> With Russian troops on the ground right now, adding any NATO or US troops would mean it isn’t a proxy conflict anymore
So is it a strategic move to be the first to attack?
So is it a strategic move to be the first to attack?
Yes, that's another dimension in this complex problem.
In this case for instance, if NATO had moved in before Russia into Ukraine however, that would be really, really bad.
A big factor behind this war already is Russian insecurity about NATO strength and being frozen out of traditionally Russian territory.
It would be a bit like Russia occupying some of the Aleutians all the sudden. Not likely to go well. Sudden double flashes not well.
So can we expect other similar moves from Russia into countries that are not part of NATO and which have no common frontiers with US?
They’ve been threatening countries like Finland, Sweden, etc. every time they consider it too.
When it was non-western aligned Soviet breakaway republics, it was easier to ignore.
The invasion of Ukraine was too obvious and ham handed. Moscow has doubled down on the threats to those on the fence since then, enough to push folks back over to the other side.
Which likely just pushes Russia more solidly into doubling down/existential threat mode.
Here is some timely news on the topic.
[https://news.yahoo.com/finland-and-sweden-moving-toward-poss...]