Russia and Ukraine

That situation is not analogous to the current one. In the Cold War, there was a constant risk that the other side might attack. There is no risk that NATO will attack Russia.

If we believe everything, then the same was true during the Cold War. Even during the Cold War everyone knew about MAD. MAD is still true right now. There was no threat that NATO would attack USSR at that time, but it sure as hell didn’t stop us from having weapons along the USSR border creating a perceived threat. When the USSR did the same, we were mad, as we should have been. The whole point is about perceived threats currently and future threats

Let me be unequivocal in saying that what Putin’s doing is wrong from a humanity perspective. But from a national defense standpoint, he’s doing the right thing for his country.

There are words here making vague references to "perceived threats" without even attempting to explain why Putin should perceive NATO as a threat. And even if we assume that NATO is a threat, invading Ukraine does absolutely nothing to counteract that threat. If anything, it makes it worse.

Let me pose the question this way. Suppose Putin didn't annex parts of other countries and didn't invade or threaten to invade any other country. Would NATO attack Russia? If the answer is no, then NATO is not a genuine military threat to Russia.

Then you misunderstand the purpose behind the invasion. I believe that Putin doesn’t want to annex all of Ukraine. Neither does he want to annex Donetsk or Luhansk. He wants to install a pro-Russian government and then back off so there’s a buffer between Russia and the bulk of NATO. The Russian border with the Baltic States is tiny and easily defensible.

If Ukraine joined NATO though then it’s a larger threat. No matter how you perceive it. Stockpiling troops and weapons in NATO countries, especially if Ukraine joined NATO is a threat.

The future is unpredictable. Let me ask you the question. If you were Putin and you saw Ukraine joining NATO, which allows placement of weapons along an even larger piece of the Russian border, wouldn’t you feel threatened? If you say no, then we just have a fundamental difference in the definition of “threat.” Intent in the present means nothing if future intent is possible

A buffer is only needed if there is a threat of military invasion. Unless you think NATO is going to invade Russia, this isn't a valid reason to invade Ukraine.

No, I wouldn't feel threatened. If I were Putin, all I would need to do is not annex, invade, or threaten to invade, and NATO would not be a threat. Also, by this logic, Canada should be really scared of the US and should try to find a buffer. After all, the US has a long border with Canada and is really well armed. Sure, there are no signs that America will ever invade, but hey, intent in the present means nothing if future intent is possible. Anyone know where Canada can get itself some more tanks?

I am pretty sure Putin is using "NATO aggression" as a pretext to getting Black Sea access.

That’s the point. I don’t know what it’s going to be like 10 years from now.

You and I both know this is a false dichotomy lol.

So it's within Russia's interests to invade Ukraine based on the possibility that 10 years from now, despite all signs to the contrary, NATO might invade? That's so thin it makes paper look thick.

I don't see how it is. If we're judging countries and alliances as threats based on what they might do in the future, regardless of the facts of the present, then why wouldn't the US be a threat to Canada? It's a well-armed neighboring country. Of course, based on the present facts, the US doesn't seem likely to invade, but that might change in the future. How is this different than the logic you're using to justify NATO being a threat to Russia?

I still find the fact that Russian Oil hasn’t been sanctioned hilarious. Polls must be looking horrible if gas prices continue to increase

Just as absurd as the idea that the Ukraine would never join NATO.

 You’re still running under the interpretation that NATO would never invade a country. It’s not Estonia that Russia is worried about, it’s the US. NATO is a proxy for a U.S. v Russia conflict.

Canada would get obliterated in a war. Plus they don’t have nukes

. The difference here is that NATO is backed by the US. If the leader was Estonia, then who would care. 

If Putin decided today to create a defensive military alliance with Cuba and station some nukes there, we’d all be in outroar.

Do you support a Russian-Cuban “defensive military alliance” with nukes stationed in Cuba? 

You have to be crazy to believe the invasion isn’t defensive. There is no offensive reason for Putin to invade Ukraine

To be quite honest, I'm not sure what you mean. What is NATO hegemony even supposed to look like? Everyone getting together and saying, "We promise to spend X amount of money on defense and defend each other from invasion"? Where's the hegemony in that? How would they force an unwilling Russia to assimilate into it? What would "assimilation" mean in that context?

You have to admit NATO has been very passive-aggressive in their quest to secure a hegemon since 1990 that might include assimilating an unwilling Russia as well.

I don't see how it is. If we're judging countries and alliances as threats based on what they might do in the future, regardless of the facts of the present, then why wouldn't the US be a threat to Canada? It's a well-armed neighboring country. Of course, based on the present facts, the US doesn't seem likely to invade, but that might change in the future. How is this different than the logic you're using to justify NATO being a threat to Russia?

Also, by this logic, Canada should be really scared of the US and should try to find a buffer.