How would Ukraine joining NATO affect Russian security?

Question

The current Russian troop buildup close to Ukraine and the exercise in Belarus are partially justified by Russian security interests which, in particular, mean that Russia very much opposes NATO membership of Ukraine.

It seems clear that NATO would not admit Ukraine in the foreseeable future. But assuming Ukraine joins at some point: How would that affect (harm) Russian security?

• Having NATO troops in Ukraine would of course facilitate a ground attack. Does anybody in Russia or NATO seriously consider that remotely plausible, even in the future? (I'd have thought that that was exceedingly unlikely given nuclear deterrence and the lack of any interest in starting a direct war with Russia.)
• Would Ukraine offer a particular advantage for stationing ballistic missiles or anti-ballistic defense (or something similar) that current NATO territory does not?
• In that sense, is the situation similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Here, my understanding is that at the time, missiles in Cuba (and Turkey, for the US missiles) posed a serious threat in addition to the existing delivery systems.)
• Is there some other aspect?

Edit: Another question (Why would Russia care about NATO troops on its borders if it has nuclear weapons?) asked about similar aspects, but is not quite the same because it does not consider any non-invasion harm to Russia's security.

Answer 1

One key question is the plausibility of a preemptive, conventional or nuclear counterforce strike against the Russian nuclear force. For much of the Cold War, there was a commonly held belief that both sides possessed a survivable second strike capability, like nuclear missile submarines, mobile missiles, and hardened silos, and that even after a preemptive strike there would be more than enough Soviet missiles left to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States.

Now the US is working on both ballistic missile defenses and conventional strike capabilities. Back during the Cold War, it was agreed that missile defense was destabilizing, hence the ABM Treaty. As of now, US missile defense plans are on a much smaller scale than pre-ABM-Treaty. I would say that on paper, Russian concerns are unfounded for now and for years to come. Russia might have different ideas than I have about

• the American understanding of acceptable damage in a war against Russia,
• the numbers and readiness of Russian SSBNs,
• the resilience of the Russian early-warning and command-and-control systems.

If those points are worse than I believe, then Russia would be threatened by small numbers of US interceptors and missiles near their border.

Russia might also be looking two or three decades ahead, and worrying that it cannot afford an arms race against the West. A simplistic interpretation of the end of the Cold War might be that President Reagan threatened to develop and deploy SDI (aka Star Wars) and that Gorbachev knew that the Soviet economy would be unable to keep up.

You might note that Russia is not just demanding political control over Ukraine, but also a rollback of the NATO enlargement of recent decades. NATO forces in the Baltics or Romania are as bad as potential NATO forces in Ukraine in this regard.

---

A different perspective might be that the Putin regime (as opposed to Russia itself) is threatened by a Western-style democracy in a society that is culturally close to Russia -- the Russian people might demand the same. Russia claims that the string of Color Revolutions were Western-engineered regime change, not the will of the people.

Answer 2

The Russian heartland (Moscow, Saint Petersburg, etc) is on the famously flat European Plain. Most of Ukraine is also on that plain, and there's no natural barrier like mountains or a river along the Russian-Ukrainian border. This means that it is (relatively) easy to invade Russia from Ukraine. If Ukraine were to join NATO, it would mean NATO weaponry and troops at a shorter distance to Moscow than before, separated only by easily-traversed terrain, and now covering most of the western Russian border. Ukraine is also too close to the so-called "Volgograd gap". The Russian state has an existential fear of being invaded again, and so they of course see this as a threat. Also there is a financial aspect: the closer NATO is to Russia, the more expensive it is to be able to defend against them.

Note that this isn't limited to Ukraine. If you look at a map of the European Plain you may notice a striking similarity to the European part of the old Soviet sphere of influence. That's no coincidence: Russia has long desired, and used to have, a buffer zone on the European Plain, so that hostile powers would have to traverse, say, East Germany, Poland, and Belarus or Ukraine before getting to Russia proper, rather than being right at Russia's "doorstep" so to speak. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the following events, a lot of that buffer zone has gone, and that makes the Russians nervous.

Reasonable or not, this seems to be how the Russians see it and, in my opinion, it explains their actions in general.

(Disclaimer: I am not a geopolitics expert. Most of what I know on the subject is from the YouTube channel Caspian Report, which I can recommend if you want a fuller explanation.)

Answer 3

The situation is definitely similar to the Cuban missile crisis, but this is not the main point. The more important point is the historical view. The conflict between Russia and the West didn't start with the Cold War, it goes back centuries. During that period the West tried to invade Russia many times, the last such attempt was in 1941. This was a very traumatic experience for all Russians and is still present in their minds. From that point of view NATO troops on Russia's borders are associated with the Western troops on the borders of 1941. From that point of view Russia sees the West as an aggressor, while the West has exactly the opposite view. Some actual events, like intervention in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, confirm that Russian point of view.

When talking about history, one should also keep in mind that Ukraine, other than the Baltic states, was a core part of Russia for centuries. Kiev was even one of the first capitals of Russia and is an important place for the Orthodox Church.

By including Ukraine and Georgia NATO would get control over the whole Black See and Russia would loose access to it.

Answer 4

A membership in NATO would enable Ukraine to be a country that is prosperous, democratic, and allied with the West militarily and economically. It would then serve as an example to the Russian people that they, too, can accomplish such a feat with a popular uprising similar to Maidan. Putin prefers to stay in power until his death, so that option is not suitable for him - for reasons that are only too obvious.

Ukraine as a member of NATO means viable non-Putin’s Ukraine. It does not affect Russian security. But it affects the security of the current dictator of Russia, former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. The so called NATO threat is a lie that serves to conceal Putin’s true motives.

References/sources provided on request.

[EDIT, May 10 2022]

REFERENCES:

According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" (Russian: «цветные революции», romanized: tsvetnye revolyutsii) as a "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties."[47]

Government figures in Russia, such as Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu (in office from 2012) and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (in office from 2004), have characterized colour revolutions as externally-fuelled acts with a clear goal to influence the internal affairs that destabilize the economy,[48][49] conflict with the law and represent a new form of warfare.[50][51] Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that Russia must prevent colour revolutions: "We see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called colour revolutions led to. For us, this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia".[52]

The 2015 presidential decree The Russian Federation's National Security Strategy (О Стратегии Национальной Безопасности Российской Федерации) cites "foreign-sponsored regime change" among "main threats to public and national security," including[5][53]

'the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious extremist ideology, foreign and international non-governmental organizations, and financial and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and social situation—including through inciting "color revolutions"—and destroying traditional Russian religious and moral values'

Colour revolution - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

---

New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

Minimum Requirements for NATO Membership. Fact sheet prepared by the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs, June 30, 1997. https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html

---

• Abkhazia is considered a puppet state that depends on Russia.[34][35] The economy of Abkhazia is heavily integrated with Russia and uses the Russian ruble as its currency. About half of Abkhazia's state budget is financed with aid money from Russia.[36] Most Abkhazians have Russian passports.[37] Russia maintains a 3,500-strong force in Abkhazia with its headquarters in Gudauta, a former Soviet military base on the Black Sea coast.[38] The borders of the Republic of Abkhazia are being protected by the Russian border guards.[39]
• Donetsk People's Republic – is considered to be a puppet state which is supported by Russia[40][41]
• Luhansk People's Republic – is considered to be a puppet state which is supported by Russia[40][41]
• South Ossetia has declared independence but its ability to maintain independence is solely based on Russian troops deployed on its territory. As South Ossetia is landlocked between Russia and Georgia, from which it seceded, it has to rely on Russia for economic and logistical support, as its entire exports and imports and air and road traffic is only between Russia. Former President of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity claimed he would like South Ossetia eventually to become a part of the Russian Federation through reunification with North Ossetia.[42]
• Transnistria – is sometimes considered a puppet state supported by Russia.

Puppet state - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state

Answer 5

Addition to @o.m.

Moscow itself is very important for Russia. One Missile defence region allowed by the ABM treaty was guarding Moscow (USA's one guards one of their complexes with silo-launched ICMB). Missiles from Ukraine leave too little time to react and order counter-attack. This means that the central command could be destroyed before it could react.

One possible solution for the loss of the high command is Perimeter / Dead Hand (Система Периметр). There were tests of its components. There are no clear confirmations on anything related to it. Main idea is if there is possibility of attack, it's put in 'danger' mode. If its computer systems decide there is no high command anymore, special command missiles will be launched. Those missiles will transmit launch permissions for all nuclear forces. Except it is only a partial solution.

NATO missiles in Ukraine could mean that Perimeter should be kept in danger mode constantly, it's unclear how reliable its 'danger' mode is.

Answer 6

NATO is a defensive alliance. Nobody in the West wants war. It exists only to prevent the expansion of dictatorship westwards via force.

The only security being affected, is the security of Putin's thieving regime. Preventing Ukraine joining the EU is Putin's real goal here. Imagine if Ukraine (Europe's largest country) becomes as prosperous as Germany through free and fair trade without gangsters controlling everything of value by force. It would become increasingly clear to Russians over the border, who are getting their wealth leeched away into Putin and his friends' pockets, just how damaging Putin's kleptocratic regime is to them and to Russia. That could destabilise Putin's control of the country.

Answer 7

Probably it would not

NATO itself is a defensive organization and cannot call all its members, hey, let's go after Russia today. As such, it does not posses lots of threat by itself, even if some of its aggressive members would. These aggressive members cannot direct all NATO to attack the target they point the finger to. Who choose to join, it is they choice.

When countries just sign an agreement to provide protection to one another in case when somebody attacks, only the aggressor seriously planning to invade them in the future would object. By seriously opposing NATO Russia recognizes itself it has exactly these plans.

And, finally - how much more support for NATO the current Ukraine would provide in addition if accepted as NATO member? Would it not allow NATO troops on they (not yet occupied) territory otherwise? Unlikely. Nuclear weapons? Even Poland now does as much as asking NATO to bring these into they territory. I am under impression, Ukraine would now provide any assistance NATO asks for anyway. Rusia have assured this itself, by starting the invasion. Now Russia can only scare with nuclear war against this scenario, but this possibility would remain in any case.