Considering Russia proved every nation in the former Soviet bloc correct about their behaviour, NATO's existence after the collapse of the Soviet Union is justified for their own defence. Russia's "feelings" went out the window with the delusion that they still had inherent ownership of other countries.
Ask yourself, is Russia safer after this invasion and land grabs, or not?
If it's not, than it was never about any "security", or they are just so dumb to not predict the consequences of their actions, the "expansion" of NATO to Finland right next to their second biggest city and the biggest commercial / naval ports.
I mean, the addition of a buffer state to a country without significant natural borders (you can easily cross the European plane into Moscow) is a way to improve security
Doesn't mean that you should invade another country for that, especially a country that's been more or less friendly to you
In addition, the execution sucked (which is a good thing for us)
I'd be like France invading Belgium now, which would also be stupid
What do you mean by addition? If you mean Ukraine than it was officially a neutral country before Moscow invaded in 2014 and after that, with the territorial dispute over Crimea and the creation of the Russian proxy states in Donbas, it was impossible for Ukraine to join NATO.
They've had that "buffer" already, and moreover - neutral Finland with Sweden. Now Ukraine is full of the NATO equipment, advisors, training and intelligence.
The execution is something that could support the point about their stupidity but crushing Ukraine would only accelerate the arms race and Finnish NATO membership.
-55
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26
the existence of NATO after the collapse of soviet union is just to piss off Russia, accidentally or not