it's territory.
This isn't really hard to understand. A neutral Ukraine has to fend for itself all alone. When Ukrainian people protested against Yanukovych, Russia's response was to seize territory and arm separatists. So yes, I expect Russia to conduct punitive measures against Ukraine for having the "wrong" politics. Trying to ignore this is beyond riddiculous.
What you're asking for is that Ukraine cannot be helped by others defending itself, and another nation can tell Ukraine who it can invite over. This is designed to make sure Ukraine can be invaded again.
Oh, but there would be no need to think about other republics inside Ukraine if they would sign a peace deal in a timely manner. Now Russia would take what it wants by force. There will be no independent republics inside of Ukraine after peace deal is signed, because they ether would be part of Russia or part of Novorossia. Granted, conflict can be frozen in time if Russians can't preform well enough and those issues would never truly be resolved in a foreseeable future.
Again, this is mafia tactics. Give us what we want, "or else". The peace deal means an encroachment of Russia inside Ukrainian territory. Just like South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia and Transnistria in Moldavia. The peace deal is forever a frozen conflict, designed to suit Russia's objectives. I also find it funny that Russia gets to demand for others not to host foreign military forces, but they straight up have military presence inside other nations to secure the breakway republics.
You defend Russia's intentions to bend everyone and fuck them in the ass and chastize those who don't drop their pants at will, while feeling that it's unreasonable that smaller countries might want to get a turn at bending Russia over.
So because some faggot in a suit had to flee the country to avoid prosecution over the deaths carried out by riot police, Russia used military force and glowops to punish Ukraine for their political wrongthink. Now after Russia used aggression against Ukraine, it asks for "peace" where the peace is accepting that Russia used proxy forces to seize Ukrainian territory.
This sort of "teehee now Russia will have to take what it wants by force" attitude - as if Russia wasn't using military force before - is exactly why so many are cheering for the hohols. It legitimately makes one's blood boil to see people defend such behavior, when Russia's underhanded tactics don't work they use that as a justification to start thrashing around.
That is true, yet why can't NATO deescalate the situation? Why go full hog on memberships when you can just guaranty nations? This is what i don't understand.
Nigga then what the fuck is the problem with nations becoming NATO members if "guarantees" are functionally identical? It's still a military assistance and mutual defense deal.
), eventually turning the country into a First World utopia (Poland).
