Today, the Russian government has neither the intention nor the capability to launch the sort of premeditated conventional attack on NATO that the new missiles are supposed to counter. Russian nuclear “saber-rattling” is intended to deter NATO from intervening directly in Ukraine, and thereby starting a NATO-Russia war. There remains however an acute risk that an unplanned mutual escalation could lead to war. In this case, U.S. missiles firing into Russia from Germany could easily be the tripwire for nuclear catastrophe.
I get that you’re making some weird comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan, but who besides the world itself would be the colonizer in my recommended arrangement? The world itself in my recommended United Nation governance followed by a local government chosen by their own legitimate referendums with international observers and gun free polls? Is that not better than Russia just claiming them with no say by the people (unless you believe the sham referendums under armed watch in a war zone as legitimate)?
Even if you disagree with my assessment of Russia’s annexation, isn’t an international body ( that Russia itself has membership) working with your people, with guarantees for self rule and an end to the war better than status quo?
If you’ve supported Donbas independence, with wishes for greater ties to Russia instead of Europe, you still get that in this agreement. Donbas can still legitimately join Russia in a few decades, and still trade with them now.
Of course Donbas will join Russia with your scheme. All the Ukrainians have been displaced. It is nothing else but colonization of Ukraine by Russia.
To be fair, only the people who lived in Donbas until the little green men invaded 8 years ago would need to be asked in a referendum.