to have Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles

[güey]

Hello,
How do you understand the boldface bit? I guess the meaning is invading Ukraine on itself sort of brings Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles (probably from the Central European ally members)

This is certainly not about, as some have claimed, the protection of Ukrainians who speak Russian as their first language; in fact, in the first two weeks of the war, thousands of such civilians have been killed by Putin's regime. It is not about de-Nazification of Ukraine, a nation with a democratically-elected Jewish president. And while I don't doubt that Putin feels pressure from the NATO military alliance and I don't want to minimize the complexities there, I simply don't think it makes Russia more safe to have Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles.
Again, this is primarily about what Putin has said it's about; he believes that when the borders of Ukraine were drawn, "Russia was robbed."
(Ukraine and Russia: What Caused the War? by vlogbrothers)

 

[Toby Sherman]

Yes, I also understand the sentence literally: the further west Russian soldiers go, the closer they are to NATO missiles.

 

[bennymix]

I think the author means that if Russian were to occupy the* Ukraine, the soldiers will {CORR} be adjoining NATO countries.

*CORRECTED

The 'the' issue: Ukraine or the Ukraine: Why do some country names have 'the'?

'The' sometimes appears, in English versions of country names; but here the official position of the Ukrainian government seem to be to omit 'the' in English.

 

[güey]

the Ukraine

Old habits die hard.

 

[Carolinian]

I think the author means that if Russia occupies Ukraine the soldiers will be adjoining NATO countries.

 

[güey]

The 'the' issue: Ukraine or the Ukraine: Why do some country names have 'the'?

'The' sometimes appears, in English versions of country names; but here the official position of the Ukrainian government seem to be to omit 'the' in English.

The article is too old. The Daily Mirror does not use "the Ukraine" anymore (does anyone now?). And it was before the 2014 Russian invasion, too, (I think the connection is obvious) which makes another good reason to drop the the (the first reason being the 1991 Ukrainian independence). And I'm not even touching "grammatical" issues which are that "(the) Borderland" is only one of the two main versions of the name origin, or that Ukrainian has no articles.😁
.

 

[kentix]

He doesn't think Russia will be safer having a direct border with NATO in that area than it was when it didn't. A conflict might be more likely instead of less.

 

[Andygc]

I guess the meaning is invading Ukraine on itself sort of brings Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles

Exactly.

 

[güey]

having a direct border with NATO in that area

Did you mean Ukraine becoming a NATO member?

 

[kentix]

No. If they take over Ukraine, they will have a long border with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania - all NATO members.

 

[güey]

No. If they take over Ukraine, they will have a long border with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania - all NATO members.

It seems unlikely to me though that he would consider Russia taking over the whole of Ukraine (neither ever did Putin). Western Ukraine (the one bordering NATO) has always been strongly "anti-Russian". Maybe we should understand
having Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles more literally?

 

[kentix]

There was a leak of a timetable that showed a Russian plan for annexing all of Ukraine by August.* That depended on taking Kyiv quickly, of course, which didn't happen. But there are lots of foreign policy experts who believe that is still Putin's "maximalist" goal. In other words, if everything went how he wanted it to, he would gladly take all of Ukraine. If not, he would settle for less. Either way, as you say, he would be closer to much larger NATO members.

* Everyone has to decide for themselves whether they find things like this credible. Opinions will differ.

 

[Andygc]

It really does not matter where Russian troops are stationed - eastern Ukraine, western Ukraine, Byelorussia, Crimea. That doesn't affect the meaning of "to have Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles". Anywhere outside Russia's European borders is closer to NATO missiles.

 

[bennymix]

It really does not matter where Russian troops are stationed - eastern Ukraine, western Ukraine, Byelorussia, Crimea. That doesn't affect the meaning of "to have Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles". Anywhere outside Russia's European borders is closer to NATO missiles.

It is a question of immediacy, I think, Andy. IF, hypothetically, Russia controlled/occupied the eastern 1/3 or 1/4 of Ukraine AND IF West Ukraine remained out of NATO, then Russia would not have its soldiers immediately adjacent to NATO countries, with the exception of Latvia and Estonia (and now maybe Finland added to that list). I think the 'vlogbrothers', authors of the OP quote, are considering the question whether Russian soldiers etc are to be in immediate proximity. They are saying such proximity would NOT make Russia safer. In effect then, if Russia, they argue, obtained its maximal goals (not the hypothetical described about), Russia would not be safer; if that was Putin's view, he was mistaken.

 

[Andygc]

Sorry, but why are you talking about immediacy? There's a language question in the OP. What does the bold text mean? It means that moving Russian soldiers closer to NATO missiles won't make Russia safer. It's hardly a great philosophical statement and there's nothing complicated about it - it's a literal statement and it's blindingly obviously true.