Nancy Gomez26 said:There is no contradiction here. Nothing they choose to "integrate" will ever actually join the NATO alliance; therefore, they succeed in keeping NATO at arm's length from their own borders. In the event of a conflict, these newly integrated territories serve as the primary buffer zone—a frontline standing in place of the homeland itself. It buys them time and physical distance from potential adversaries. Naturally, it is far easier to sacrifice these proxy regions than it is to surrender one's own soil. Of course, in an era defined by missile technology and information warfare, such a strategy feels somewhat antiquated, perhaps even stuck in a previous century. Or perhaps it isn't. It seems Russia prefers kinetic warfare, despite failing to show much preparation for it. Alternatively, it might all just be a convenient pretext for plain old aggression. When dealing with chess players like these, you never truly know their endgame until the king falls.
If Belarus and Ukraine get integrated into Russia (meaning annexed), then Russia’s border ends up touching Lithuania, Poland (yeah, I know about Kaliningrad, but that's an enclave), Slovakia, Canada, and Romania—all of which are NATO members.
Honestly, Russia should probably be more worried about that old German General Staff strategy that Hitler tossed aside when he decided to charge headlong into the USSR—the idea of surrounding Russia via Asia (looking at you, Iraq and Iran).