>>/13089/
> You know, they could always fire some nukes from nato territory in europ so it could be even less time.
This is why INF treaty was signed in late 80-s. Now it is forbidden to make medium range missiles that can be placed in Europe (or Latin America/Cuba for USSR). Treaty works only on USSR/Russia and USA though, and doesn't cover sea-based missiles (that is why Tomahawks and their Russian based alternatives are used only on ships or subs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
In Russia now many people think that Gorbachev was a traitor. There is often cited story about OTR-23 "Oka" (SS-23) that wasn't fully qualified to be in this treaty but dismantled because "good will" of Gorbachev, and this is a treason etc. But in reality it was USSR who needed this treaty, not USA, because USA can't be easily reached from medium range, and USSR is very vulnerable because of Europe. But don't tell this to modern Russian "patriots", they wouldn't believe you anyway.
And looks like now there is process to dismantle the treaty from both sides. It isn't a good thing at all, although really it is mostly about China and other powers, who have no such restrictions and can do anything, not about Russia/USA relations.
> Imagine my situation when my country is pretty much bordering russia
You are in better position I guess. Russia won't bomb you much. Yes, you may expect some nuclear fallout, destruction of infrastructure and some burning cities, but it wouldn't be inevitable death of millions in 20 minutes, when all major cities and their neighborhoods are targeted by thousand of missiles. I think people who don't live close to military bases will be relatively ok in nuclear conflict in Eastern Europe.