> Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance.

No, it does not. A number of Eastern European countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons.

Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member? Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every month.

> Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every month.

Say that to Libya or Yugoslavia that were attacked. NATO is not exactly just a "defensive agreement" as is being currently propagandized.

Ygoslavia deserved every last bomb it received, they were doing ethnic clensing, ffs.

So do not spread that NATO is just a defensive agreement. Say the truth: that it is a military agreement that can act offensively and aggressively without UN support based on geopolitical interests after exaggerating the situation in the news. About this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3

It's Ukraine's choice to do whatever they want.

Likewise, it was Cuba's choice to place soviet nukes where they want. However, that led to a crisis here.

Yes, I remember how US tried to bomb Cuba and annex it as a territory.

You missed the entire Cuban crisis and how the world was seconds away from WW3? We all would not comment here if Cubans would take 'can place nukes where they want' literally.

> No, it does not. A number of Eastern Europe countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons.

Yet. There were murmurs about moving them from Germany to Eastern Europe.

Additionally - US has DCAs (Defense Cooperation Agreement; straightly bilateral, nothing to do with NATO) with most EE countries. Nobody knows, what they brought there, US is certainly not telling anyone. The nukes might be already there.

There are no ICBMS in Germany only tactical bombs... these have no military value, there only value is to say that European countries have shared nuclear deterrence.

And Russia is big, they have an immense second strike capability from land and from the sea. Wladiwostok is 8000km away from Kiev.

I agree with your sentiment, but to say that a weapon capable of creating a Coloseum-sized crater has "no military value" seems a bit off.

On the other hand i cannot think of a critical role played by ICBM's in Central Europe, could your share some insights?

It has no military value because it's unthinkable to use them. Unlike strategic weapons of deterrence which are exactly meant to prevent unthinkable scenarios. We have them so the other side won't use theirs.

Tactical weapons are not deterrence but actually meant to be used. Nobody will use a tactical nuke for the can of worms it represents. Whatever target can be found for a tactical weapon, it's not important enough to justify a nuke and basically start WW3.. They're a leftover of 50/60s doctrine.

Strictly speaking, US doesn't need ICBMs in Europe, would be ineffective there... just enough weaponry to prevent Russia to use theirs for retaliation.

I wonder why they are considering moving those? Hmm? You should be ashamed of parroting Russian propaganda at this time.

It is just you, who uses aggressive, emotive rhetoric in multiple comments in this thread ("parroting Russian propaganda").

Please engage based on arguments, and do not do personal attacks even if you don't like them.

> Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member?

It is not silly idea, it is Russian misinformation. "The corrupt fascist gay West we are under constant attack by wants to put army on our borders," except in nicer words.

They have discussed putting nuclear missiles in Sweden, who isn’t even a member. Plus the US has already been arming Ukraine, hasn’t it?

And? Russia put them in Cuba, and later got them out.

Russia could have asked for this guarantee if it really cared about, it wasn't even a topic of discussion.

Ukraine had nukes and gave them up. Nukes in Ukraine would be such a ridiculous topic that Putin didn't even dare to bring up.

> Russia could have asked for this guarantee if it really cared about

They did exactly that, only to be ignored, and denied that they could even ask for it.

> it wasn't even a topic of discussion.

Whaaat? It is public, you won't have any trouble to find it.

> Ukraine had nukes and gave them up.

Soviet Union had nukes, not Ukraine.

Not sure what you mean. I'm just saying that obviously if Ukraine joined Nato, they would get (even more) missiles. The US has been arming Ukraine for a long time already, to the tune of hundreds of millions every year.

Trump's first impeachment was related exactly to this.

I would go further and suggest Putin's latest move made deployment of ICBMs somewhere like Estonia (which could theoretically have hosted them since the 90s) more likely, not less.

But when a country has joined NATO, it can later declare it will host nuclear weapons loaned from other NATO countries.

Russia is powerless to stop this, since any attack on a NATO country would likely trigger a counterattack.

Hence, instead, Russia must prevent these countries joining if they want to ensure no nukes on their border.

The whole point about ICBM is that you can send them within minutes from anywhere on the planet.

There is nothing threatening about a country joining a defense alliance.

And a way to achieve this is to make friends with your neighbours and enter mutual beneficial treaties....

Or you can just beat them up any time they look at other options.

Russia is already bordered by multiple NATO countries. You should not be parroting Kremlin talking points at this time.

> Russia is already bordered by multiple NATO countries

And they aren't happy about it. At the time, they weren't in a position to do much about it though.

The risk of NATO using nukes first is 0.

For that to happen they would have to first turn into a tyranical shithole like Russia where an impotent old man can do as he pleases.

They don't start with nukes. They first murder journalists, bomb their own appartments, poison opposition leaders.

They only country in the world which is remotely close to doing a first strike is Russia, and perhaps North Korea.

Nuclear submarines are there to launch from as close to the coasts of the enemy as possible. Land bases are nice to have but not so important for ICBMs.

A historic example might be placing rockets in Cuba. iirc, that didn't go through smoothly with the U.S.and resulted in a small crises

And Turkey, do not forget Turkey. Cuba was the Soviet response.

Why not Ukrainian nukes then? Ukraine is the post-nuclear country. USA nukes on territory of Ukraine breaks the deal.