Finland or Sweden joining NATO would spark Russian response, Russia warns(tbsnews.net)
tbsnews.net
Finland or Sweden joining NATO would spark Russian response, Russia warns
https://www.tbsnews.net/world/finland-or-sweden-joining-nato-would-spark-russian-response-russia-warns-376246
316 comments
Note that it has been the choice of Sweden and Finland not to be a part of NATO. NATO would be more than happy to let them join, and the process would probably be quite quick as well. I think this is quite a significant difference from the situation with Ukraine.
[deleted]
By kicked the can you mean denied their pleading to allow them to join after they threw out the Russian backed government like the USA Clinton State Department encouraged them to do resulting in current events happening to them while the West looked on?
Replace Ukraine and Russia with Ireland and UK, and apply the same events that happened since 2000, you will end up with UK invading Ireland in 2022.
I think this lecture (2015) explains the situation very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I think this lecture (2015) explains the situation very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Huh? I've lived in the UK and Ireland around those times and there is no interest in anyone invading or problems with them being part of this or that alliance.
[deleted]
I watched that lecture but I still don't understand the situation. He explains that since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia made very clear that they did not want NATO to expand beyond Germany. And yet NATO did expand into Poland and the former Soviet states Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia etc. So why is Putin responding now when he already ensured Ukraine wouldn't join NATO in 2014 by invading the country's western region?
Secondly the lecture doesn't explain why Russia is so concerned about having a NATO member on their border. The treaty is a defensive one, not offensive. I don't think the lecture does a good job to help westerners understand the way in which the east mistrusts the west.
Secondly the lecture doesn't explain why Russia is so concerned about having a NATO member on their border. The treaty is a defensive one, not offensive. I don't think the lecture does a good job to help westerners understand the way in which the east mistrusts the west.
He did mention in the lecture that Russia was too weak at the time to step up against neighboring countries joining NATO.
The whole thing is really sad indeed. I believe any country should have the freedom to choose its security and financial alliance, but my point is that isn't how it works with geopolitics. Any major power would do the same if they were in Russia's position.
The whole thing is really sad indeed. I believe any country should have the freedom to choose its security and financial alliance, but my point is that isn't how it works with geopolitics. Any major power would do the same if they were in Russia's position.
[deleted]
Who are your troops?
Well then, Congratulations Russia! You have just given the Swedish NATO-movement more support than they could have ever mustered themselves!
I have always been very sceptical of NATO membership, but the last month I changed opinion.
I have always been very sceptical of NATO membership, but the last month I changed opinion.
Why were you skeptical of NATO membership? What are the downsides?
America runs NATO and does not have a perfect history of only getting involved in justified wars itself. Being a NATO member means that other members can drag you in to something you wouldn't join yourself. For example, NATO helped in Iraq and Afghanistan (in small ways, by supporting the US-supported local forces), which weren't going to attack France for example any time soon.
What Russia has done is made the odds of NATO dragging you in to something (which hasn't really ever happened in a major way) look much smaller than the odds of them invading you (which is happening to a NATO nonmember today).
What Russia has done is made the odds of NATO dragging you in to something (which hasn't really ever happened in a major way) look much smaller than the odds of them invading you (which is happening to a NATO nonmember today).
I think part of this is that the non-US NATO countries basically let the US run it. The only NATO countries which seem to meet the financial and military requirements of the organization are the ones on Russia's border. So the US pays the money to support the alliance while Germany uses the money it's saved to purchase gas and oil from Russia so it can close down it's nuclear plants.
I have wondered if the NATO system would be better-designed if it had specific defense requirements from all countries, but I presently think its current structure (where Germany is allowed to reduce military spending because they're surrounded on all sides by other NATO countries) prevents a worse outcome, where they'd find it in their interest to leave NATO and get the buffer states anyway. Voluntary multilateral treaties like this only work when every signatory believes they're benefiting, and if you asked Germany to raise defense spending they'd respond with "okay, and how will we be compensated?"
Then, you'd say "nevermind, I'd rather spend it on my own armed forces," and you arrive back at NATO.
Then, you'd say "nevermind, I'd rather spend it on my own armed forces," and you arrive back at NATO.
>Being a NATO member means that other members can drag you in to something you wouldn't join yourself.
Of course? That's the entire point of it isn't it? NATO is primarily about "dragging the United States into European war" if you want to phrase it that way, though equally the point is that the threat of doing so prevents a European war involving alliance members in the first place. But the USA is at absolutely zero risk of direct invasion by Russia (or China for that matter). America is the only nation on the planet right now with any significant conventional power projection and logistics capability. NATO members all certainly kind of hope America would nonetheless come anyway.
Along with that is the risk that they'd be called on in turn, so that's a tradeoff but an obvious and straightforward one. When you sign up for insurance, you constantly must pay even if you never collect. Indeed most people very much hope never to need to collect. Hedging against black swan events costs money with by definition a low likelihood of return, but can be worth it anyway at a high enough cost (particularly since the insurers themselves have incentive to prevent rather then react).
Of course? That's the entire point of it isn't it? NATO is primarily about "dragging the United States into European war" if you want to phrase it that way, though equally the point is that the threat of doing so prevents a European war involving alliance members in the first place. But the USA is at absolutely zero risk of direct invasion by Russia (or China for that matter). America is the only nation on the planet right now with any significant conventional power projection and logistics capability. NATO members all certainly kind of hope America would nonetheless come anyway.
Along with that is the risk that they'd be called on in turn, so that's a tradeoff but an obvious and straightforward one. When you sign up for insurance, you constantly must pay even if you never collect. Indeed most people very much hope never to need to collect. Hedging against black swan events costs money with by definition a low likelihood of return, but can be worth it anyway at a high enough cost (particularly since the insurers themselves have incentive to prevent rather then react).
Yeah, America's track record of invading countries without cause is kind of appalling over the last 60 odd years.
Similarly their use of International Criminal Court for non-americans followed by claims that the ICC should not be used as it is not-elected when America has been caught committing war crimes.
America has not done a whole lot to help its own reputation in these matters :-/
Similarly their use of International Criminal Court for non-americans followed by claims that the ICC should not be used as it is not-elected when America has been caught committing war crimes.
America has not done a whole lot to help its own reputation in these matters :-/
> NATO helped in Iraq and Afghanistan
A number of NATO countries joined both Iraq wars, but not all. The only one where Article V was invoked and NATO was officially involved was Afghanistan.
A number of NATO countries joined both Iraq wars, but not all. The only one where Article V was invoked and NATO was officially involved was Afghanistan.
[deleted]
NATO was officially involved in several post-invasion support missions in Iraq; not every NATO mission (not even combat missions) results from Article 5.
american here: excellent answer and i'd say most here agree
Sweden was a participant in ISAF too.
There are many pros and cons, but from a Swedish perspective, one of the obvious "downsides" would be an end to the idea of Swedish neutrality, which has been a thing since the early 1800's. This may be a hard thing to relate to if you're not a Swede, but if you imagine any political tradition in your country that's over 200 years old, you may understand that the idea of changing it generates some reluctance. I would argue that Sweden is a constitutional monarchy to this day for the same reason, most people simply do not like change unless it's obviously necessary, and Russia may have just given people in Sweden that sense of necessity.
Had a Swedish colleague and he said he did a military service. Answering to the question "why" he told us that Swedish must prepare not for the if but for when Russia invades. That was before the Georgian war when Russia seemed to be less aggressive. I guess the perspective should be changing within the country.
Swedish foreign policy and neutrality originates from all the wars they fought against Russia prior to the 1800s.
The major downside is that Russia might invade you if you make noises about joining. See: Georgia, Ukraine, Finlandization.
... That card's been played out, though, because it's only credible if you don't invade regardless.
Practically speaking, Russia wouldn't be able to do anything about this.
... That card's been played out, though, because it's only credible if you don't invade regardless.
Practically speaking, Russia wouldn't be able to do anything about this.
NATO was made for this kind of mutual defense. Unfortunately, NATO is a massive political force that can also be abused for political ends, and no country wants to commit their armed forces to be used as pawns in someone else's war.
NATO has not been viewed favorably in recent years, and some of it is for good reason. As much as I dislike Trump, he is right that many NATO members don't contribute their fair share. Many countries, even wealthy, highly developed ones, are missing the 2% target by a wide margin. On the name and shame highlight reel is:
Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the list goes on.
I suspect we will see a renewed interest in making NATO a stronger alliance after this dust settles.
I suspect we will see a renewed interest in making NATO a stronger alliance after this dust settles.
Most European countries have surprisingly dinky armies today. Germany has only 60,000 troops for a population of 83 million. Norway has only 3,725. France has 118,000. The UK has 82,000. There hasn't been much for them to do in decades. That just changed.
Sweden has 24,000 on active duty. Finland has about 21,000. Large for the size of the countries. Both have a draft. Switzerland has 120,000 troops on active duty, a draft, and a large, regularly exercised reserve, for a country with only 8 million people. All are outside NATO and prepared for self-defense.
Of the big powers, the US has 1.3 million. Russia has about 1.4 million, and China has about 2 million.
Sweden has 24,000 on active duty. Finland has about 21,000. Large for the size of the countries. Both have a draft. Switzerland has 120,000 troops on active duty, a draft, and a large, regularly exercised reserve, for a country with only 8 million people. All are outside NATO and prepared for self-defense.
Of the big powers, the US has 1.3 million. Russia has about 1.4 million, and China has about 2 million.
> Sweden has 24,000 on active duty. Finland has about 21,000. Large for the size of the countries. Both have a draft. Switzerland has 120,000 troops on active duty, a draft, and a large, regularly exercised reserve, for a country with only 8 million people. All are outside NATO and prepared for self-defense.
I think active duty numbers can be misleading, since I believe many countries rely on military reserve forces, especially ones with smaller populations, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Militar...:
> At the completion of the service, the conscripts receive a reserve military rank of private, lance corporal, corporal, sergeant or second lieutenant, depending on their training and accomplishments.[24] After their military service, the conscripts are placed in reserve until the end of their 50th or 60th living year, depending on their military rank. During their time in reserve, the reservists are liable to participate in military refresher exercises for a total of 40, 75 or 100 days, depending on their military rank. In addition, all reservists are liable for activation in a situation where the military threat against Finland has seriously increased, in full or partial mobilization or in a large-scale disaster or a virulent epidemic. The males who do not belong to the reserve may only be activated in case of full mobilization, and those rank-and-file personnel who have fulfilled 50 years of age only with a specific parliamentary decision.[25]
I think active duty numbers can be misleading, since I believe many countries rely on military reserve forces, especially ones with smaller populations, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Militar...:
> At the completion of the service, the conscripts receive a reserve military rank of private, lance corporal, corporal, sergeant or second lieutenant, depending on their training and accomplishments.[24] After their military service, the conscripts are placed in reserve until the end of their 50th or 60th living year, depending on their military rank. During their time in reserve, the reservists are liable to participate in military refresher exercises for a total of 40, 75 or 100 days, depending on their military rank. In addition, all reservists are liable for activation in a situation where the military threat against Finland has seriously increased, in full or partial mobilization or in a large-scale disaster or a virulent epidemic. The males who do not belong to the reserve may only be activated in case of full mobilization, and those rank-and-file personnel who have fulfilled 50 years of age only with a specific parliamentary decision.[25]
Wikipedia has a list that allows sorting by "per 1,000 capita (active)" [0] – scroll to the table and click the rightmost column to sort by active per 1k capita.
By this measure, the US is 51st on the list with a value of 4.2, behind many European countries and NATO members, e.g. Greece is #7 with 13.3.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
By this measure, the US is 51st on the list with a value of 4.2, behind many European countries and NATO members, e.g. Greece is #7 with 13.3.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
I don't know where you got your numbers, but the german Bundeswehr has a total strength of about 185k and is limited by the two plus four treaty to a maximum strength of 370k. Way less than the 500k and up the old west german Bundeswehr had.
64,036 in the the army (Heer) only.
The target date for the 2% is 2024. They haven't missed it yet, although several are likely to.
As an American I hate NATO, that's a great way to start another World War.
On the contrary: NATO is what has stopped another world war. For decades. Non-agression pacts with mutual defense clauses are a pretty stiff deterrent.
It is the exact opposite!
You'll get nuked if Russia and the West ever are stupid enough to start WWIII.
Even if you were correct, does it matter that your European country is not nuked when the rest of them are?
Yes. You'll have to shetler in place for several weeks until radiation recedes. Your economy will be ruined. And you'll have one hell of a refugee problem. But that is still a lot better than having all that plus your cities burned to ground.
There is a very big difference between being nuked and not being nuked
Everyone dies in that scenario
You mean so far you've lived a peaceful life and were skeptical of joining NATO but now that you've seen what Russia did to Ukraine, you're tempted to share their fate?
Ukraine is not a member of Nato. Reconsider the logic in your line of thought.
Maybe you should reconsider your logic? Ukraine wasn't attacked because it's a NATO member, it was attacked because (among other things) it wanted to become NATO member. There isn't a process where you just submit your wish to become a member and the next day, voila, you're accepted! It's a long process and that's when you'll be most vulnerable to attack.
The logic is that attacking a country that attempts to join a defensive alliance (Ukraine) underlines the undeniable necessity of that alliance existing in the first place. There would not be a point in joining Nato if Russia was a paper tiger, but they're working very hard to prove that they are not. They are painting a picture of themselves as violent, unpredictable and hostile to democratic values that we (Swedes) value highly.
By your logic, if Russia ever did invade Sweden, the "logical" thing to do would be to lay down arms immediately: after all, we all want to live a "peaceful life", right? Presumably the same would go for Russia making demands on the size of Sweden's military budget.
By your logic, if Russia ever did invade Sweden, the "logical" thing to do would be to lay down arms immediately: after all, we all want to live a "peaceful life", right? Presumably the same would go for Russia making demands on the size of Sweden's military budget.
> defensive alliance
Yeah, right. Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq?
Regarding the rest of your arguments, whether you want to support joining NATO is your own business. I'm just looking at it from a game theory perspective. As far as I remember, so far there haven't been threats from Russia against Sweden. Now you want to join and there is a threat. You may be indignant and think other countries have no right to choose for you but the reality may be different, as the Ukrainans are finding out. Now they will have to forget about joining NATO AND will get occupied, when they could have just admitted that they can't beat Russia and agreed to not join NATO.
Yeah, right. Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq?
Regarding the rest of your arguments, whether you want to support joining NATO is your own business. I'm just looking at it from a game theory perspective. As far as I remember, so far there haven't been threats from Russia against Sweden. Now you want to join and there is a threat. You may be indignant and think other countries have no right to choose for you but the reality may be different, as the Ukrainans are finding out. Now they will have to forget about joining NATO AND will get occupied, when they could have just admitted that they can't beat Russia and agreed to not join NATO.
>Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq?
It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. :-) The Coalition invaded Iraq.
It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. :-) The Coalition invaded Iraq.
> It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had.
NATO, as such (not just NATO members operating outside of the alliance) conducted a couple different (all non-combat, training and capacity development) military missions in Iraq. IIRC one from 2004-2011ish and one starting around 2018, maybe something in between.
NATO, as such (not just NATO members operating outside of the alliance) conducted a couple different (all non-combat, training and capacity development) military missions in Iraq. IIRC one from 2004-2011ish and one starting around 2018, maybe something in between.
The reality is that swift decisive action in a coordinated fashion is the only way to stop an aggressor that suggest that everyone else needs to also lie down and shut up or they will get a thrashing too.
Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!”
Multiple entities need to act with force in non economic ways that render collective bullying impossible.
Game theory says “gang up now instead of letting your strongest get picked off first and your collective force diminished “
The old “first they came for the xyz but I wasn’t an xyz so I didn’t say anything “ story.
Or surely Ukraine will not be the last victim.
Putin has apparently and obviously thrown all caution and concern for domestic approval etc to the wind. What is his rush? He’s moving quickly. Best to act now.
Nuclear war is a multifaceted weapon, hence the ‘M’ in MAD
it’s not automatic or known what the trigger threshold is for this, and engagement has indeed occurred between nuclear powers is recent times…
Multiple entities need to act with force in non economic ways that render collective bullying impossible.
Game theory says “gang up now instead of letting your strongest get picked off first and your collective force diminished “
The old “first they came for the xyz but I wasn’t an xyz so I didn’t say anything “ story.
Or surely Ukraine will not be the last victim.
Putin has apparently and obviously thrown all caution and concern for domestic approval etc to the wind. What is his rush? He’s moving quickly. Best to act now.
Nuclear war is a multifaceted weapon, hence the ‘M’ in MAD
it’s not automatic or known what the trigger threshold is for this, and engagement has indeed occurred between nuclear powers is recent times…
> Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!”
Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow. And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT, which is a relatively benign measure, compared to an all-out war, how confident are you that they will come in your defense in case of an actual war against a nuclear power?
Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow. And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT, which is a relatively benign measure, compared to an all-out war, how confident are you that they will come in your defense in case of an actual war against a nuclear power?
> And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT
Not anymore. It takes a little bit to organize independently run republics, but once things get rolling…
Also, there was this 1994 accord called the Budapest Memorandum…
Mr P bit off more than he can chew, this time.
There will be more NATO…
Just when we thought it was all getting rather irrelevant and dated…
Nothing like a “master strategist “ to galvanize the entire world against him suddenly when he had a substantial reserve of social capital in the leadup to this…
Not anymore. It takes a little bit to organize independently run republics, but once things get rolling…
Also, there was this 1994 accord called the Budapest Memorandum…
Mr P bit off more than he can chew, this time.
There will be more NATO…
Just when we thought it was all getting rather irrelevant and dated…
Nothing like a “master strategist “ to galvanize the entire world against him suddenly when he had a substantial reserve of social capital in the leadup to this…
Also
> > Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” > Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow
Which is precisely what NATO provides
> > Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” > Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow
Which is precisely what NATO provides
The former Secretary General of NATO disagrees with you. For Sweden and Finland at least. Source in Finnish, but google translates it pretty well https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12268949 https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12268949?_x_tr_sl=fi... "Finland and Sweden meet the membership criteria and accession would be done quickly by NATO, even overnight."
Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO?
> Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO?
Georgia (of which South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part), yes, pretty explicitly. Chechnya is a different and long-running conflict (the Chechen Wars, in terms of their initiation, predate the late 1990s NATO expansion.)
Georgia still wants to join NATO.
Georgia (of which South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part), yes, pretty explicitly. Chechnya is a different and long-running conflict (the Chechen Wars, in terms of their initiation, predate the late 1990s NATO expansion.)
Georgia still wants to join NATO.
Did I say that the only reason to get invaded by the Russians is wanting to join NATO?
In 2014 I believe it was joining the EU. Or perhaps it was electing a pro west government. Or perhaps it’s simply having free and fair elections that triggers Russian aggression. Who knows.
So you're admitting Putler will use pretty much anything and everything as a pretext... And still advocating caving in to him on every pretext he can come up with?
> Maybe you should reconsider your logic? Ukraine wasn't attacked because it's a NATO member, it was attacked because (among other things) it wanted to become NATO member.
IOW, it was attacked because it wasn't yet a NATO member. You seem to interpret that as "Better never try!", whereas a far more reasonable conclusion AFAICS is "Get it done ASAP!" Of all the countries Putler has so far invaded, exactly zero have so far been NATO members. Never trying to join NATO leaves a country indefinitely belonging to the high-risk group.
If the fricking NATO had got off its butt and accepted Ukraine ASAP after the last time it applied (2008 IIRC), then Ukraine -- including Crimea! -- could have been a member well before 2014. You really think they'd be where they are now if they were a NATO member?
IOW, it was attacked because it wasn't yet a NATO member. You seem to interpret that as "Better never try!", whereas a far more reasonable conclusion AFAICS is "Get it done ASAP!" Of all the countries Putler has so far invaded, exactly zero have so far been NATO members. Never trying to join NATO leaves a country indefinitely belonging to the high-risk group.
If the fricking NATO had got off its butt and accepted Ukraine ASAP after the last time it applied (2008 IIRC), then Ukraine -- including Crimea! -- could have been a member well before 2014. You really think they'd be where they are now if they were a NATO member?
No. Ukraine was attacked because Russia wants Ukraine territory a d is not accepting its right to exists as independent nation.
The above is Russian goal with or without talk about NATO. The debate about maybe joining NATO sometimes in future might have speed up Russian plans. But Russia objection to Ukraine in NATO is basically "it would made it harder to annex them".
The above is Russian goal with or without talk about NATO. The debate about maybe joining NATO sometimes in future might have speed up Russian plans. But Russia objection to Ukraine in NATO is basically "it would made it harder to annex them".
Don't be stupid. You understand as well as anyone that there have been many good reasons not to join NATO. The other reply to my comment has a discussion about this that captures some aspects of it.
[deleted]
"We'll invade you if you join NATO" loses its power a bit when you invade people who haven't joined NATO.
Even worse, when you invade someone who tried to join NATO, was given the same warning, didn't join NATO, and then was invaded anyway.
Finland and Sweden should join now while Russia doesn't have the ability to invade (because their forces are busy in Ukraine).
Finland and Sweden should join now while Russia doesn't have the ability to invade (because their forces are busy in Ukraine).
Whether they join or not, Finland and Sweden better beef up their defenses, starting yesterday...
What are you talking about? Sweden placed patrolling troops in Gotland right when Russia increased their presence in the Baltic Sea during this buildup.
Sweden has almost fuck-all to place anywhere compared to what it had a few decades ago. It's not like the Swedish Air Force is the fourth-largest in the world any more...
I agree; I think there was this kind of default assumption (due to MAD) that wars in Northern Europe were mostly over. All these recent events have done is prove that nuclear nations will swallow up non-nuclear nations if they don't have a MAD assurance from an alley.
Finland and Sweden should decide themselves what is best, but I only wish the best for both countries and after this I cannot bring myself to believe it couldn't happen again.
The only major benefit Finland has over Ukraine is geography.
Finland and Sweden should decide themselves what is best, but I only wish the best for both countries and after this I cannot bring myself to believe it couldn't happen again.
The only major benefit Finland has over Ukraine is geography.
It's been clear for years now that nuclear weapons are required to be a sovereign nation. Without enough nukes to be a real threat, the nuclear nations will simply take over when they feel it's worth it.
Time for Finland and Sweden to do some casual joint military exercises with NATO where a pile of NATO jets get parked on runways all around those countries and some naval vessels pull into their ports. Just military people chilling and shooting the shit with other military people.
Happy to say it seems Finland started decades ago and never stopped.
Sweden I think is also not to unprepared.
Even Norway (who is a Nato member) seems to be somewhat better prepared than last time there was a dictator on the loose in Europe.
Sweden I think is also not to unprepared.
Even Norway (who is a Nato member) seems to be somewhat better prepared than last time there was a dictator on the loose in Europe.
Also relations with NATO. Even if not in NATO directly, the stronger relations are the more likely it is various NATO countries are to come to their aid.
Ukraine was denied membership by Nato, after the west encouraged Ukraine to depose the Russian backed government, they didn't 'not join'.
Part of the “justification” for invading Ukraine was that they didn't rule out joining NATO in the future, and in fact have an official policy of seeking NATO membership, which puts them farther along the process than Sweden or Finland.
OTOH, Sweden or Finland could probably join more quickly and with less friction if they decided to seek membership, and I can easily see the result of this being pushing Sweden and/or Finland into NATO rather than keeping them out.
OTOH, Sweden or Finland could probably join more quickly and with less friction if they decided to seek membership, and I can easily see the result of this being pushing Sweden and/or Finland into NATO rather than keeping them out.
I'm sure NATO could come up with some way of quickly accepting a country as something like a protected candidate, making a pledge to defend them against retaliation during the democratic process of deciding to actually join or not. There would be a strong incentive to continue joining NATO afterwards (or face the pending retaliation), but it would certainly mitigate this bullying posture.
I think in the short term, there's a couple NATO countries that have been leary of expansion that Russia doesn't like (I think Hungary particularly), but it's not clear how the situation in Ukraine (and/or, in Hungary’s case, specifically, it's upcoming election) will impact that.
Putin has been saying for the past decade that he would not tolerate further eastward expansion of NATO, a thoroughly anti-russian alliance. It is a reasonable position. No, invading independent countries is not reasonable. One can hold both these thoughts in their head.
It's not a reasonable position.
It's like me telling my next door neighbor they can't be friends with another neighbor. It's none of my business, and I'd be an asshole for demanding it.
It also places Russia in direct violation of their own agreements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
It's like me telling my next door neighbor they can't be friends with another neighbor. It's none of my business, and I'd be an asshole for demanding it.
It also places Russia in direct violation of their own agreements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
You have to also consider that it involves more than just being friends, it also involves putting airbases, missiles, and possibly nukes pointing at your house.
A) NATO has had nukes pointed at Moscow for half a century already, so that wouldn't be anything new.
B) Ukraine isn't much closer to Moscow than Lithuania is (and hugely father away from Leningrad than Estonia is), so this seems irrelevant.
What your neighbours and their friends put on their lawns is none of your business. If it's a lot of stuff usable for defending against arsehole neighbours, maybe in stead of attacking them you should think about what kind of a neighbour you are.
B) Ukraine isn't much closer to Moscow than Lithuania is (and hugely father away from Leningrad than Estonia is), so this seems irrelevant.
What your neighbours and their friends put on their lawns is none of your business. If it's a lot of stuff usable for defending against arsehole neighbours, maybe in stead of attacking them you should think about what kind of a neighbour you are.
> It is a reasonable position.
It is not. Russia does not have any say in what alliances other nations choose to join -- apart from the "last argument of kings" of course, and what's scary to me is that there are so many people like you around that seem to have this Clausewitz idea of war being "politics by other means" even in the present day.
Your comment clearly makes excuses for Russia's actions, so no, in your case you are not keeping both of these thoughts in your head.
Would you be so quick to defend the United States in the same manner if they had expressed concerns about Mexico's foreign policies for the past ten years? Or an invasion of an alternate-reality Cuba with a democratically elected government tomorrow?
It is not. Russia does not have any say in what alliances other nations choose to join -- apart from the "last argument of kings" of course, and what's scary to me is that there are so many people like you around that seem to have this Clausewitz idea of war being "politics by other means" even in the present day.
Your comment clearly makes excuses for Russia's actions, so no, in your case you are not keeping both of these thoughts in your head.
Would you be so quick to defend the United States in the same manner if they had expressed concerns about Mexico's foreign policies for the past ten years? Or an invasion of an alternate-reality Cuba with a democratically elected government tomorrow?
Yeah but the fact that he invaded an independent country makes all of his other claims baseless. NATO didn't expand to Ukraine, he invaded anyways, so there is no point in appeasing him.
tpoacher(2)
For those wondering why Sweden is included in this threat despite not sharing a border with Russia, Finland and Sweden are like best friends and have been approaching anything regarding NATO and Russia as a unit together. Sweden joining NATO pretty much automatically means Finland also intends to join NATO.
Anyway, this threat loses a lot of teeth when the reason Ukraine is getting destroyed at the moment is because they are not in NATO.
Anyway, this threat loses a lot of teeth when the reason Ukraine is getting destroyed at the moment is because they are not in NATO.
> Anyway, this threat loses a lot of teeth when the reason Ukraine is getting destroyed at the moment is because they are not in NATO.
It is because they are not in NATO and also did not explicitly abandon the aspiration of joining. The threat is intended to get Finland and Sweden to explicitly disclaim any intent of joining NATO (and maybe make binding commitments), not just to get them to not apply.
OTOH, as you note, it also underscores the benefit of getting into NATO and under the umbrella while Russia’s military is committed to Ukraine.
It is because they are not in NATO and also did not explicitly abandon the aspiration of joining. The threat is intended to get Finland and Sweden to explicitly disclaim any intent of joining NATO (and maybe make binding commitments), not just to get them to not apply.
OTOH, as you note, it also underscores the benefit of getting into NATO and under the umbrella while Russia’s military is committed to Ukraine.
Honest question, do you really believe that Russias attack was based on the NATO aspirations, or is that just an excuse? I don’t take what Putin says at face value.
> Honest question, do you really believe that Russias attack was based on the NATO aspirations, or is that just an excuse?
Yes, and no. I think that acceding to Russia’s demands here could have forestalled an invasion for the time being, but would have led to increasing Russian demands to direct policy, backed by threat of force, with even less available outside assistance. Ultimately either invasion or becoming a Russian puppet state would be the end, unless something else altered Russia’s course.
The long game is empire, but close NATO association is an urgent obstacle to the long game.
Yes, and no. I think that acceding to Russia’s demands here could have forestalled an invasion for the time being, but would have led to increasing Russian demands to direct policy, backed by threat of force, with even less available outside assistance. Ultimately either invasion or becoming a Russian puppet state would be the end, unless something else altered Russia’s course.
The long game is empire, but close NATO association is an urgent obstacle to the long game.
Tbh it's tough to tell. There's a long history of Putin complaining about NATO expansion, and even before he came to power there were concerns about it.
When Georgia was about to join NATO, Putin seized it. Seems like they are trying the same now.
It's tough for me to empathise with this pathological fear of NATO Putin seems to have.
When Georgia was about to join NATO, Putin seized it. Seems like they are trying the same now.
It's tough for me to empathise with this pathological fear of NATO Putin seems to have.
> When Georgia was about to join NATO, Putin seized it.
Russia occupied some parts of Georgia, similar to Ukraine prior to the current general invasion; Georgia remains a NATO partner and aspirant to membership, it hasn't yet been seized by Putin the way he is currently attempting in Ukraine.
Russia occupied some parts of Georgia, similar to Ukraine prior to the current general invasion; Georgia remains a NATO partner and aspirant to membership, it hasn't yet been seized by Putin the way he is currently attempting in Ukraine.
As I wrote in another thread today, current EU and US leaders are asleep at the wheel. We have a different dynamic. Talking about sanctions looks almost pathetic.
The analogy here is, you live in a community and one of your neighbors just lost it completely and is shooting and shelling another neighbor. Not to raise the hostilities...you scream at him he wont be invited anymore for the Christmas party and you will complain about the noise to the gated community administration /s
The analogy here is, you live in a community and one of your neighbors just lost it completely and is shooting and shelling another neighbor. Not to raise the hostilities...you scream at him he wont be invited anymore for the Christmas party and you will complain about the noise to the gated community administration /s
This is a very delicate situation that can't be resolved by just sending troops and fighting. Neither the US nor Europe wants to have another world war. Definitely not now nuclear weapons are much more powerful.
Then we should not have been encouraging Ukraine the way we have if we knew we didn't have their back. It really was not fair of us (the USA).
Ukraine had all of the information as well. They were told they wouldn't be defended by NATO, and they were told that they would be attacked by Russia if they didn't renounce their NATO aspirations.
It was all a big game of chicken to see if Russia was bluffing
It was all a big game of chicken to see if Russia was bluffing
[deleted]
I'm pretty sure that we're in World War III. We're just trying to pretend that we're not.
We're at least at the buildup to it.
We're at least at the buildup to it.
This is not a world war. The fighting is specific to a single area.
The Vietnam War involved at least double the number of involved countries and wasn’t considered a world war.
The Vietnam War involved at least double the number of involved countries and wasn’t considered a world war.
World War II also started with fighting in a specific single are, until suddenly it wasn't in a single area anymore...
But what about the denominator. All the wars that started in single areas and ended in them too.
Crimea was the Sudetenland; Ukraine is Poland.
> This is not a world war. The fighting is specific to a single area.
That was true of WWII, until it wasn't.
That was true of WWII, until it wasn't.
And it's not true of this war until it is.
Germany invaded Poland on 29 Aug 1939, and France and Great Britain declared war on Germany on 3 Sep 1939.
If a major power declares war on Russia on Monday, we're in World War III.
If a major power declares war on Russia on Monday, we're in World War III.
The parallels with ww2 are far too easy to draw - the annexation, the failed appeasement attempt, the invasion.
The German invasion of Poland tends to be counted as the "start" of ww2, but the militarisation of the Rhineland, annexation of Austria, and invasion of Czechoslovakia all came first on that front. The global reach was due to European colonies abroad (especially in Africa).
The Japanese invasion of China also predated the start of war in Europe, but the Pacific war doesn't count as starting until the attacks on Hawaii, Philipeenes, Malaya/Singapore, Hong Kong etc in 1941.
Perhaps the next move is Sweden+Finland joining Nato (because clearly not being part of Nato is risky). Either way, perhaps then Russia invades the Baltics (or maybe "Belarus" does for deniability?), triggering wars all along the border. Throw in China using the opportunity to attack Taiwan while America is busy elsewhere, North Korea rolling into South Korea, and various local civil wars (probably instigated by China) in South America to distract the US further, then throw a wildcard like Syria taking a pop at Israel, and it rapidly escalates into a World War.
Historians (if any survive) may lump Crimea, Ukraine, and even places like Georgia, as the "pre-war" battles, it's arguable when local wars get enough to be deemed to be a "World War".
The German invasion of Poland tends to be counted as the "start" of ww2, but the militarisation of the Rhineland, annexation of Austria, and invasion of Czechoslovakia all came first on that front. The global reach was due to European colonies abroad (especially in Africa).
The Japanese invasion of China also predated the start of war in Europe, but the Pacific war doesn't count as starting until the attacks on Hawaii, Philipeenes, Malaya/Singapore, Hong Kong etc in 1941.
Perhaps the next move is Sweden+Finland joining Nato (because clearly not being part of Nato is risky). Either way, perhaps then Russia invades the Baltics (or maybe "Belarus" does for deniability?), triggering wars all along the border. Throw in China using the opportunity to attack Taiwan while America is busy elsewhere, North Korea rolling into South Korea, and various local civil wars (probably instigated by China) in South America to distract the US further, then throw a wildcard like Syria taking a pop at Israel, and it rapidly escalates into a World War.
Historians (if any survive) may lump Crimea, Ukraine, and even places like Georgia, as the "pre-war" battles, it's arguable when local wars get enough to be deemed to be a "World War".
NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg press briefing of today:
From correct time: https://youtu.be/JvxqTGrZxwQ?t=64
Partial quote as of time above:
"...The Kremlin objectives are not limited to Ukraine. Russia has demanded legal binding agreements to renounce further NATO enlargement. And remove troops and infrastructure from allies that joined after 1997..."
From correct time: https://youtu.be/JvxqTGrZxwQ?t=64
Partial quote as of time above:
"...The Kremlin objectives are not limited to Ukraine. Russia has demanded legal binding agreements to renounce further NATO enlargement. And remove troops and infrastructure from allies that joined after 1997..."
Seven hundred billion dollars a year and we can't even defend the weak unless it looks profitable on the balance sheet. Never have I been more ashamed to be American than I was yesterday.
This obviously has nothing to do with finances and everything to do with the fact that no one wants soldiers of two nuclear powers shooting guns at each other. This is the actual logic of nuclear weapons, and there is no going back to the world as it was before they existed.
It wouldn't be the first time two nuclear powers fought in a country bordering one of them. Chinese and American soldiers fought in Vietnam.
India and Pakistan both have also fought wars with each other after getting nukes.
Sadly, getting nukes seems to be the way out of costs of doing anything bad. Pakistan has waged guerilla warfare against its neighbours and got money from US while harboring their enemy, but can't do anything about it, because nukes.
Sadly, getting nukes seems to be the way out of costs of doing anything bad. Pakistan has waged guerilla warfare against its neighbours and got money from US while harboring their enemy, but can't do anything about it, because nukes.
Russian and American military personnel (mainly, pilots in air-to-air combat) fought in North Korea, too.
There definitely isn't any going back. But anyone who thinks the Cold War was somehow the "end of history", meaning that WW3 will never happen because it _couldn't_ happen, is clearly engaging in non-systematic thinking.
If the rule is "nuclear powers must never fight", then the _only_ possible endgame is one nuclear power threatening all the others until they give up their nuclear weapons. Given that the US has never pursued this strategy, it seems fair to guess they won't in the future.
It seems increasingly likely that Putin believes that no one will ever stand up to him. And even if the West doesn't, it's going to end very badly for Russia when China is the only major world power left to oppose him.
If the rule is "nuclear powers must never fight", then the _only_ possible endgame is one nuclear power threatening all the others until they give up their nuclear weapons. Given that the US has never pursued this strategy, it seems fair to guess they won't in the future.
It seems increasingly likely that Putin believes that no one will ever stand up to him. And even if the West doesn't, it's going to end very badly for Russia when China is the only major world power left to oppose him.
The weak that we encouraged to poke the bear and whom we promised to protect when we took away their biggest deternat (nukes). Here's current Presidential Press Secretary Jenn Psaki in 2014 defending a leaked State Department phone call deciding what people should have power in Ukraine https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a...
No matter your stand on if we should defend them, as American's we should feel ashamed of our encouraging Ukraine into this position without having their backs. If we didn't want to get involved we shouldn't have, you know, gotten involved.
There's not enough troops to prevent all the atrocities in the world. Morality ain't got 'nothin to do with it. Nevermind that more war means more suffering for everyone involved. The answer is way more complicated, and anyone on the internet that claims to know what to do is full of shit.
Preventing a direct America vs. Russia conflict is worth much more than $700B
Unless you're a d fence contractor.
Well the point of that budget isn’t to defend the weak.
In this case though it is the right choice to make regardless since a Nato country can’t attack Russian forces without risking nuclear war.
In this case though it is the right choice to make regardless since a Nato country can’t attack Russian forces without risking nuclear war.
No one in NATO has been invaded, so… isn’t that pretty much the desired outcome for our military?
It’s a damn shame what’s happening in Ukraine and I am certainly donating to relief efforts and rooting them on and feeling heartbroken watching the men go off to war but the idea we should put boots on the ground against Russia when our doctrine is still MAD seems nuts to me.
It’s a damn shame what’s happening in Ukraine and I am certainly donating to relief efforts and rooting them on and feeling heartbroken watching the men go off to war but the idea we should put boots on the ground against Russia when our doctrine is still MAD seems nuts to me.
The USA is helping a lot, much more than Germany. Sending soldiers is not an option for obvious reasons - but everything else is.
I don't think money is the primary reason the US is holding off. Perhaps it's the population of the US not yet demanding intervention, maybe it's the idea that Russians and Americans openly shooting at each other means an actual continental war in Europe with nuclear powers.
Nord Stream 2 being cancelled sounded far fetched. Until suddenly it wasn’t. Sanctioning too Ru heads of state was also unexpected but happened today. Banning Russia from SWIFT was called a “nuclear option” and seemed impossible due to Italy and Germany being against it. That was this morning and this evening it’s already decided.
There was talk about the Refugee crisis once again showing division and lack of solidarity in the EU. Instead states have opened their borders completely.
If anything, the EU leadership I think looks like it’s showing a very uncharacteristic decisiveness and speed.
There was talk about the Refugee crisis once again showing division and lack of solidarity in the EU. Instead states have opened their borders completely.
If anything, the EU leadership I think looks like it’s showing a very uncharacteristic decisiveness and speed.
> asleep at the wheel
It's worse than that. Some of them are pro-Russia simply because of their knee jerk reaction to be for whatever the president is against.
It's worse than that. Some of them are pro-Russia simply because of their knee jerk reaction to be for whatever the president is against.
> ... current EU and US leaders are asleep at the wheel. We have a different dynamic. Talking about sanctions looks almost pathetic.
Yes, but NATO clearly stating that they wouldn't intervene in Ukraine probably made events more predictable. Reducing the risk of escalation, and miscalculation.
Leaving Ukraine to fight on its own wasn't nice. But it's probably best NATO doesn't bluff too much.
Sanctions is probably not a solution, but it's a signal -- well, really it's the only thing that can be done.
Yes, but NATO clearly stating that they wouldn't intervene in Ukraine probably made events more predictable. Reducing the risk of escalation, and miscalculation.
Leaving Ukraine to fight on its own wasn't nice. But it's probably best NATO doesn't bluff too much.
Sanctions is probably not a solution, but it's a signal -- well, really it's the only thing that can be done.
If I were completely cynical and amoral I'd use Ukraine as a quagmire trap. Take direct intervention off the table, beef up the defences enough to cause a problem, and wait for the Russians to take the bait.
Then when Russia is trapped in a continuing guerilla war which is generating huge economic consequences and negative PR at home and abroad, wait for the regime change in Russia to happen spontaneously.
It's a risky strategy given nukes, but not entirely unimaginable as realpolitik.
Then when Russia is trapped in a continuing guerilla war which is generating huge economic consequences and negative PR at home and abroad, wait for the regime change in Russia to happen spontaneously.
It's a risky strategy given nukes, but not entirely unimaginable as realpolitik.
I think a big problem, at least for Europe, is that we played directly into Russia's hands. If they cut off the gas, we are are screwed big time.
Blocking Russia's access to SWIFT would pretty much cut off that gas supply.
Blocking Russia's access to SWIFT would pretty much cut off that gas supply.
Yes, this is a very abrupt awakening from the general idea that Corona was handled well and thinking we can do everything.
Here is Putin with the might of Russia at his disposal, a very different challenge altogether.
As you, i fear that the leaders are not geared towards this kind of conflict at all.
I would consider calling Putins bluff by accepting Finland and Sweden as NATO members. But only if the two countries agrees.
If indeed there is interest, NATO should admit the two in a day or two.
Here is Putin with the might of Russia at his disposal, a very different challenge altogether.
As you, i fear that the leaders are not geared towards this kind of conflict at all.
I would consider calling Putins bluff by accepting Finland and Sweden as NATO members. But only if the two countries agrees.
If indeed there is interest, NATO should admit the two in a day or two.
What does this have to do with Corona, exactly?
Nothing per se, except the fact that Corona was an unknown virus that challenged leaders in the EU and US.
And now there is a new challenge of a very different kind, one that won't go away as easily.
That challenge is what we fear that the leaders are unable to find a good response to.
And now there is a new challenge of a very different kind, one that won't go away as easily.
That challenge is what we fear that the leaders are unable to find a good response to.
Who thinks Corona was handled well? Compare how Europe handled it to China or even Australia or New Zealand.
> I would consider calling Putins bluff by accepting Finland and Sweden as NATO members. But only if the two countries agrees.
Yeah, NATO can't involuntarily admit members anyway.
> If indeed there is interest, NATO should admit the two in a day or two.
NATO membership is an active issue in both, but not something on which a political decision has been made.
Yeah, NATO can't involuntarily admit members anyway.
> If indeed there is interest, NATO should admit the two in a day or two.
NATO membership is an active issue in both, but not something on which a political decision has been made.
Well, I thought that Putin was bluffing and wouldn’t even officially send troops into Donbas.
It's like Russia was expecting to be able to conduct the largest aggressive conventional military operation in Europe since WW2 and not completely flip the apple cart of the global order.
The Russian goal _is_ to flip the apple cart of the global order. The global order, as Russia perceives it, sucks for Russia, and they’ve been pretty loud on that point for a long time.
In terms of troops and materiel deployed in the first few days, how does this compare to (either) Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea?
From some cursory googling:
Afghanistan peak US troops: 102,000 (2011)
Gulf war peak US troops: 700,000 (1990-1991)
Iraq peak US troops: range from 168,000 - 192,000 (2007)
Vietnam peak US troops: 543,000 (1969)
Korea peak US troops: 320,000, unclear what year
edit: obviously, Russia's involvement in Ukraine over the last few days would be by far the biggest operation in Europe since WW2. Just not globally (by a long shot).
Afghanistan peak US troops: 102,000 (2011)
Gulf war peak US troops: 700,000 (1990-1991)
Iraq peak US troops: range from 168,000 - 192,000 (2007)
Vietnam peak US troops: 543,000 (1969)
Korea peak US troops: 320,000, unclear what year
edit: obviously, Russia's involvement in Ukraine over the last few days would be by far the biggest operation in Europe since WW2. Just not globally (by a long shot).
Thanks, useful to compare, Putin has a similar amount of troops as Iraq II then, although with shorter supply lines. Given how difficult the US had it in occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the damage it did the country, this could well end Russia, at least for another 30 years.
I was too young to really get the scale of the first gulf war. Just transporting 700,000 troops seems astounding, let alone keeping them equipped in enemy territory.
I was too young to really get the scale of the first gulf war. Just transporting 700,000 troops seems astounding, let alone keeping them equipped in enemy territory.
at it's peak both the USA and USSR committed approximately 100,000 military personnel to their respective occupations of Afghanistan. From reading a book about Vietnam/American war, at the peak the USA committed 500,000 military personnel to occupy South Vietnam, along with various other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/...
presumably they've committed that or more than that to this operation since the navies are involved and it's easier logistically to get to
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infographic-uk...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/...
presumably they've committed that or more than that to this operation since the navies are involved and it's easier logistically to get to
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infographic-uk...
*largest in Europe (I am going to guess that was the intention)
But I agree with your skepticism, the world has unfortunately seen plenty of larger wars, mainly we've just had a short peaceful spell lately, and it's an unpleasant shock to stumble into another.
But I agree with your skepticism, the world has unfortunately seen plenty of larger wars, mainly we've just had a short peaceful spell lately, and it's an unpleasant shock to stumble into another.
It doesn't, because none of them are in Europe, as the comment you replied to specified.
It wasn't when he commented, I added it in after to clarify.
Putin thought he could have Russian troops enter Kyiv without resistance, quickly overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian president and government, put some of his sock puppets in place, then wait some time for things to settle to normal, and withdraw letting Ukraine slowly transition itself back to a de facto Russian colony.
But Ukrainians are fighting back, and although they're no match for the Russian army, the risk of a blood bath of both Ukrainian and Russian people pose some dangers for his already not stellar public acceptance. Let's not forget that many Russians have relatives and friends among Ukrainian people; a lot of them don't want this war; that's why he is sending peace messages: if shit hits the fan then he'll say "it's the Ukrainians who didn't accept it, not me". For the first time he appeared in trouble.
If Ukrainians heroic resistance lasts enough time, the consequences could very likely undermine Putin's position. I don't have many hopes sanctions alone will obtain serious results; they're crafted to be just above a minor nuisance not to encourage Russia to either close or overcharge their supply of natural gas, which Europe totally depends on.
And of course any military response is pure fiction: Russia has nukes, and that's it.
This is all part of the plan. If you run around lighting a dozen tiny fires around the house, even the best firefighting efforts might miss one of them before it becomes an inferno. Russian strategy, time and time again, has been to sow chaos. They don't have the might, economy, or means to expand beyond their own sandbox, so they get by throwing sand at passersby. It's death by a thousand paper cuts; worldwide guerilla warfare in the economy, societal, and minds of their enemies.
TLDR; they're fucking with our collective heads.
TLDR; they're fucking with our collective heads.
It's starting to look like Putin may have miscalculated here.
Really? He is fighting to have veto over who gets to join NATO. It will be a victory for him if he is able to freeze NATO membership to the current number.
Russian economy maybe be ruined for next decade or longer and most likely Putin will be dead or retired by then but he would be looked in Russia as the guy who keep Russia relevant.
Putin is embarrassing US and NATO by destroying Ukraine while they watch helplessly. I have utmost sympathy for Ukraine but where were the angry people when US attacked Iraq?
Russian economy maybe be ruined for next decade or longer and most likely Putin will be dead or retired by then but he would be looked in Russia as the guy who keep Russia relevant.
Putin is embarrassing US and NATO by destroying Ukraine while they watch helplessly. I have utmost sympathy for Ukraine but where were the angry people when US attacked Iraq?
> I have utmost sympathy for Ukraine but where were the angry people when US attacked Iraq?
"On February 15, millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history". There is a whole page on all the protest for that particular topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
"On February 15, millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history". There is a whole page on all the protest for that particular topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
> I have utmost sympathy for Ukraine but where were the angry people when US attacked Iraq?
In many cases, calling for George W. Bush and much of the military and diplomatic leadership of the US to be punished for the crime of aggression (initially) and war crimes (based on the conduct of the illegal-from-the-start war).
In many cases, calling for George W. Bush and much of the military and diplomatic leadership of the US to be punished for the crime of aggression (initially) and war crimes (based on the conduct of the illegal-from-the-start war).
Should really be extended to much further. To soldiers, to financial supporters of those and their parties, to voters. All complicit and hands covered in blood.
> I have utmost sympathy for Ukraine but where were the angry people when US attacked Iraq?
There were massive protests. I was at one in San Francisco.
There were massive protests. I was at one in San Francisco.
There were protests by over a million people in the UK when coalition forces invaded Iraq.
To address your other point, victory for Putin here is swift regime change in Ukraine, nothing else will serve.
He may have overreached and if he has he will bleed Russia dry within months and be overthrown. Let’s hope so as he is a despicable person and a tyrannical curse on his country.
To address your other point, victory for Putin here is swift regime change in Ukraine, nothing else will serve.
He may have overreached and if he has he will bleed Russia dry within months and be overthrown. Let’s hope so as he is a despicable person and a tyrannical curse on his country.
You replied to a report about two more Northern European countries joining NATO who seem to have been against it before by saying Putin is freezing NATO membership where it is?
It seems like things are going completely opposite of the way you describe them.
It seems like things are going completely opposite of the way you describe them.
He will be the guy that turned Russia into a complete pariah.
At some point other Russians in power will realize that Putin is the cause of their troubles, that's one of the better roads to an acceptable outcome here.
At some point other Russians in power will realize that Putin is the cause of their troubles, that's one of the better roads to an acceptable outcome here.
Yeah, I bet they didn't count on losing the Champions League final. That's about the worst of impact so far.
Germany froze the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project. Russia has a ton of reserves, but this will hobble them economically once the reserves are drawn down. The UK and US are debating seizing property belonging to Putin's circle of supporters, which could be very precarious for him domestically. Protests are breaking out in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and videos are turning up of captured Russian soldiers saying they didn't want to be part of the invasion. Things aren't going swimmingly for Putin.
> captured Russian soldiers saying they didn't want to be part of the invasion
I am following the conflict very closely (due to having many friends and relatives on both sides). While there are some videos with what looks like Russian soldiers (some of whom look no older than 18-19, so they're definitely conscripts), I wouldn't say there have been very many of them, and what would you say in a similar situation? "Yes, I was happy to come along to free your country from the 'nazis'", and risk to be taken around the building and shot as you "attempted to escape"?
To be clear, I am 100% behind Ukraine.
I am following the conflict very closely (due to having many friends and relatives on both sides). While there are some videos with what looks like Russian soldiers (some of whom look no older than 18-19, so they're definitely conscripts), I wouldn't say there have been very many of them, and what would you say in a similar situation? "Yes, I was happy to come along to free your country from the 'nazis'", and risk to be taken around the building and shot as you "attempted to escape"?
To be clear, I am 100% behind Ukraine.
> I wouldn't say there have been very many of them, and what would you say in a similar situation?
I don't think it takes many to cause domestic issues. Generally captured American soldiers, who aren't conscripts, hold the line. There are noteworthy exceptions like John Walker Lindh which caused a lot of controversy domestically. It's worth noting that seeing lots of dead conscript soldiers coming home in coffins helped bring an end to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and there's a serious quagmire risk here for Russia.
> To be clear, I am 100% behind Ukraine.
Same.
I don't think it takes many to cause domestic issues. Generally captured American soldiers, who aren't conscripts, hold the line. There are noteworthy exceptions like John Walker Lindh which caused a lot of controversy domestically. It's worth noting that seeing lots of dead conscript soldiers coming home in coffins helped bring an end to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and there's a serious quagmire risk here for Russia.
> To be clear, I am 100% behind Ukraine.
Same.
> I don't think it takes many to cause domestic issues.
If their families and friends get to see them, and if they're actually genuine. As for the first, it's doubtful, given the Russian state media censorship; as for the second, the Russians are of course going to claim that they're all fake, Ukrainian stooges pretending to be Russian soldiers.
And, unfortunately, maybe they -- or at least some of them -- are. Wouldn't you be tempted to try that, if you were forced to fight your war largely on social and mass media, like the Ukrainians are? I think I would. (What speaks against it is the risk of it backfiring, if it's found out. So maybe I wouldn't try it; I don't know.)
If their families and friends get to see them, and if they're actually genuine. As for the first, it's doubtful, given the Russian state media censorship; as for the second, the Russians are of course going to claim that they're all fake, Ukrainian stooges pretending to be Russian soldiers.
And, unfortunately, maybe they -- or at least some of them -- are. Wouldn't you be tempted to try that, if you were forced to fight your war largely on social and mass media, like the Ukrainians are? I think I would. (What speaks against it is the risk of it backfiring, if it's found out. So maybe I wouldn't try it; I don't know.)
Freezing Nord Steam 2 was an obvious consequence. It must have been priced in to what ever calculation Putin is making. It wasn't in operation yet so it's not clear to me that it has any significant financial impact.
Similarly, assets belonging to Putin and his supporters will have been well hidden before this kicked off.
I agree though, the one positive light is the protests and people putting their lives on the line to come out against the invasion.
Similarly, assets belonging to Putin and his supporters will have been well hidden before this kicked off.
I agree though, the one positive light is the protests and people putting their lives on the line to come out against the invasion.
> Freezing Nord Steam 2 was an obvious consequence. It must have been priced in to what ever calculation Putin is making. It wasn't in operation yet so it's not clear to me that it has any significant financial impact.
What would have shown some balls would have been turning off Nord Steam 1. Germans do own woolly sweaters to wear if it's cold in their homes, and Germany does have forests to use for firewood for at least one winter.
What would have shown some balls would have been turning off Nord Steam 1. Germans do own woolly sweaters to wear if it's cold in their homes, and Germany does have forests to use for firewood for at least one winter.
Likely bigger military losses than expected. Likely bigger sanctions coming than expected. China is not staying out of it completely. I'm optimistic for Ukraine delivering a military defeat to Russia, even if it will cost a lot of blood and tears
At this point is there anything substantive any country could do at all that wouldn't irritate Russia? It seems as if the powers that be have become so utterly delicate that even something as innocuous as Sweden joining NATO is deemed to be advancing far beyond the "proper" limits.
Abusive partners are rarely satisfied, and giving in to their demands rarely appeases for long. The same is true in international politics.
If NATO's response isn't "we do what we want, fuck off" they've lost the next war already.
If NATO's response isn't "we do what we want, fuck off" they've lost the next war already.
> the powers that be
I think the powers that be are the ones who are resisting intervening or even bearing their teeth ~ because in reality, they'd rather just go back to trading with or at least ignoring Russia.
So much so that they'd far sooner appear indecisive and capricious, avoid direct involvement, and have scope to return to the status quo (regardless of the blood being spilled) as quickly as possible, never mind what happens to Ukraine.
I think the powers that be are the ones who are resisting intervening or even bearing their teeth ~ because in reality, they'd rather just go back to trading with or at least ignoring Russia.
So much so that they'd far sooner appear indecisive and capricious, avoid direct involvement, and have scope to return to the status quo (regardless of the blood being spilled) as quickly as possible, never mind what happens to Ukraine.
Consider Sweden's geography along coast of the Baltic Sea ; joining NATO would basically close this path to the Atlantic Ocean for the Russian Navy.
Well, at least if enough missiles and/or fighter jets are placed on its soil by NATO countries to effectively close the Baltic Sea in case of war.
Well, at least if enough missiles and/or fighter jets are placed on its soil by NATO countries to effectively close the Baltic Sea in case of war.
> Consider Sweden's geography along coast of the Baltic Sea ; joining NATO would basically close this path to the Atlantic Ocean for the Russian Navy.
Given how narrow Öresund is, I'm fairly sure conventional artillery (not to mention missiles...) could cover the entire strait from the coast of NATO member Denmark. I doubt Sweden would protest too loudly about this incursion on her territorial waters, if she lets the Russian navy do the same first... And even if she does, so what?
Given how narrow Öresund is, I'm fairly sure conventional artillery (not to mention missiles...) could cover the entire strait from the coast of NATO member Denmark. I doubt Sweden would protest too loudly about this incursion on her territorial waters, if she lets the Russian navy do the same first... And even if she does, so what?
I don't understand why Russia, or anyone else, thinks that Ukraine was anywhere near joining NATO. Ukraine had bits of it that were occupied by Russia, specifically Crimea. There was no way Ukraine would have been allowed to join under such circumstances because such occupations would have immediately triggered Article 5. Letting Ukraine into NATO would be tantamount to declaring war on Russia. It was never a real option.
What Russia feared was some sort of non-NATO but friendly partnership deal that might see NATO weapons in Ukraine. Actual membership wasn't the issue.
What Russia feared was some sort of non-NATO but friendly partnership deal that might see NATO weapons in Ukraine. Actual membership wasn't the issue.
Spot on, Ukraine wouldn't have joined NATO until their border disputes was resolved. So probably not anytime the next 20-30 years.
Demands by Russia were disingenuous, because they would never have been honored. And I doubt honoring them wouldn't have stopped anything.
Demands by Russia were disingenuous, because they would never have been honored. And I doubt honoring them wouldn't have stopped anything.
> I don't understand why Russia, or anyone else, thinks that Ukraine was anywhere near joining NATO.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that Russia thought that Ukraine was anywhere near joining NATO.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that Russia thought that Ukraine was anywhere near joining NATO.
> I don't understand why Russia, or anyone else, thinks that Ukraine was anywhere near joining NATO
IMO, because this is how all of Putin's propaganda has framed it. NATO is some big bully ("Nazi") that keeps "aggressing" by letting sovereign countries liberalize and freely associate with the West. The shameless destruction of Ukraine is right in line with the authoritarian autocrats's imperative - turn the place into a burnt out shithole so it can be better ruled over, and so that reactionary survival values become relevant again.
The fate of Ukraine is (regrettably) solely in the hands of the Ukrainians at this point, but Russia's crass action is also an attack on the ethos of our Western society - cooperation, openness, democracy, and the rule of law - however flawed they end up being. I would say that Putin's chest thumping at other countries is just intended to make the western world feel relieved when only Ukraine gets conquered, but I feel that's coming from the same optimistic-rational place as the idea that there wasn't going to be a full scale invasion in the first place.
IMO, because this is how all of Putin's propaganda has framed it. NATO is some big bully ("Nazi") that keeps "aggressing" by letting sovereign countries liberalize and freely associate with the West. The shameless destruction of Ukraine is right in line with the authoritarian autocrats's imperative - turn the place into a burnt out shithole so it can be better ruled over, and so that reactionary survival values become relevant again.
The fate of Ukraine is (regrettably) solely in the hands of the Ukrainians at this point, but Russia's crass action is also an attack on the ethos of our Western society - cooperation, openness, democracy, and the rule of law - however flawed they end up being. I would say that Putin's chest thumping at other countries is just intended to make the western world feel relieved when only Ukraine gets conquered, but I feel that's coming from the same optimistic-rational place as the idea that there wasn't going to be a full scale invasion in the first place.
> I would say that Putin's chest thumping at other countries is just intended to make the western world feel relieved when only Ukraine gets conquered, but I feel that's coming from the same optimistic-rational place as the idea that there wasn't going to be a full scale invasion in the first place.
Yes and no: It's true for now, but it will turn out to have been optimistic when he takes the next one[1].
Wonder how long the West is going to go on falling for it? Until he dies of natural causes, at far too high an age[2], or well beyond -- when an equally Stalinesque / Hitleresque successor is firmly ensconced and keeps on doing it?
___
[1]: And the next, and the next, and...
[2]: That is, anything above about fifty.
Yes and no: It's true for now, but it will turn out to have been optimistic when he takes the next one[1].
Wonder how long the West is going to go on falling for it? Until he dies of natural causes, at far too high an age[2], or well beyond -- when an equally Stalinesque / Hitleresque successor is firmly ensconced and keeps on doing it?
___
[1]: And the next, and the next, and...
[2]: That is, anything above about fifty.
Putin is lying when he proffers reasons and rationalizations for the evil and illegal acts of his government.
Because if you watched Putin speech, he said Ukraine is not a different country from Russia.
Ukraine added that they will join NATO to their constitution, and in the past months NATO started to ramp up the amount of NATO weaponry in or near Ukraine.
Russia reaction is basically the reaction of anyone cornered, something Sun Tzu warned about, if someone is cornered they will fight back hard because they can't retreat, they can only go forward, through whoever is cornering them.
Russia reaction is basically the reaction of anyone cornered, something Sun Tzu warned about, if someone is cornered they will fight back hard because they can't retreat, they can only go forward, through whoever is cornering them.
> Ukraine added that they will join NATO to their constitution, and in the past months NATO started to ramp up the amount of NATO weaponry in or near Ukraine.
Ukraine has been bulking up their army with help from various, especially NATO, countries since Russian invaded, conquered, and purportedly annexed a big part of their country in 2014 (and assisted with the occupation by anti-government forces of other parts) and they didn't have the capacity for meaningful, much less successful, resistance.
The Ukrainian military buildup was a situation of Russia’s own making.
Ukraine has been bulking up their army with help from various, especially NATO, countries since Russian invaded, conquered, and purportedly annexed a big part of their country in 2014 (and assisted with the occupation by anti-government forces of other parts) and they didn't have the capacity for meaningful, much less successful, resistance.
The Ukrainian military buildup was a situation of Russia’s own making.
This is really out of touch with reality. Russia has been provoking military incidents almost every day for years.
From memory, in total, western airforces had to block Russian fighters entering their sovereign territory 240 times in 2021. French fighters were sent several times to stop Russian fighters in the English Channel, e.g. 2000 km from their base.
Then you can add Russia submarines nosing around, spy vessels desguised as fishing vessels going close to points of military interests (for example, when one of the 6 French nuclear submarines dive from its base nearby Brest on the Atlantic Ocean, tens of French fishing vessels are invited to circle around to mask the submarine noise. Every time, there are Russian fish vessels popping up that very day.
In the last decade, Russia has been testing our detection capacities, speed of reaction, going as far as receiving summation fires from Western fighters.
Russia has been in an aggressive attitude for at leat the past decade. That must stop.
I think Sweden should join NATO. Finland is a more complicated case, since they already have a specific agreement with Russia and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo.
From memory, in total, western airforces had to block Russian fighters entering their sovereign territory 240 times in 2021. French fighters were sent several times to stop Russian fighters in the English Channel, e.g. 2000 km from their base.
Then you can add Russia submarines nosing around, spy vessels desguised as fishing vessels going close to points of military interests (for example, when one of the 6 French nuclear submarines dive from its base nearby Brest on the Atlantic Ocean, tens of French fishing vessels are invited to circle around to mask the submarine noise. Every time, there are Russian fish vessels popping up that very day.
In the last decade, Russia has been testing our detection capacities, speed of reaction, going as far as receiving summation fires from Western fighters.
Russia has been in an aggressive attitude for at leat the past decade. That must stop.
I think Sweden should join NATO. Finland is a more complicated case, since they already have a specific agreement with Russia and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo.
> Finland is a more complicated case, since they already have a specific agreement with Russia
What, do you mean the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948[1]? That ended in 1992, and "[w]hen in January 1992 the new Treaty of Friendship was complemented by the exchange of notes terminating the 1948 treaty, the last remnant of restrictions on an independent Finnish foreign policy were formally removed."[2]
> and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo.
I doubt it.[3] The Finns have been vulnerable to Russia before, and know how to hold a grudge. A majority[4] is for membership now.
On Friday the fifth of March (I think it was), the Eduskunta -- the Finnish Parliament -- debated NATO membership. And not one, but two Citizens' Initiatives that have each gathered enough signatures to make (further?) parliamentary discussion mandatory.
___
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20181125193537/https://www.forei...
[3]: Source: Personal experience; lived here for 27 years now.
[4]: https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202
What, do you mean the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948[1]? That ended in 1992, and "[w]hen in January 1992 the new Treaty of Friendship was complemented by the exchange of notes terminating the 1948 treaty, the last remnant of restrictions on an independent Finnish foreign policy were formally removed."[2]
> and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo.
I doubt it.[3] The Finns have been vulnerable to Russia before, and know how to hold a grudge. A majority[4] is for membership now.
On Friday the fifth of March (I think it was), the Eduskunta -- the Finnish Parliament -- debated NATO membership. And not one, but two Citizens' Initiatives that have each gathered enough signatures to make (further?) parliamentary discussion mandatory.
___
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20181125193537/https://www.forei...
[3]: Source: Personal experience; lived here for 27 years now.
[4]: https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202
> Russia reaction is basically the reaction of anyone cornered
If you're "cornered" because your neighbours feel a need to defend themselves from your aggression, the problem isn't with them but with you.
If you're "cornered" because your neighbours feel a need to defend themselves from your aggression, the problem isn't with them but with you.
Perhaps stop watching Russia Today and/or Fox News.
I did not make a reconstruction of the timeline, but weren't the NATO amounts growing only after the Russian troops started growing and doing their larger and larger exercises that seemed worrying (and escalated now into the invasion)?
NATO started growing when Russia was still all kinds of fucked up, with the first phase being in 1997 if I remember correctly.
"Growing" in number of members generally, perhaps. Like, way up in the Baltics and so on.
But:
>>> the amount of NATO weaponry in or near Ukraine.
This was specifically about this conflict.
But:
>>> the amount of NATO weaponry in or near Ukraine.
This was specifically about this conflict.
Then if they did join NATO, then Russia would declare an attack on NATO?
Or the more likely explanation is that this threat makes it less likely NATO would accept them.
Or the more likely explanation is that this threat makes it less likely NATO would accept them.
This is an empty threat from Putin, he may be close to a madman but he is not stupid.
Attacking NATO will mean his removal from power, most likely by someone within his own ranks.
If Sweden or Finland wants in, then NATO should comply as fast as possible.
Attacking NATO will mean his removal from power, most likely by someone within his own ranks.
If Sweden or Finland wants in, then NATO should comply as fast as possible.
Technically, if there were attacked this evening, nobody in the US or EU would come to help them. They would be AND are in the same situation as Ukraine.
You may be right about the US, but you are probably wrong about the EU.
Everybody would wish them well, argue they have a strong army and can resist the Russian army, but no sorry, no Spanish or German or French troops dying for Finland or Sweden any time soon. They better hurry up.
Thanks for the reference, I has not heard of this CSDP.
However, if I was quite sure nobody would sent troops to Ukraine, Sweden sounds very close to my French ears. Finland is more difficult to defend but the Southern part of Sweden, the most inhabited, is close enough to project troops rapidly.
The USA would also be able to send fighters and bombers from the Thule airbase to bomb troups on the northern part of Sweden, as well as English airforce from Scotland. Other smaller airforces from Norway, Belgium, etc will help avoiding air superiority to Russia.
The USA, the UK and France would deploy their fleet with their aircraft carriers.
Furthermore, my feeling is that France and the UK would send troops to Sweden.
Germany would provide at least transport and material support as it did in previous cases (first war against Iraq, current anti-djihadist operations in Sahel). Germany avoid sending troops abroad but discreetly enables France and the USA for example with support.
The public opinions of at least those three countries would be strong against Russia now that Putin's intentions have been revealed.
Southern countries of EU would react too, at minimum by blocking access to the Atlantic through the Mediterranean sea, as well as support of all kinds.
I don't feel being culturally close to Ukraine. Attacking Sweden is just a direct attack to the West. I feel closer to Sweden than to the Baltic states.
Not that I don't support Ukraine 100% against Russia. I don't know if France is secretly sending large amounts of weapons to Ukraine. I wish we were but I doubt it - Macron always sides with big corporate's interests and French are the first investors in Russia. Germany also tends to put business first towards Russia.
But Sweden is different. It's the West. Finland has its own strategy towards Russia. If Sweden ask.for help, I don't see western countries react as they do these days with Ukraine (eg ineffective economic sanctions). I think it would have been the same before Ukraine's invasion but because of it, my opinion is that we would send troops. Even I would enlist (boy, I'd need training just to get in shape and learn to shoot - so I'd probably be put somewhere at the supply chain or driving some truck.
However, if I was quite sure nobody would sent troops to Ukraine, Sweden sounds very close to my French ears. Finland is more difficult to defend but the Southern part of Sweden, the most inhabited, is close enough to project troops rapidly.
The USA would also be able to send fighters and bombers from the Thule airbase to bomb troups on the northern part of Sweden, as well as English airforce from Scotland. Other smaller airforces from Norway, Belgium, etc will help avoiding air superiority to Russia.
The USA, the UK and France would deploy their fleet with their aircraft carriers.
Furthermore, my feeling is that France and the UK would send troops to Sweden.
Germany would provide at least transport and material support as it did in previous cases (first war against Iraq, current anti-djihadist operations in Sahel). Germany avoid sending troops abroad but discreetly enables France and the USA for example with support.
The public opinions of at least those three countries would be strong against Russia now that Putin's intentions have been revealed.
Southern countries of EU would react too, at minimum by blocking access to the Atlantic through the Mediterranean sea, as well as support of all kinds.
I don't feel being culturally close to Ukraine. Attacking Sweden is just a direct attack to the West. I feel closer to Sweden than to the Baltic states.
Not that I don't support Ukraine 100% against Russia. I don't know if France is secretly sending large amounts of weapons to Ukraine. I wish we were but I doubt it - Macron always sides with big corporate's interests and French are the first investors in Russia. Germany also tends to put business first towards Russia.
But Sweden is different. It's the West. Finland has its own strategy towards Russia. If Sweden ask.for help, I don't see western countries react as they do these days with Ukraine (eg ineffective economic sanctions). I think it would have been the same before Ukraine's invasion but because of it, my opinion is that we would send troops. Even I would enlist (boy, I'd need training just to get in shape and learn to shoot - so I'd probably be put somewhere at the supply chain or driving some truck.
> Thanks for the reference, I has not heard of this CSDP.
Ok.
> However, if I was quite sure nobody would sent troops to Ukraine, Sweden sounds very close to my French ears.
It isn't.
Poland is.
> Finland is more difficult to defend but the Southern part of Sweden, the most inhabited, is close enough to project troops rapidly.
Yes, through Kaliningrad, but Sweden is amongst friends on all sides and Kaliningrad is an enclave that is relatively vulnerable and if it is used as an offensive base then it will be fair game. There is another, much longer and more vulnerable route through the strait between Finland and Estonia, I don't see that one working or working for long if Sweden and Finland would come under attack by Russia. Besides the obvious problems for Russia to operate on multiple fronts. The Northern route is vulnerable and extremely long, there is hardly any infrastructure there.
> The USA would also be able to send fighters and bombers from the Thule airbase to bomb troups on the northern part of Sweden, as well as English airforce from Scotland. Other smaller airforces from Norway, Belgium, etc will help avoiding air superiority to Russia.
This all depends on what Russia intends to do, which nobody really knows. I see only very few realistic options: they are bluffing, or they are utterly deranged. Assuming the latter, all bets are off, Putin might skip all of the preliminaries and drop a nuke on Stockholm, knowing that there is no way they are going to hold territory there to begin with. This would be an escalation the likes of which defies rational thought.
I have family in Latvia, Poland and Romania, and know people from both Russia and Ukraine. This whole conflict is extremely stressful, I've seen it coming for years and have already acted on that and it pisses me off that we have not done more to deal with Russia when the time was right.
As for Finland and their defense: Finland is armed to teeth, has a very capable military and the Soviets have never really left Finland after World War II, which is the Finnish way of reminding the Soviets that if they invade they run a good chance of becoming a permanent fixture on Finnish soil.
They didn't win but they made it pretty costly, and Finland never forgot that lesson.
>
Ok.
> However, if I was quite sure nobody would sent troops to Ukraine, Sweden sounds very close to my French ears.
It isn't.
Poland is.
> Finland is more difficult to defend but the Southern part of Sweden, the most inhabited, is close enough to project troops rapidly.
Yes, through Kaliningrad, but Sweden is amongst friends on all sides and Kaliningrad is an enclave that is relatively vulnerable and if it is used as an offensive base then it will be fair game. There is another, much longer and more vulnerable route through the strait between Finland and Estonia, I don't see that one working or working for long if Sweden and Finland would come under attack by Russia. Besides the obvious problems for Russia to operate on multiple fronts. The Northern route is vulnerable and extremely long, there is hardly any infrastructure there.
> The USA would also be able to send fighters and bombers from the Thule airbase to bomb troups on the northern part of Sweden, as well as English airforce from Scotland. Other smaller airforces from Norway, Belgium, etc will help avoiding air superiority to Russia.
This all depends on what Russia intends to do, which nobody really knows. I see only very few realistic options: they are bluffing, or they are utterly deranged. Assuming the latter, all bets are off, Putin might skip all of the preliminaries and drop a nuke on Stockholm, knowing that there is no way they are going to hold territory there to begin with. This would be an escalation the likes of which defies rational thought.
I have family in Latvia, Poland and Romania, and know people from both Russia and Ukraine. This whole conflict is extremely stressful, I've seen it coming for years and have already acted on that and it pisses me off that we have not done more to deal with Russia when the time was right.
As for Finland and their defense: Finland is armed to teeth, has a very capable military and the Soviets have never really left Finland after World War II, which is the Finnish way of reminding the Soviets that if they invade they run a good chance of becoming a permanent fixture on Finnish soil.
They didn't win but they made it pretty costly, and Finland never forgot that lesson.
>
> Technically, if there were attacked this evening, nobody in the US or EU would come to help them.
Nobody would bound by a public alliance to help them.
We don't know if secret agreements exists? But I guess such agreements would be easier to not honor.
And just because NATO isn't required to intervene, that's not the same as they wouldn't.
In theory it's a bit like Ukraine, except Finland and Sweden are less corrupt, more wealthy, etc.
Nobody would bound by a public alliance to help them.
We don't know if secret agreements exists? But I guess such agreements would be easier to not honor.
And just because NATO isn't required to intervene, that's not the same as they wouldn't.
In theory it's a bit like Ukraine, except Finland and Sweden are less corrupt, more wealthy, etc.
Let me get this straight, you believe that if Russia invaded northern Europe outright, central and south Europe would not intervene?
I guess some topics aren’t great to discuss on HN.
I guess some topics aren’t great to discuss on HN.
Its two non NATO members. Europe would not do for them what does not do for Ukraine.
You are completely ignorant of the current status and history of Europe. An attempted invasion of Finland and Sweden would be an unambiguous declaration of war on the European Union, there is no other interpretation. China would, no doubt, take such an opportunity to move on its military goals (eg Taiwan). It would mark the beginning of a third world war.
If you don't even believe that the EU would defend its own territory, well, you are just simply insane.
If you don't even believe that the EU would defend its own territory, well, you are just simply insane.
Its not a question of being insane. It's different if you can have your boys back in body bags. You forgot this is the second war in European territory after the Yugoslavian wars. For months Sarajevo was being shelled and nothing was done until the US decided it was time to bomb.
The Netherlands had a full battalion protecting a Bosnian enclave and let 7000 men be killed in front of their eyes. The Dutch government was not willing to order an air strike to protect their own troops.
Unless it's NATO, I guarantee you, nothing will be done. They are not even willing to cut gas import from Russia....
The Netherlands had a full battalion protecting a Bosnian enclave and let 7000 men be killed in front of their eyes. The Dutch government was not willing to order an air strike to protect their own troops.
Unless it's NATO, I guarantee you, nothing will be done. They are not even willing to cut gas import from Russia....
The Balkan situation was much more similar to what's going on in Ukraine right now, there was really no immediate threat to the rest of Europe. Invading especially Sweden is completely different in this regard. If Sweden, why not Denmark, the Baltics, etc.
Finland is unique as it has historically been both Swedish and Russian territory, and borders both, but it is still nowhere near as ambiguous as Ukraine. There will be no breakaway provinces in Finland like Donetsk and Luhansk, there was no mass movement of Russian nationals to Finland during Soviet times as there was throughout the Soviet union. There is very little footing for Russian sentiment in Finland, and Finnish culture is at its core defined by the atrocities committed in the Civil War following the fall of the Tzar, and later the Winter War and Continuation Wars with the Soviet Union. Wars with Russia is part of Finnish DNA. It is just a completely different situation to what goes on in the former east bloc.
Finland is unique as it has historically been both Swedish and Russian territory, and borders both, but it is still nowhere near as ambiguous as Ukraine. There will be no breakaway provinces in Finland like Donetsk and Luhansk, there was no mass movement of Russian nationals to Finland during Soviet times as there was throughout the Soviet union. There is very little footing for Russian sentiment in Finland, and Finnish culture is at its core defined by the atrocities committed in the Civil War following the fall of the Tzar, and later the Winter War and Continuation Wars with the Soviet Union. Wars with Russia is part of Finnish DNA. It is just a completely different situation to what goes on in the former east bloc.
> You forgot this is the second war in European territory after the Yugoslavian wars.
Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU.
Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU.
Do Sweden or Finland have any mutual defense agreements themselves or with other countries (Norway?) - or is NATO the only club in Europe ?
No, Europe is the only club in Europe and both Sweden and Finland are part of the EU Security pact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
NATO is trans continental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
NATO is trans continental.
Doesn't the EU membership also include some sort of mutual defense agreement?
Yes, Treaty of Lisbon
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
>7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
>7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Absolutely. Co-defense is now one of the pillars of the union, just Denmark and Malta that aren't in there:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/defence-security...
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/defence-security...
Apparently! I found a link here that mentions France calling upon the obligation in 2015.
http://euromil.org/france-invoked-mutual-defence-clause-for-...
http://euromil.org/france-invoked-mutual-defence-clause-for-...
[deleted]
We seem to be at an impass. NATO exists to help people not feel threatened by Russia. Putin has decided that the mere existence of a real NATO is a threat to Russia (he's fine with a paper tiger institution that is all but imaginary).
It's like a European version of 1860 in the US.
As an American, I'd be (emotionally, but not rationally) glad to just put an end to 100 years of Russian aggression, mostly because I'm a child of the cold war and do not want to go back to that existence. But this lies on Russia's neighbors first. EU countries need to lead the way here.
It's like a European version of 1860 in the US.
As an American, I'd be (emotionally, but not rationally) glad to just put an end to 100 years of Russian aggression, mostly because I'm a child of the cold war and do not want to go back to that existence. But this lies on Russia's neighbors first. EU countries need to lead the way here.
What concretely does it mean to “put an end to 100 years of Russian aggression” for America? Maybe be more mindful of what you say.
Fair enough. This is actually a good call out. I tried to caveat with the "emotional but not rational". But perhaps that does not communicate well enough.
The historical narrative that has been told people of my age for much of their formative years is the above. Basically, Russia has been a thorn in Western World's side since the communist revolution, with leaders like Stalin and followers. Prior to that, despite some really bad czars, the rest of the world doesn't care too much.
So people like me, are sort of conditioned to have negative feelings about Russia on the world stage. That's the "emotional" part of it.
The rational part of me is able see that there's a lot of interesting dynamics. That Russian people are just as much people as I am too. That my own country has a history for the last 100 years that when seen from the outside is also none too proud of a story to tell.
The historical narrative that has been told people of my age for much of their formative years is the above. Basically, Russia has been a thorn in Western World's side since the communist revolution, with leaders like Stalin and followers. Prior to that, despite some really bad czars, the rest of the world doesn't care too much.
So people like me, are sort of conditioned to have negative feelings about Russia on the world stage. That's the "emotional" part of it.
The rational part of me is able see that there's a lot of interesting dynamics. That Russian people are just as much people as I am too. That my own country has a history for the last 100 years that when seen from the outside is also none too proud of a story to tell.
Thank you for the elaboration.
last time i checked america and russia were right next to each other. but youre not touching i suppose so ok
It really makes perfect sense. USA has long history of imperialism and anti-democratic actions. And USA is core of NATO. Any sane country knows that only safe way is to have reasonable buffer zone against such well known aggressor.
Well, if Russia didn't act like a total asshole towards all their neighbors then maybe some of them would like to be their allies. The fact that Baltic states or Ukraine prefer to side with a "well known aggressor" instead of their "Slavic brothers" from Russia really tells you everything. Putin has no one to blame for that but himself.
No country that has experienced decades of Russian occupation wants to go back there.
I guess I don't understand the "buffer zone" logic. I've read/seen that in a number of places of late. And it just seems like a dodge to me.
A while back, our company hired a difficult to cope with person. There was some social awkwardness. And some performance issues. It's a good sized disciplinary group, but his assigned tasks were most similar to mine. Guess who became the "buffer zone"? Me. It was the worst. When things finally spilled over, there was a larger meeting where issues were finally recognized. I expressed my bitter sweet gladness thusly: "I can't tell you guys how wonderful it feels to no longer have this be my burden and my burden alone. It is such a relief. On the flip side though, why the F** didn't this meeting happen 2 years ago?!?!? I could have laid this all out for you then, but I guess it wasn't bothering you yet, was it?"
I've seen this behavior in church youth groups I've worked with over the years. There's an odd-hard-to-cope with person. The group pushes back against maladaptive behavior. The troubled youth connects with one of the normal kids. And then that kid gets asked to be the problem child's "buddy". And the rest of the group abandons the buddy to suffer it alone.
I volunteered at our state penitentiary for a couple of years. It was interesting experience. On the outside, I would hear "tough on crime" and "three strikes and you're out" and "those people". On the inside... it was complicated, and a different story. A couple of truly evil people, mostly surrounded by people who grew up in crappy situations, were in the wrong place at the right time, and a whole lot of iffy mental health. Same thing. As long as it was somebody else's problem, the "rest of society" could have a happy existence.
Maybe I'm seeing too many similarities where I shouldn't, but I find the whole notion of a "buffer zone" a poli-sci euphemism for "somebody else should have a shitty life so we don't have to".
A while back, our company hired a difficult to cope with person. There was some social awkwardness. And some performance issues. It's a good sized disciplinary group, but his assigned tasks were most similar to mine. Guess who became the "buffer zone"? Me. It was the worst. When things finally spilled over, there was a larger meeting where issues were finally recognized. I expressed my bitter sweet gladness thusly: "I can't tell you guys how wonderful it feels to no longer have this be my burden and my burden alone. It is such a relief. On the flip side though, why the F** didn't this meeting happen 2 years ago?!?!? I could have laid this all out for you then, but I guess it wasn't bothering you yet, was it?"
I've seen this behavior in church youth groups I've worked with over the years. There's an odd-hard-to-cope with person. The group pushes back against maladaptive behavior. The troubled youth connects with one of the normal kids. And then that kid gets asked to be the problem child's "buddy". And the rest of the group abandons the buddy to suffer it alone.
I volunteered at our state penitentiary for a couple of years. It was interesting experience. On the outside, I would hear "tough on crime" and "three strikes and you're out" and "those people". On the inside... it was complicated, and a different story. A couple of truly evil people, mostly surrounded by people who grew up in crappy situations, were in the wrong place at the right time, and a whole lot of iffy mental health. Same thing. As long as it was somebody else's problem, the "rest of society" could have a happy existence.
Maybe I'm seeing too many similarities where I shouldn't, but I find the whole notion of a "buffer zone" a poli-sci euphemism for "somebody else should have a shitty life so we don't have to".
You see how Russian tanks and troops rolled across the boarder and were at Kyiv in 2 days. That is because there were no buffers.
Buffer zone in this context means Russia doesn't want US missiles and nuclear bombers with a 5 minute flight time to Moscow.
Buffer zone in this context means Russia doesn't want US missiles and nuclear bombers with a 5 minute flight time to Moscow.
> Buffer zone in this context means Russia doesn't want US missiles and nuclear bombers with a 5 minute flight time to Moscow.
So you think it's OK for Russia to invade the (NATO member) Baltic countries, then?
So you think it's OK for Russia to invade the (NATO member) Baltic countries, then?
This argument is frankly dumb. By that logic, nato would be entitled to demand that Russia gets away from Ukraine, stop engaging with Belarus and it's soldiers leave borders of NATO countries.
Russia borders with nato at multiple places. It should leave those places and create buffer. After all, Russia ia the more aggressive one.
Russia borders with nato at multiple places. It should leave those places and create buffer. After all, Russia ia the more aggressive one.
I want to keep the conversation substantive, but I also would like for you to see what you've said and see if you think you've contributed to the conversation so far:
"[Russia] has long history of imperialism and anti-democratic actions. Any sane country knows that only safe way is to have reasonable buffer zone against such well known aggressor."
"[Russia] has long history of imperialism and anti-democratic actions. Any sane country knows that only safe way is to have reasonable buffer zone against such well known aggressor."
I am interested if you are Serbian or Russian.
The Serbians I have talked to regarding the war with Ukraine seem to be very neutral, beginning any discussion with a criticism of NATO rather than a criticism of Russia for invading a neighbor.
The Serbians I have talked to regarding the war with Ukraine seem to be very neutral, beginning any discussion with a criticism of NATO rather than a criticism of Russia for invading a neighbor.
Ukraine was the buffer zone and Putin invaded them. Now he has NATO at his doorstep in Poland.
Which leads to Russia's next demand: to reduce NATO military deployments in NATO member states who joined after 1997.
Poland joined in 1999, and generally speaking all of the eastern European nations that joined were after 1997.
Poland joined in 1999, and generally speaking all of the eastern European nations that joined were after 1997.
Not if the plan is to install a pro-Russian puppet regime. But considering 2014 I don’t see how that new regime would last for more than a week.
As a German I was today years old when I learned that sweden isnt part of the nato already … like the current secretary even sounds swedish by name … whelp
Edit: really don’t want to sound ignorant here, just that while growing up and traveling around Central Europe there was a strong belief that we‘re all in the same boat and I even remember maps showing all countries (except Switzerland) in shades of „blue“ but … I never looked more deeply into that - until now
Edit: really don’t want to sound ignorant here, just that while growing up and traveling around Central Europe there was a strong belief that we‘re all in the same boat and I even remember maps showing all countries (except Switzerland) in shades of „blue“ but … I never looked more deeply into that - until now
While Sweden was never part of NATO, there are rumors that under the table they were given assurance that if there was trouble NATO would be there. Sweden used to be a big world power.
We don't even need rumors here. Now that Putin has invaded Ukraine, an invasion of Sweden will trigger boots, planes and vessels be sent from the USA and most European countries.
Being part of NATO make it automatic. But Sweden would just have to ask for help.
At first news of invasion, the USA, the UK, France (e.g. 3 nuclear powers) and most other EU countries will start prepare, awaiting for the Sweden to call.
Fighters would be up in the air, patrolling along Sweden territory, ready to act immediately.
Anyway, that won't happen soon. The Ukraine war is far from over ; it's likely to turn into a guerilla with money and weapons provided by the West. Ukrainians will come and be trained to guerilla warfare by the Eu countries and Russia will bleed.
As large as the Russian army is, it can't control a rebellious country of 50M people. Some Ukrainians will join the Russians for sure, and most of the population will turn a blind eye, enabling the guerilla. The more the Russians react by punishing civilians trough indiscriminate shootings or mailings, the more recruits will join the guerrilla.
This is going to be bloody for both sides. Ukrainians have tasted enough democracy and freedom for long enough to go back to an authoritian regime like Putin's or a dictatorship like Belarus.
This could cause Putin to turn into an overt dictator in its own country. It will work for a while. And then he'll fall. That will be painful for all the peoples concerned: Ukraine, Belarus, Russia.
Being part of NATO make it automatic. But Sweden would just have to ask for help.
At first news of invasion, the USA, the UK, France (e.g. 3 nuclear powers) and most other EU countries will start prepare, awaiting for the Sweden to call.
Fighters would be up in the air, patrolling along Sweden territory, ready to act immediately.
Anyway, that won't happen soon. The Ukraine war is far from over ; it's likely to turn into a guerilla with money and weapons provided by the West. Ukrainians will come and be trained to guerilla warfare by the Eu countries and Russia will bleed.
As large as the Russian army is, it can't control a rebellious country of 50M people. Some Ukrainians will join the Russians for sure, and most of the population will turn a blind eye, enabling the guerilla. The more the Russians react by punishing civilians trough indiscriminate shootings or mailings, the more recruits will join the guerrilla.
This is going to be bloody for both sides. Ukrainians have tasted enough democracy and freedom for long enough to go back to an authoritian regime like Putin's or a dictatorship like Belarus.
This could cause Putin to turn into an overt dictator in its own country. It will work for a while. And then he'll fall. That will be painful for all the peoples concerned: Ukraine, Belarus, Russia.
You haven't heard about Sweden being neutral for 200 years?
Jens Stoltenberg is Norwegian
Just in case: Neither is Switzerland.
https://www.mappr.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/image-1.jpeg
https://www.mappr.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/image-1.jpeg
And austria too… somewhat shocking- I took this for granted for some reason
[deleted]
Good, let them join. This whole cat and mouse game of petty escalations won't end with Putin on one side. This only ends with Putin dead or in prison. Let Finland and Sweden join NATO, grant Ukraine membership in NATO while we're at it. Our best chance at fighting Russia under Putin is to escalate to 100% all at once. He's betting that we'll go full Neville Chamberlain, and we can't give him that luxury.
Perhaps it’s time to make a European force that can share assets with nato but is independent of the whims of the us. They’re too willing to play their own game or just take their ball and go home.
Whims of the US? In what way.
Article 5 was invoked once, for September 11th. I don't have too much problem with that in principle (although worth noting that other NATO countries don't invoke it when foreign terrorists attacked their cities).
The only country I don't think would respond to an Article 5 invocation from a Russian invasion would be Turkey.
Article 5 was invoked once, for September 11th. I don't have too much problem with that in principle (although worth noting that other NATO countries don't invoke it when foreign terrorists attacked their cities).
The only country I don't think would respond to an Article 5 invocation from a Russian invasion would be Turkey.
Trying to drag it in ways it thinks best (such as the Middle East) or threatening to leave entirely like the Orange guy was mentioning. The battleground is in the Polish or German plains so one would think they have the most to lose (again). Recall, Germany was only united in 1870, and Poland was both huge and missing in Central Europe over the centuries.
That would not go well for them. That would definitely get NATO going on the offensive. I say we make both countries honorary NATO members right away.
Now is probably the only opportunity they will get. With much of Russia's army tied up in Ukraine they could join in secret overnight and in the morning the rest of NATO could land huge numbers of airborne reinforcements and the whole thing would be a fait accompli. The only response Putin could make would be to trigger WW3.
Making triggering WW3 his only remaining choice does not sound like a good idea
Letting him threaten and invade any country he wants because he doesn't want said country to do something that isn't in accordance with his will doesn't seem like a good idea either.
When do the billionaires backing him decide they don't want to rule over a nuclear wasteland? Can they even stop him?
> billionaires backing him
I think that you misunderstood their relationship. It is less 'billionaires backing him' and more 'billionares who are obedient to him, so they do not end with poisoned briefs'.
I think that you misunderstood their relationship. It is less 'billionaires backing him' and more 'billionares who are obedient to him, so they do not end with poisoned briefs'.
billionaire's do not "back" him, they are his proxy. It's his money they are holding, not theirs.
He's always got the option of just... not attacking.
Not being in NATO didn't save Ukraine. Letting Putin have Finland in order to avoid all-out war should not be an option for us.
To me, this feels a lot like Donetsk was Sudetenland, and the rest of Ukraine is the rest of Czechoslovakia. We need to not let Finland be Poland, where we declare war but just ineffectively do nothing. What we should be doing now is gearing up to defend the entire front, and helping Finland prepare as strongly as possible. Don't believe that it's going to be "peace in our time" after Ukraine. It won't be.
Not being in NATO didn't save Ukraine. Letting Putin have Finland in order to avoid all-out war should not be an option for us.
To me, this feels a lot like Donetsk was Sudetenland, and the rest of Ukraine is the rest of Czechoslovakia. We need to not let Finland be Poland, where we declare war but just ineffectively do nothing. What we should be doing now is gearing up to defend the entire front, and helping Finland prepare as strongly as possible. Don't believe that it's going to be "peace in our time" after Ukraine. It won't be.
No it doesn't, but at some point you have to consider the possibility that Putin isn't sane or rational in the way you would hope the person in charge of a major part of the world's nuclear arsenal would be.
And if he is not sane, then it would be equally insane for the west to keep giving into his demands, given that we cannot then expect him to stop making them at any foreseeable point.
No one "wants" WW3, much like no one "wanted" WW2 or WW1. But history has proven time and time again that simply backing away doesn't _necessarily_ reduce the chances that the war will occur.
I am very, very curious how this is causing western intelligence agencies to update their analyses of Putin's psyche.
And if he is not sane, then it would be equally insane for the west to keep giving into his demands, given that we cannot then expect him to stop making them at any foreseeable point.
No one "wants" WW3, much like no one "wanted" WW2 or WW1. But history has proven time and time again that simply backing away doesn't _necessarily_ reduce the chances that the war will occur.
I am very, very curious how this is causing western intelligence agencies to update their analyses of Putin's psyche.
He is entirely rational, it has been known since forever that Ukraine is the brightest of red lines and that Russia would respond in this way. You can’t pin this on crazy, pretty much anyone else from the Russian elite would have done the same thing.
Given that the CIA predicted this back in 2008 I would image there would be no change to their assessment.
Given that the CIA predicted this back in 2008 I would image there would be no change to their assessment.
The invasion of Ukraine is anything but rational. There's simply no way that ends well for Russia without some enormous doses of wishful thinking and fairy dust. The majority of people of Ukraine won't accept a Russian installed puppet government, and would receive help from abroad, so how exactly does Putin intend on ruling by force a country with 40 million citizens most of whom don't want him to?
Russia isn’t there to occupy permanently, they want neutrality in Ukraine’s constitution and there are a number of ways that can happen. They might incorporate the separatist areas as a buffer for the Black Sea.
But they can't dictate Ukraine's constitution and government and expect the locals to fight against that, or at the very least overthrow the lot the second the Russian troops leave.
They’ll take Ukraine’s weapons with them and promise they’ll be back if Ukraine tries to rearm. Ukraine will be left defenseless, but they have EU on one side and Russia on the other. So even without weapons they’ll be safe. It’s not like Russia will let anyone else invade them. Russia will make lifting sanctions as a condition of leaving. I would expect things to go back to normal very quickly.
> Ukraine will be left defenseless, but they have EU on one side and Russia on the other.
So, exactly like now, then.
> So even without weapons they’ll be safe.
Yeah, because the ongoing war is such a shining example of how safe it is to be a defenseless neighbour to Russia.
So, exactly like now, then.
> So even without weapons they’ll be safe.
Yeah, because the ongoing war is such a shining example of how safe it is to be a defenseless neighbour to Russia.
Unfortunately while it could be the right decision, it’s probably impossible for legal reasons, would require lengthy domestic political process, possibly referendums.
A super fast process would be perhaps a year, even if the NATO end of that process would be one minute.
You’d almost wish there was a temporary membership that could be used e.g for 2 years while the politics is sorted, without delaying the security guarantee. If we vote no, we leave again. But imagine the amount of Russian meddling in a Swedish or Finnish NATO referendum…
A super fast process would be perhaps a year, even if the NATO end of that process would be one minute.
You’d almost wish there was a temporary membership that could be used e.g for 2 years while the politics is sorted, without delaying the security guarantee. If we vote no, we leave again. But imagine the amount of Russian meddling in a Swedish or Finnish NATO referendum…
I think this is the right call. Russian forces are spread too thin to react in time. And then it will be too late for them to do anything about it.
Then someone might respond: but Putin is clearly insane and could start a nuclear war over such an act. Well, in that case what move can you even make? I mean if the opponent is clinically insane then every move you make could trigger a nuclear war.
Then someone might respond: but Putin is clearly insane and could start a nuclear war over such an act. Well, in that case what move can you even make? I mean if the opponent is clinically insane then every move you make could trigger a nuclear war.
you know it's all a comedy when you hear declarations like this
there is a global agenda behind all this tragic story
there is a global agenda behind all this tragic story
[deleted]
So basically Russia said: We will murder you if you don something we don't like.
This clearly calls for an economic sanction against <some random guy that brushed elbows with Putin once>.
This clearly calls for an economic sanction against <some random guy that brushed elbows with Putin once>.
Putin and his minister of foreign affairs are hardly "some random guy that brushed elbows with Putin once".
Post written before the sanctions on Putin and Lavrov were implemented. Nevertheless, killing continues.
And now China is getting in the mood for some exercises. Around Taiwan. Gotta get fit for that hot summer that is coming. But that is nothing that some demonstration on the street, little bit of sanctions here and there can't avert, right?
WW2 also started like that. Someone took some land, others didn't do jack shit about it. Then it escalated and everyone was at it. But without nukes as they were yet to be invented, shortly after.
And now China is getting in the mood for some exercises. Around Taiwan. Gotta get fit for that hot summer that is coming. But that is nothing that some demonstration on the street, little bit of sanctions here and there can't avert, right?
WW2 also started like that. Someone took some land, others didn't do jack shit about it. Then it escalated and everyone was at it. But without nukes as they were yet to be invented, shortly after.
I'm ashamed at our (the USA's) response. We have no choice here. When will this stop? Do we allow mutually assured destruction be used to have Putin march his troops into our beloved nation too? What about Georgia, Bosnia, Finland, Sweden?
The only option, better done now than later is to ready, arm and prepare all our nuclear warheads, point them at Moscow, and then send our forces into Ukraine, repelling the Russians. If Russia fires a nuke, we let it all go.
I'm prepared to head to the army recruiter today if we do this, the right thing. In that event, I hope the rest of my countrymen choose to join me. I wish Russia could've been integrated with the west long ago, and I think the only other way to prevent this conflict was to station NATO troops in Ukraine. The ship has sailed on both fronts. The only options are to fight now, or fight later.
God bless the heroes of Ukraine. I hope we, myself included, are there soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-Yeqh4PFY
The only option, better done now than later is to ready, arm and prepare all our nuclear warheads, point them at Moscow, and then send our forces into Ukraine, repelling the Russians. If Russia fires a nuke, we let it all go.
I'm prepared to head to the army recruiter today if we do this, the right thing. In that event, I hope the rest of my countrymen choose to join me. I wish Russia could've been integrated with the west long ago, and I think the only other way to prevent this conflict was to station NATO troops in Ukraine. The ship has sailed on both fronts. The only options are to fight now, or fight later.
God bless the heroes of Ukraine. I hope we, myself included, are there soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-Yeqh4PFY
What's the point of NATO if we just defend other countries who don't meet our requirements of NATO?
NATO is _already_ in a tough spot, many countries will fail the 2% spending on defense requirement (though I'm sure Russia is making them reconsider). We can't just be throwing NATO's guarantees around to countries who didn't make it into the alliance yet.
NATO is an alliance, and a defensive alliance at that. The line is literally drawn at Poland and Romania right now. We are debating if that line should include Finland and Sweden.
-------
There are several requirements to join NATO:
1. The country must want to be part of NATO (and neither Finland nor Sweden wanted to join until recently).
2. The entire rest of NATO must accept them.
3. A few other things, but #1 and #2 are probably the most important. If we get those two things figured out, everything else is cake.
----
That being said: support to Ukraine economically and militarily (military aid) is still on the table and looks like its happening. Ukraine will fight its own war, but they can use our weapons while doing so.
That was enough for France when it helped USA during the 1700s Revolutionary war, and the USA certainly remembers France's help in those troubling times. The "Arsenal of Democracy" approach. We likely will offer that to Finland / Sweden if they get attacked by Russia before they join NATO as well.
But getting our blood directly involved in other people's wars is still a very difficult prospect. USA shouldn't overcommit, nor should NATO.
NATO is _already_ in a tough spot, many countries will fail the 2% spending on defense requirement (though I'm sure Russia is making them reconsider). We can't just be throwing NATO's guarantees around to countries who didn't make it into the alliance yet.
NATO is an alliance, and a defensive alliance at that. The line is literally drawn at Poland and Romania right now. We are debating if that line should include Finland and Sweden.
-------
There are several requirements to join NATO:
1. The country must want to be part of NATO (and neither Finland nor Sweden wanted to join until recently).
2. The entire rest of NATO must accept them.
3. A few other things, but #1 and #2 are probably the most important. If we get those two things figured out, everything else is cake.
----
That being said: support to Ukraine economically and militarily (military aid) is still on the table and looks like its happening. Ukraine will fight its own war, but they can use our weapons while doing so.
That was enough for France when it helped USA during the 1700s Revolutionary war, and the USA certainly remembers France's help in those troubling times. The "Arsenal of Democracy" approach. We likely will offer that to Finland / Sweden if they get attacked by Russia before they join NATO as well.
But getting our blood directly involved in other people's wars is still a very difficult prospect. USA shouldn't overcommit, nor should NATO.
I don't care about NATO. I'm talking about what my country alone, the USA, must now do. We can't allow anyone to use MAD as an excuse to march into a sovereign nation, anywhere on Earth. The US has to do the right thing now, and defend Ukraine before it falls. This is Hitler in Czechoslovakia.
Going tit for tat on details of NATO and hand-wringing as I take it you are doing, is a point we are far beyond now. It's something I'd expect from a bureaucrat. Vladimir Putin is an evil man, that must be recognized and his soldiers have to be met on the battlefield today. They have to be repelled, and Putin brought to his knees, or we're going to be in a much larger mess down the road.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Going tit for tat on details of NATO and hand-wringing as I take it you are doing, is a point we are far beyond now. It's something I'd expect from a bureaucrat. Vladimir Putin is an evil man, that must be recognized and his soldiers have to be met on the battlefield today. They have to be repelled, and Putin brought to his knees, or we're going to be in a much larger mess down the road.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
But we aren't doing nothing.
USA is 100% employing the old "Arsenal of Democracy" strategy. We're shipping huge amounts of weapons over to Ukraine. Just last January, we sent something like $200-million in weapons (largely Javelin missiles, which are clearly blowing up Russian tanks in pretty good numbers). That's January alone.
There's different steps and different grades to the aid we can give to other countries. We shouldn't reach for the most extreme action immediately, we need to choose the right level of "Grayness", the right level of aid for each situation.
Ukraine is in luck: Poland is an immediate neighbor to the west and Poland is a NATO ally. That means we actually have a physical ability to bring in those weapon supplies, and a logical basis to base our operations out of.
-------
> This is Hitler in Czechoslovakia.
If we put this on WW2 terms: USA only started sending military equipment to UK after France fell. For us to already be openly arming a nominally neutral party like Ukraine is already a steep escalation in terms of historical terms.
USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.
The "Arsenal of Democracy" speech by Roosevelt wasn't until December 1940, months AFTER the fall of France.
USA is 100% employing the old "Arsenal of Democracy" strategy. We're shipping huge amounts of weapons over to Ukraine. Just last January, we sent something like $200-million in weapons (largely Javelin missiles, which are clearly blowing up Russian tanks in pretty good numbers). That's January alone.
There's different steps and different grades to the aid we can give to other countries. We shouldn't reach for the most extreme action immediately, we need to choose the right level of "Grayness", the right level of aid for each situation.
Ukraine is in luck: Poland is an immediate neighbor to the west and Poland is a NATO ally. That means we actually have a physical ability to bring in those weapon supplies, and a logical basis to base our operations out of.
-------
> This is Hitler in Czechoslovakia.
If we put this on WW2 terms: USA only started sending military equipment to UK after France fell. For us to already be openly arming a nominally neutral party like Ukraine is already a steep escalation in terms of historical terms.
USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.
The "Arsenal of Democracy" speech by Roosevelt wasn't until December 1940, months AFTER the fall of France.
It's just my opinion based on what I know. I hope whatever is done, whether it's my viewpoint or yours, is the correct one. There is likely no right answer here, just degrees of success and it depends how many innocent Ukrainians you're prepared to let die (and the citizens of the next nation on Putin's list). I'm praying for President Biden so he may make the right decision. So far, I'm dismayed.
It does sound like we both want success for Ukraine here. I just don't believe that anything but full-on measures will be enough. I think it's wishful thinking. Putin is clearly the bully at school that you either punched in the nose, or you didn't. If you didn't, you're likely still getting bullied to this day. They prey on weakness. The west is weak, and this is our moment to put our money where our mouth is on defending freedom.
>USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.
That's the problem. We already learned what happens next.
It does sound like we both want success for Ukraine here. I just don't believe that anything but full-on measures will be enough. I think it's wishful thinking. Putin is clearly the bully at school that you either punched in the nose, or you didn't. If you didn't, you're likely still getting bullied to this day. They prey on weakness. The west is weak, and this is our moment to put our money where our mouth is on defending freedom.
>USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.
That's the problem. We already learned what happens next.
> That's the problem. We already learned what happens next.
No. You missed the lesson.
USA is largely a peaceful nation that's many thousands of miles away from this conflict. It takes an incredible amount of evil before the US people are roused into action.
The US people in 1939 or 1940 weren't ignorant. Even as Hitler rose and took over large swaths of Europe, the US citizen was not roused into action. It still took significant amounts of political pressure / propaganda to get people to agree with the Arsenal of Democracy approach after the fall of France.
-------
EDIT: Those troubles are still with us today. We are still a nation very far away and seen as outsiders to the countries we visit. No one wants the USA to half-ass a war, that's how you get Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam.
Rousing the people to action is an incredibly important part of sending troops. If the people don't support the actions, the troops fight with less morale and less justice in their hearts.
The NATO process holds power. I do believe that if a NATO ally is attacked, the US people will rise up and truly move to defend our allies. You can't trigger that prematurely or artificially.
No. You missed the lesson.
USA is largely a peaceful nation that's many thousands of miles away from this conflict. It takes an incredible amount of evil before the US people are roused into action.
The US people in 1939 or 1940 weren't ignorant. Even as Hitler rose and took over large swaths of Europe, the US citizen was not roused into action. It still took significant amounts of political pressure / propaganda to get people to agree with the Arsenal of Democracy approach after the fall of France.
-------
EDIT: Those troubles are still with us today. We are still a nation very far away and seen as outsiders to the countries we visit. No one wants the USA to half-ass a war, that's how you get Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam.
Rousing the people to action is an incredibly important part of sending troops. If the people don't support the actions, the troops fight with less morale and less justice in their hearts.
The NATO process holds power. I do believe that if a NATO ally is attacked, the US people will rise up and truly move to defend our allies. You can't trigger that prematurely or artificially.
> It takes an incredible amount of evil before the US people are roused into action.
Fair enough. Which is why the world stood with you after 9/11. And this is a far larger event.
Fair enough. Which is why the world stood with you after 9/11. And this is a far larger event.
I'm not ignorant of the ISAF / Operation Enduring Freedom if that's what you're referencing. And I do think that's a good point you bring up.
I'm more representative of the US today than the long gone population of 1939 is at this point.
In 1939, the nation was weary of being involved with European wars, having just finished one 20 years prior. My family fought in both of them. My grandfather (RIP) had scars up and down his body from German gunfire. My great grandfather, who was a grandchild of Germany himself, fought in the French trenches before him. I'm a descendent of the people of 1939 USA, we did learn and we changed. I'm the product.
Further, I think I am taking the lesson correctly. It's not about the "wisdom of the masses" (which I do not believe in) as you suggest, but rather doing the right thing as soon as possible. We made a mistake in 1939, I believe the people of the US today are a proud and noble people, unafraid of self-sacrifice and doing the right thing for humanity and world peace.
Hitler nearly won. I've never seen a more worthy time to commit our lives to a cause than today, at least in the course of my life.
This is a once in a lifetime calling of our conscience that we have to answer. We'll be answering it anyway, on less favorable terms later on.
In 1939, the nation was weary of being involved with European wars, having just finished one 20 years prior. My family fought in both of them. My grandfather (RIP) had scars up and down his body from German gunfire. My great grandfather, who was a grandchild of Germany himself, fought in the French trenches before him. I'm a descendent of the people of 1939 USA, we did learn and we changed. I'm the product.
Further, I think I am taking the lesson correctly. It's not about the "wisdom of the masses" (which I do not believe in) as you suggest, but rather doing the right thing as soon as possible. We made a mistake in 1939, I believe the people of the US today are a proud and noble people, unafraid of self-sacrifice and doing the right thing for humanity and world peace.
Hitler nearly won. I've never seen a more worthy time to commit our lives to a cause than today, at least in the course of my life.
This is a once in a lifetime calling of our conscience that we have to answer. We'll be answering it anyway, on less favorable terms later on.
That isn’t the only response. There are a lot of things NATO can do without committing ground forces:
- NATO could ensure a supply train for material coming from Poland and Romania: all Ukrainian forces need to do is hold a corridor from Poland/Romania to Lviv.
- NATO could share intelligence and strategic advice to aid the Ukrainian forces’ ability to respond (I believe this is already happening)
- if the war bogs down while Russian troops hold onto say a large area east of Kyiv, then NATO could use the “impregnable state border” to provide troop training and re-supply from inside the Polish border, or in an area just over the border in Ukraine.
- NATO could train Ukrainian pilots in Poland, and allow Ukrainian planes to be based out of a NATO air field (and could even supply those pilots with NATO planes, missiles, fuel, etc), similar to how Germany allowed the US to use bases on German soil to launch attacks on Iraq.
The last option seems unlikely (it’s probably close enough to joining in the fight with your own personnel that Putin would respond accordingly). But it is still something that could be done, would help Ukraine wage war, and wouldn’t technically involve NATO troops fighting within Ukraine.
- NATO could ensure a supply train for material coming from Poland and Romania: all Ukrainian forces need to do is hold a corridor from Poland/Romania to Lviv.
- NATO could share intelligence and strategic advice to aid the Ukrainian forces’ ability to respond (I believe this is already happening)
- if the war bogs down while Russian troops hold onto say a large area east of Kyiv, then NATO could use the “impregnable state border” to provide troop training and re-supply from inside the Polish border, or in an area just over the border in Ukraine.
- NATO could train Ukrainian pilots in Poland, and allow Ukrainian planes to be based out of a NATO air field (and could even supply those pilots with NATO planes, missiles, fuel, etc), similar to how Germany allowed the US to use bases on German soil to launch attacks on Iraq.
The last option seems unlikely (it’s probably close enough to joining in the fight with your own personnel that Putin would respond accordingly). But it is still something that could be done, would help Ukraine wage war, and wouldn’t technically involve NATO troops fighting within Ukraine.
I thought about your comment after you wrote it, and I recently read this article from The Atlantic.[0]
I agree with your assessment, and have changed my mind. I believe what the article suggests. That President Biden has actually handled this situation perfectly thus far, is the most correct analysis. Allowing Putin to turn this into the US vs Russia is the worst case scenario. He'd love that. Today? He's getting absolutely pummeled. I won't be surprised if the Russian people don't end up hanging him.
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/how-the-we...
I agree with your assessment, and have changed my mind. I believe what the article suggests. That President Biden has actually handled this situation perfectly thus far, is the most correct analysis. Allowing Putin to turn this into the US vs Russia is the worst case scenario. He'd love that. Today? He's getting absolutely pummeled. I won't be surprised if the Russian people don't end up hanging him.
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/how-the-we...
[deleted]
Those threats are for internal Russian consumptions. Those around Putin, as good servants, try to predict what their master wants to please him or at least avoid humiliation. And if they do not do that, then others will report.
It seems by the time they have to end the Ukrainian war, there won't be much Russian army left to go up against NATO. Especially since China seems to withhold itself from Putin's decisions.
There's a lot of comments about how outrageous the lack of a harsher response (in particular the lack of military action) from the west/NATO/USA is. But, whatabout the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Weren't they quite similar (the big difference being that those countries were not close to the US geographically and not really posing a big threat). Why was those invasions ok but not this one?
Just to make clear: I'm definitely not in favor of the current invasion.
Just to make clear: I'm definitely not in favor of the current invasion.
> But, whatabout the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
"whatabout" doesn't justify anything else. But I'll play.
In both cases, there was a broad coalition. Troops didn't start an invasion without clear demands. Russia lied about their demands, said their troop deployment was for exercises. Until recently they maintained they weren't going to invade.
Say what you want about Iraq and Afghanistan, but the intention of the coalition forces was clear.
It's also worth noting that:
(1) Afghanistan was self-defense, perhaps an overreaction (that can be debated).
(2) An American president actually admitted that Iraq was a mistake. Did it take 6 years for Obama to get elected.
To be clear I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan wars were completely justified (or good ideas). But there was plenty of diplomacy around it (all diplomatic attempts by Russia in Ukraine have been disingenuous). Russia didn't threaten the coalition forces with sanctions prior to the invasion.
> There's a lot of comments about how outrageous the lack of a harsher response (in particular the lack of military action) from the west/NATO/USA is.
There would probably be more outrage, if there was an intervention :D
I'm certainly not arguing that it would wise for NATO to intervene.
"whatabout" doesn't justify anything else. But I'll play.
In both cases, there was a broad coalition. Troops didn't start an invasion without clear demands. Russia lied about their demands, said their troop deployment was for exercises. Until recently they maintained they weren't going to invade.
Say what you want about Iraq and Afghanistan, but the intention of the coalition forces was clear.
It's also worth noting that:
(1) Afghanistan was self-defense, perhaps an overreaction (that can be debated).
(2) An American president actually admitted that Iraq was a mistake. Did it take 6 years for Obama to get elected.
To be clear I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan wars were completely justified (or good ideas). But there was plenty of diplomacy around it (all diplomatic attempts by Russia in Ukraine have been disingenuous). Russia didn't threaten the coalition forces with sanctions prior to the invasion.
> There's a lot of comments about how outrageous the lack of a harsher response (in particular the lack of military action) from the west/NATO/USA is.
There would probably be more outrage, if there was an intervention :D
I'm certainly not arguing that it would wise for NATO to intervene.
The self defense claim for Afghanistan is just as flimsy as Russian claim of self defense in ukraine (they harbour our ennemies/nazis/etc). I'm all for condemning the russian invasion without necessarily bringing up the past but that does not mean you have to literally justify what america did in afghanistan. The only reason why it seems more reasonable to you aren't russian, and you think your team had better intentions.
Also so what if they admitted it was a mistake in iraq? If putin admits ukraine was a mistake in 5 years is everything okay and we can just not be allowed to bring that event up again? The complete destabilization that war caused isn't just something you can dismiss because they said oopsie (not even apologizing). Calling the american diplomacy efforts in 2003 not disingenuous is just completely flat out wrong. It was probably even more dishonest than what putin has been doing, with fake leaks to the media and moving goalposts to assure an invasion will inevitably happen. Bush wanted the iraq war and to topple saddam no matter what concession he was willing to make
Again, no need to even compare the events and I get you don't fully approve of the wars but the justification for the 2 wars is swinging way way too far into american apologism.
Also so what if they admitted it was a mistake in iraq? If putin admits ukraine was a mistake in 5 years is everything okay and we can just not be allowed to bring that event up again? The complete destabilization that war caused isn't just something you can dismiss because they said oopsie (not even apologizing). Calling the american diplomacy efforts in 2003 not disingenuous is just completely flat out wrong. It was probably even more dishonest than what putin has been doing, with fake leaks to the media and moving goalposts to assure an invasion will inevitably happen. Bush wanted the iraq war and to topple saddam no matter what concession he was willing to make
Again, no need to even compare the events and I get you don't fully approve of the wars but the justification for the 2 wars is swinging way way too far into american apologism.
> The self defense claim for Afghanistan is just as flimsy as Russian claim of self defense in ukraine (they harbour our ennemies/nazis/etc).
Aha, so Bin Laden and Al Qaeda weren't hiding in Afghanistan?
Aha, so Bin Laden and Al Qaeda weren't hiding in Afghanistan?
Not after 2001-12-16, the day when even super-warhawks like CFR admit ObL left for Pakistan. [0] Astute historians will note that the war continued for another two decades.
[0] https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
[0] https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
Oops!?! TIL, thanks.
Whatabout: I see your point, and as stated I'm not in favor of the current situation. My point is I can see similarities to wars started by the US/west - and I believe lots of outrage come from people who supported those efforts. Either I'm missing something (thus the implied question "What's the significant difference?") or I guess it's hypocrisy?
(1) according to Russia (Russian perspective) I'm pretty sure the US (or for that matter Ukraine) is harboring terrorists as well. Now, I'm not fully knowledgeable about all the details in Afghanistan, and sure, the Talibans doesn't seem to be optimal (but neither does the Ukrainian leadership/political situation - it's one of the most corrupt country in Europe?), but aren't there a lot of similarities? What are the significant differences that justified killing (directly or indirectly) many tens of thousands and messing up a country for 20 years, that still makes it valid to have outrage for the current situation? I'm genuinely curious!
(2) I think the other comment put it best. Bush and co lied about the situation (there being WMDs). And is it OK now if Putin regrets his invasion 2028?
PS You do have a good point about there probably being more outrage if there was an intervention!
(1) according to Russia (Russian perspective) I'm pretty sure the US (or for that matter Ukraine) is harboring terrorists as well. Now, I'm not fully knowledgeable about all the details in Afghanistan, and sure, the Talibans doesn't seem to be optimal (but neither does the Ukrainian leadership/political situation - it's one of the most corrupt country in Europe?), but aren't there a lot of similarities? What are the significant differences that justified killing (directly or indirectly) many tens of thousands and messing up a country for 20 years, that still makes it valid to have outrage for the current situation? I'm genuinely curious!
(2) I think the other comment put it best. Bush and co lied about the situation (there being WMDs). And is it OK now if Putin regrets his invasion 2028?
PS You do have a good point about there probably being more outrage if there was an intervention!
> What are the significant differences that justified killing (directly or indirectly) many tens of thousands and messing up a country for 20 years, that still makes it valid to have outrage for the current situation? I'm genuinely curious!
We are more enlightened than we were 20 years ago. Just to mention one. (Also lots of people weren't in favor of Iraq of Afghanistan)
More importantly even if the US did overreact or oversell the justification for it's wars. The US didn't act alone, nor were they anywhere near as dishonest as Russia have been.
It appears to me that Russia purposefully made diplomatic solutions impossible.
> (2) I think the other comment put it best. Bush and co lied about the situation (there being WMDs). And is it OK now if Putin regrets his invasion 2028?
He had 8 years to regret the invasion he made in 2014, right?
But no -- it's not okay now.. but if in 8 years Putin comes out says it was wrong, I'll give him more credibility afterwards.
We are more enlightened than we were 20 years ago. Just to mention one. (Also lots of people weren't in favor of Iraq of Afghanistan)
More importantly even if the US did overreact or oversell the justification for it's wars. The US didn't act alone, nor were they anywhere near as dishonest as Russia have been.
It appears to me that Russia purposefully made diplomatic solutions impossible.
> (2) I think the other comment put it best. Bush and co lied about the situation (there being WMDs). And is it OK now if Putin regrets his invasion 2028?
He had 8 years to regret the invasion he made in 2014, right?
But no -- it's not okay now.. but if in 8 years Putin comes out says it was wrong, I'll give him more credibility afterwards.
> whatabout
Yes, that's what that's called.
Yes, that's what that's called.
Are you going to address his point?
Jacquesm demonstrated that there was no point, and therefore nothing to address.
isn't St Petersburg like an easy target for surrounding countries if they wanted to pester Putin?
We kicked the can down the road with Ukraine and look where that landed Ukraine. 2008 and 2014 we gave in and allowed Russia to do what they wanted. 2022 and Western countries are allowing it again. Its despicable. I don't want war. I don't want to go to war. But when someone approaches you and says "I own you" you either fight back or give in to being owned. Ukraine is facing that decision now, and they're fighting back. We should be doing more to help Ukraine. Other countries will face the same fate eventually if we don't put a stop to it now. Our responses since 2008 have failed in the long term. We need to do something different.
I don't claim to have the right answer. I don't want to send our troops off to die. I don't want to get nuked or have to nuke anyone. But I honestly feel sick to my stomach right now over this. I know this isn't the only atrocity to occur without sufficient response from the Western world... but it's the one that's hit home for me for some reason.