Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known.
The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE
The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo
You were saying?
If Ukraine is split into Eastern (New Russia) and Western Ukraine, they will have avoided the worst possible outcome, but at significant cost.
If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep.
This game is merely about avoidance of the worst outcome at this point for the Russians
No it doesn't. The US can position Ohio-class submarines in the Baltic, or in the Black Sea, or in the Arctic Ocean. Their Trident missiles, even now 30 years after they were introduced, are still unparalleled. But they can’t strike every missile that Russia has, and in any case, not in just seconds, or even minutes. Russia is a big country; it has lots of road-mobile ICBMs. Those are simply impossible to eliminate in a first strike. Russia has for now, and for the foreseeable future, a guaranteed second strike.
As for the "missile defense", there was never enough confidence in any missile defense system. At this point in time, all missile defense systems can be trivially defeated by a saturation attack.
Zelensky already conceded to not going in NATO in March[1]... Russia partially withdrew after that (combined with the increasing cost of continuing to try to take Kiev), but I believe the current continuation is about taking the south, as I explained here [2], so it seems disingenuous to continue to claim some kind of self-defense case at this point.
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukr...
How about Finland? Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?
The issue isn't Ukraine becoming "NATO controlled" (all NATO members actually control themselves; NATO is a voluntary alliance), it's about keeping it Ukraine-controlled. Putin wants it to be controlled by Moscow instead, and that's why he invaded.
Besides, there are already NATO members close to Moscow. And you know why they joined NATO? Because Russia is also close to them. Putin-supporters keep arguing that Russia needs security guarantees, but completely ignore the security guarantees of Russia's neighbours. And Russia is clearly a far larger threat to its neighbours than those neighbours are to Russia. Few countries have as much buffer built in as Russia does. What right does Russia have to demand entire countries as additional buffer? Where is Ukraine's buffer?
> If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland)
Switzerland is not a buffer state. They're neutral because they choose to be. Chose, because Russian aggression is making even the Swiss consider choosing sides.
> that would have been the best outcome for Russia.
Because then Russia would be able to coerce and invade with impunity. Ukraine doesn't need neutrality, it needs security guarantees. Guarantees that Putin is clearly unwilling to give, and NATO is able to provide.
Putin's aggression is Russia's biggest enemy.
