As a Ukrainian immigrant living in the US the current situation in Ukraine is infuriating. I left Ukraine when I was a teenager nearly a quarter of a century ago and it was obvious to me then that sooner or later Russia would want its breadbasket back and an invasion would happen. How was this not clear to those in power? Zelinsky started the process of trying to get the country’s ducks in a row to be able to join NATO and I was happy about that, but it was obviously a little too obvious and a little too late. Russia in the early 2000s was in no shape to invade and that was the time to make this move. But corruption and every level of the government prevented it and gave Russia multiple openings to fuck with Ukraine, from installing pro-Russian presidents, to squeezing Ukraine with gas prices, to eventually annexing Crimea with little to no consequences.
How many lives would have not been completely destroyed had the powers that be 15-20 years ago gotten their act together?
I should say that IMO Zelinsky is doing as excellent a job as he possibly can with the situation now. The main issue is not joining NATO when it wouldn’t have resulted in war before the process can be completed. And maybe NATO needs a provisional membership process that allows a country to be temporarily considered an ally via a much quicker path so that while it gains full membership it cannot be invaded.
I life in a european country, and to be honest, im shocked how many of the "old guard" politicians and diplomats consider the whole crisis just a temporary upheaval in the russia relations, that can be waited out before everything is normal again. Waiting to resume the careers as if nothing happened.
A quarter million people dead, because these corrupt non-show of a generation failed to act decisevly, hypnotized itself and after wakeup they do not have the decency to fade into the shadow, step back from all posts and make way for a new guard, ready to take decisive action.
So many dissapointments, especially among the pacifists and anti-imperialists.. intellectual & moral bankruptcy wherever you look.
Might aswell trash the last 50 years of nice words and nothing to show for it. The idea, for all these creatures of comfort to return after the conflict, from the dark and moist places they hid, and try to carry on playacting civilized makes me vomit. "Never again" they yell, while being usefull idiots for those who are at it again.
A majority of cowards, who think that power of believe alone will make them good at the end of history after all this. Im so sorry i wasted all those years listening to them, reading there books and actually believing them to have value beyond the "heating" of the pulped wood.
No, thats what there politics so far have accomplished. And the first step to improvement would be to admit to that. The magic sentence : "I screwed up. Here is what lead to that, and here is were my thinking was flawed. Here is what i will do better from now on to avoid the flaws i obviously have.."
If the OP is talking about specific politicians like Merkel, Schroeder, even Schulz...
First, they should say loud and clear they made a terrible mistake (I believe Merkel said something like this quietly and not clearly). Second, they should do everything to help Ukraine and Ukrainians. Yes, a lot has been done. Not enough and not fast enough.
BTW I still feel amazed how quickly and efficiently they dealt with power plant/stations repairs when Putin decided to freeze the whole population to death in the middle of the winter. All my respect to these brave folks.
I see no indication OP is indeed talking about Germany. Could be, although Austrian politicians were most recently speaking of waiting out the war.
Anyways I find it very funny they are talking such a combative stance from the comfort of their home in western EU.
I is one thing to say our military should be involved it is another for a privet person to do so. If i alone as a private citizen go over there I I would have no logistical support to supply me with weapons, ammunition, food, equipment, medicen or direction. Hell I dont speak or read the local language, as a privet citizen going over there I would be a hindrance rather than a aid. if drafted and sent as part of a organized funded military all of those things are taken care of. for every one infantrymen the army fields on the front line they have about 3-5 soldiers working is various support roles. expecting random people to go alone is not helpful
> Russia would want its breadbasket back and an invasion would happen.
In 2019, Russia produced almost 3 times as much wheat as Ukraine. The invasion was launched by a deranged psychopath, let's not pretend Russia in anyways benefited from this.
Russia is 28 times larger than Ukraine. They certainly want to benefit from the resources in Ukraine that they're trying to annex (although I'll admit it certainly doesn't look like they are ever going to achieve their goals and benefit from actually conquering the country as they planned, if that's what you meant.)
Russia lost something like 27 million dead in WWII. The most recent figure I can find for this war (from November) is 100,000 dead. Russia has plenty of people remaining they can throw into the meat grinder.
I believe Ukraine did apply, or at least indicate they wanted to. The real reason Ukraine did not get invited to join NATO is that, even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, lots of people in Europe wanted to believe that it was still possible to do business with Russia, and that they would come around eventually. There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to democracy eventually; this was also a reason given by President Clinton for normalizing trade with China (where it has also not worked).
It has been a bit of a political earthquake for Germany to find itself arming others, perhaps more even for the political elite than for the general population. I don't think it would have been possible to convince them that Ukraine should be admitted prior to 2022. Now, of course, attitudes are very different (thankfully), but prior to 2022 the plan for most of Europe (and honestly most of North America as well) was to be nice to Russia and they would come around, because otherwise they would lost to much money. It turns out that is a bad strategy.
> There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to democracy eventually; this was also a reason given by President Clinton for normalizing trade with China (where it has also not worked).
Well I suppose it's impossible to determine real motivations of politicians, but I always assumed this was simply BS that nobody in power ever really believed.
I mean, when you're addicted to cheap oil/labor/whatever but the regime with the cheap oil/labor/whatever has some pesky anti-democratic tendencies, what better way to sell it to a skeptical population than to tell them that by merely consuming the cheap goods the transaction itself will somehow change the problematic regime's ideology?
> even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, lots of people in Europe wanted to believe that it was still possible to do business with Russia
Frankly this is true in the US too. It's true everywhere in the west, where there are inexplicable enclaves of Russophilic sentiment that flies in the face of all reason and evidence. Tech bros think they're a great new market. Finance wonks think they're a regulatory backdoor into European money. Old guard tankies still think they're anti-imperialist heroes. Reactionary right wingers think they're ethnic paragons fighting the culture war the west is too afraid of. Name a demographic, and you'll find a pack of sincere Russian apologists hiding in it somewhere.
When the history books finally get written once all the partisans are dead, the ability of this tiny, shrinking Russian state to effect this kind of information war is going to be the subject of book after book.
> United States, Canada, Poland, Romania, the Czechs and the Baltic States, strongly supported Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO action plan members; however, they were strongly opposed by Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium.
Nobody is demanding anything of NATO. I am retroactively demanding that the Ukrainian leadership should have rooted out corruption and got Ukraine’s ducks in a row so that it could join NATO. And the whole point of NATO is that most smaller countries do not benefit NATO as much as the alliance benefits them. Yet the cumulative effect is more world peace.
Besides, did you not notice the effect the war in Ukraine had on things like gas prices in the US?
Ukraine's inability to root out corruption so that it could join the EU/NATO wasn't some national failing as much as a very active Russian FSB/SVR presence inside Ukraine that prevented any significant reforms. The invasion was an admittance that their underhanded techniques were failing and a more active method of intervention into Ukrainian politics was necessary.
Absolutely correct. Reading my post, I realize my conclusion was unclear: each successive elimination of corruption within Ukraine, starting in the 2010's, was more and more threatening to Putin and his oligarch cronies until pressure on their theft of oil revenues become unbearable.
Obviously "requesting" is a much better word.
However, the gist of my comment was they are trying really hard to sell the idea that their membership is beneficial to NATO (which I believe it most definitely is not).
Well, they believe it is, and so do many people in NATO (and many disagree also). I still don't understand what the gist of calling requesting demanding is meant to convey.
Ukraine’s defense is a formidable army which has stopped the advance of what most experts thought was the second most powerful army in the world, and the fact that Ukraine is supplied weapons, training and ammunition from NATO countries doesn’t change that. It only adds to the point that NATO itself recognizes that Ukraine belongs in the alliance.
If Ukraine loses the war it will cease to be a buffer and become part of Russia.
Then one could also argue that no NATO country has ever fought off Russia.
Ukraine barely stopped the Russians, even with the massive help of NATO (both before and after the 2021 invasion). It doesn't follow at all that NATO thinks Ukr is a member. Ukr is just that - a buffer country that should not be taken by Russia. This is not meant in an offensive way, think of it as a neutral country like Switzerland or Austria.
> Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany.
It (presuming it succeeds) will be the only country to have fought off the Russian Federation, or anything referred to (even if only somewhat loosely) as “Russia” in the third millenium.
Fought (and in some of the cases you cited got steamrolled by) the USSR in WWII is... not particularly relevant.
> Ukraine is already a buffer state by virtue of its geographical position
Indeed Ukr has always been in a tough spot. Align with NATO or Russia and become a target for the other - that was the only choice I guess, but it was never explained why actual neutrality was never sought (like Switzerland). The only explanation I have is that both the US and Russia run covert ops to put puppet regimes in place.
> it was never explained why actual neutrality was never sought (like Switzerland).
Have you looked at a map? (Moreover, it was sought, and it didn’t work, so they choose another option to avoid the outcome.whuch had happened that they didn’t like.)
Not only have I looked at a map, I have the misfortune of living quite close to Ukr. You probably don't even need to bc you live far enough to be safe and lecture others on the internet.
>Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany.
Finland sure but the Winter War ended due as much to the valor of the Fins as to Stalin getting ready to fight Nazi Germany. Also Russia won the rest of your list taking took over Poland, Lithuania, and half of Germany. that was the whole WWII easterrn front/cold war warsaw pact thing.
How much has been spent on the Ukraine Russia conflict that could’ve been avoided if Russia had feared a NATO response (assuming existing Ukraine membership)? Avoided spending that now must be spent to defang Russia. The numbers I’ve seen thrown around are $100B+ in conflict cost. Cheaper to have done the paperwork and meetings imho, not to mention the exceptional loss of life in aggregate.
It probably would have deterred Russia from invading and saved most NATO countries a ton of money. Basically the entire point of NATO is to stop Russia going to war with its neighbiors.
And now Ukraine is going to be quite a week equipped and experienced ally. Certainly a country NATO should be happy to have on its side.
But NATO literally (and I also mean geographically) NATO has Ukr on its side. So what more would a country like say Portugal gain from Ukraine's NATO membership, except perhaps having to contribute to their defense even more?
Portugal has barely hit the 2% goal for defense spending that NATO members are supposed to be targeting. So it's not like they'd be spending more to protect Ukraine.
the whole point is by having this big block of countries agreeing to cooperatively fight Russia is if any of them are attacked, is that we don't actually have to fallow through because its to big of a risk for Russia to act up. If they had been part of NATO to begin with none of us would actually had to of sent any aid like we are now. NATO membership is as much about mutual coordination and defense as is is about deterring Russia from starting war in Europe.
Portugal was only an example. They could however find themselves pressured to send soldiers, and not only supplies, should NATO decide to openly declare war on Russia.
Getting hung up on the transactional piece of this is tragic. Ukraine constitutes a society that has embraced (evidenced by their revolution, stiff resistance so far, etc.) enlightenment values - the worth of an individual, a rules based society, meritocracy, etc. Before we run to all the counterfactuals, these values are generally instilled in the culture (particularly the younger demographics). NATO essentially exists to protect this common, values-based order.
Not granting membership earlier was those countries (mentioned in other comments) over-rotating on transactional-based benefits, over value-based ones. That's why there's such frustration now over getting Ukraine into NATO now. Will it happen? No, diplomatically impossible while they're engaged in hot war. But the moral outrage is reasonable given the bloody price they've paid in defense of the values NATO exists to protect. To clearly connect the dots...considering Ukraine as part of NATO benefits NATO in that it allows them to uphold those values it exists to serve, giving it purpose and strength from the unity of its member countries (and moral investment of the individuals who serve its armies).
> And maybe NATO needs a provisional membership process that allows a country to be temporarily considered an ally via a much quicker path so that while it gains full membership it cannot be invaded.
As a Ukrainian immigrant, how do you feel about the claims that ehtno-Russians in eastern Ukraine were being harassed and killed and having their culture made illegal by the Ukrainian government or its actors? There's so much propaganda on both sides. How do you feel about western involvement in 2014?
It's as much a case of whataboutism as your statement is of ignoratio elenchi.
That's not to say that I don't agree with your second statement. However, global geopolitics is far more complicated than how it tends to be presented to the general population, especially at times of war, and I don't think the OP asked the question in a malicious or dismissive way. We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss arguments as fallacies just because they don't line up with our point of view.
> I don't think the OP asked the question in a malicious or dismissive way
You're right I didn't ask in a malicious or dismissive way. And I don't see why my question was flagged. I'm not making an argument, I'm just asking a question of someone who has more involvement than I have and may have something interesting to say on the matter.
I guess I can't even ask a question if it mentions detail that goes against the accepted western narrative. Not here anyway.
> your comment...is not related to Finland joining NATO.
Neither was the post I was responding to. It was about the situation in Ukraine, Zelenskyy, Putin, Russia, Crimea, and their historical context. Someone submitted their opinion on all of that, and I asked them about their opinion on some further detail related to all of that.
Long overdue, but better late than never. Although the circumstances are grim due to the war in Ukraine, I’m happy we can be in alliance with our European and Northern American kin (and hopefully Sweden will follow suit soon once the wrinkles in relations with the countries stalling get process get sorted out, so we can get on with further integrating our defences both within Nordics and the Baltian countries). Thank you for our new allies for the trust.
Every invasion of Russia in modern history has been defeated by winter, and now NATO is gaining the world's best winter fighting forces as an ally. Even Moscow knows not to f* with the Finns. Couldn't be happier about this alliance.
> I must invade a neighboring country to prevent having NATO on my doorstep
Even without involving Finland, it's worse than that. If he successfully invades and conquers Ukraine, he will certainly have NATO at his doorstep. I doubt this was his real reasoning.
Maybe the plan was to take only as much of Ukraine to show that he could, if he wanted to, take the whole. Effectively turning the Ukraine into a no-mans-land and maintaining the threat of "don't join NATO, or else..." And Finland doesn't have oil to profit from, so he likely had no plans of ever touching that wasp's nest.
I'm not a politician nor military strategist, but I prefer not underestimating powerful people when thinking about their strategies.
Technically NATO is already 'at their doorstep'. Norway, Estonia, and Latvia share a border with mainland Russia (with Estonia and Latvia being much closer to Moscow than Ukraine is), and Lithuania and Poland also directly border Kaliningrad, which is Russian territory, and Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey only have the Black Sea separating them.
Yes, but only technically. What matters is the advanced weapons system each of these countries has on its territory. Think Aegis Ashore and the likes of that. Otherwise, they're just empty land (from a military viewpoint).
That we should take into account that NATO is already 'at their doorstep', regardless of which weapon systems are where, since they can be deployed anywhere later.
He won't have NATO next to the part of Russia "that counts", though, twisted logic though that may be. I think the original plan was to set up a puppet state as a buffer, anyway.
The stupid thing is that NATO already have a land border with Russia before even 2007: Estonia and Latvia. Both of which were concerned about being invaded by Russia because they have terrible memories of the last time.
(Ignoring Kaliningrad, which has a border with Lithuania and Poland but is not militarily defensible, and the awkward satellite state of Belarus)
Yup. And Norway. And Poland + Lithuania if we count Kaliningrad. The NATO land border just grew by about twice. I don't think this expansion affects any military balance as much as Russia tries to claim though.
No one was ever going to invade a country with ICBMs.
The invasion occurred because of Ukraine's movement toward the EU which, eventually, would curtail the ability of Putin and the oligarchs to swindle Russias oil and gas wealth through rampant price fixing and kick-backs. Everything else was rhetoric.
You mean beyond the 2014 Maidan Revolution and restoration of the 2004 constitutional modifications that began the process of moving toward the EU? Or the 2019 constitutional amendment that placed joining the EU and NATO as a strategic objective for Ukraine?
Aggressive war is inexcusable and I condemn all nations that engage in it including Russia and the United States. Ukraine has a right to its sovereignty just as all other nations do, but what you posted is shallow thinking.
Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of Moscow?" "how do I increase my ability to have Russian speaking agents plausibly cross into and out of Russia?"
Now put yourself in the mind of someone else seeking power and look at the map and, keeping an eye to history, ask yourself "what is the most effective way to destabilize Russia without involving US forces?"
Both parties are playing a very dangerous game that has a non-zero chance of ending with a nuclear exchange, limited or not. If peace was the goal then both sides need to agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of both military and political forces. A new agreement needs to be reached that places Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country and both sides should pay for reconstruction efforts and restitution to survivors. Of course, peace is never the goal.
> If peace was the goal then both sides need to agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of both military and political forces. A new agreement needs to be reached that places Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country and both sides should pay for reconstruction efforts and restitution to survivors.
This is clear Russian propaganda.
You "seem to forget" that Russia attacked Ukraine, committed several war crimes... Ukraine would be the happiest if the Russians GTFO and left them to be . They should even pay for the reconstruction costs and should be punished for their war crimes. That would almost make things even.
The US is taking advantage of a golden strategic opportunity, because why wouldn't they, but it's Russia scoring the own goal here. If they wanted to stop destabilizing themselves they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home. Nobody is going to follow them into Russia. They don't even have to do anything diplomatically. Just leave, no special agreements required, and the war is over.
A peace that grants Russia the Sudetenland as a consolation prize along with a guarantee that Ukraine is sovereign (but with a big asterisk in that they are also not sovereign in the sense that they are able to join an alliance of their choosing to protect themselves from aggressors) is just an invitation for Russia to consolidate the new territory and prepare the next push. And not being able to see that is for me much more shallow thinking.
> they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home
I wonder if that's actually realistically true.
The civil war has been going on for far longer and it will have to be dealt with. Ukrainian government seems to have also been signaling that its goal is to liberate Crimea, so this is also something that will be going on.
Maybe I misunderstood who you meant. I was thinking about business leaders striking lucrative deals, mayors appointed by the Russian administration, and so on.
I think there will probably be some resistance, but once the Russian troops leave Crimea, I can't see a popular uprising against the Ukraine as a state or something like that. Time will tell. I don't think Russia can hold Crimea in the long run. I'm not qualified to even guess, but when did that stop anybody?! :-D
I think it's likely Kiev will control Crimea within 24 months.
No, not both sides. Ukraine was perfectly to stay home and take care of their own citizens. There's only one country that invaded the other and started stealing their kids and bomb their population.
Russia can leave anytime, peace will be immediate.
Sorry, I realize English may not be your first language. When I say both sides I mean the United States and Russia. Ukraine is just stuck in the middle getting f'ed from both ends.
> Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of Moscow?" "how do I increase my ability to have Russian speaking agents plausibly cross into and out of Russia?"
You don't need Ukraine to do any of this. Poland and the Baltic states are NATO members already.
How can the US withdraw from Ukraine given that they are not fighting there? How can the US negotiate a cease fire in Ukraine over the head of Ukraine? Can you tell me how that is even supposed to be possible? That makes no sense.
I said they should withdraw both politically and militarily. What that would look like is up to whatever agreement could be reached in peace talks. On the other points you're simply being blind to history, read about peace negotiations and you'll find that the parties involved extend far beyond just the combatants especially in conflicts adjacent to super-powers.
Can't help but sad chuckle over this whole clash of rams battle of perspectives and the fact that Russia, Ukraine and other western countries had somewhat great relationships at the beginning of the century.
One could ask the same question from the Russian perspective when analyzing how Russia-West relations have deteriorated from Russia being in love with it, towards Russia having a lovecraftian fear of it (from Russian perspective, this is more of a proxy war with the West). This is actually the TLDR of Putin's Munich speech in late 2000-something.
I wonder what could be games theory solution here. Russia and the West don't trust each other and can't meet each-other expectations of peaceful coexistence - Ukraine got caught in the crossfire. What could hypothetically serve as a common ground for aligning the perspectives before it inertly escalates too far?
That's the wrong question to ask. From an amoral game theory perspective, the real question is: how can we bleed Russia to death? The ideal outcome would be to trigger multiple civil wars in Russia where various provinces break away from Moscow, leaving the rump successor state no more of a threat than North Korea. In that scenario, Russia would still have to be taken seriously as a nuclear threat but would no longer have enough conventional force to seriously threaten most of their neighbors.
thats not ideal either a bunch of breakaway states would be eaten by china which is not something NATO wants either.
from the wets prospective a quick internal cue falloewed by regim change to a more western friendly pro democracy leader that ideally is afraid of china would be the best outcome.
The best outcome, temporarily. It's not a stable situation. What happens next? Russia will get eaten by China anyways, the question now is, will it be piecemeal or in one big chunk.
China will not annex Russia or anything like that. But their government has everything to gain from extracting concessions from Russia. Russias influence is already waning in Central Asia, and China is eager to fill that role.
Russia is on its way to becoming hamstrung by China. Who else can Russia turn to?
China does not want Russia to implode and fracture, because that is an unstable situation for them. But if Russia was to fracture, you can be sure that China will want to control the pieces bordering China. They don't want chaos on their borders, or the power vacuum there somehow filled by western powers.
Might be, but that wouldn't affect Russia that much specifically.
China's and Europe's attitudes and practices towards their let's say "dependent trade and strategic partners" is a different story, but EU can hardly boast on that front, judging e.g. by various African states.
Based on what Ukraine at least appears to want, especially now, if it is sovereign it won't be neutral, and if forced to be neutral it isn't really sovereign.
My impression is that Turkey does not believe the rest of NATO takes the threat to it from some Kurdish organizations seriously. I have no access to unbiased data to say whether there is any actual significant threat to Turkey's security from Kurdish groups in Sweden, but it does appear that Turkey actually believes this to be a problem.
The main risk here is that, now that Finland is a member of NATO, it is not clear that Sweden will feel itself needing to make any concessions to Turkey, but Turkey may still want to demand them. I would rather that Sweden be formally in NATO. Given that the four biggest Scandinavian nations have agreed to practically merge their air forces, whether or not Sweden is an actual member may not matter too much, though.
For the Russian threat in particular, I simply don't see a way for Russia to attack Sweden without inherently having to attack Finland, Norway or Denmark also. Sure, they might fly some planes & bomb some things, but that won't win a war by itself. There's just no viable beach head attack route purely from international waters to Sweden -- the defense plan for the Baltic sea is based on mine blockades, and Swedes excel at submarine operations, so I'd think a direct attack by sea from such a singular direction would be pretty hopeless, if the attack really is constrained by not wanting to touch the neighbors.
On the other hand, the cost for military aggression has never been lower. All easy western retaliations, such as sanctions, have been spent. A few rockets, sent from a far, towards for example Gotland, will cost almost no political capital, since it has already been spent. It will not threaten Sweden's soverignity, but it will threaten it's security.
And why? As a retaliation, for example. To dissuade more Swedish equipment to be sent to Ukraine. Or to rally support for some imaginary cause. Russia is completely unreliable.
Except NATO has said they are treating attacks Finland and Sweeden as an Attack on NATO while they go through the application/approval process. attacking Sweden would be tantamount to starting WWIII even Russia's puppet state allies wouldn't back Putin if he picked that fight. Russia can barely hold its own now on one front
The thing most people on the West doesn't seem to get is, there are issues that predate Erdogan. Such as this one, whoever replaces him will make similar requests in a less childish more diplomatic way. There is legitimate concern across the voter base that the West is supporting Kurdish terrorist groups. No matter which party wins if they want to be re-elected they will need to address the same concerns.
While I've seen it reported as of late that fear over Kurdish groups is Turkey's official stance on holding back on voting Sweden in, the original reason given by Erdogan was over an isolated incident where a far-right anti-Islamist burned a Quran[1]. Pretty par for Erdogan's course, but I expect he's likely trying to double-down on appealing to his conservative voter-base for the upcoming election. With this matter of Sweden joining NATO, the outcome of this election has pretty grand implications on the global theater.
Add this spicy bit of news from today seems to indicate that Erdogan realizes what is at stake[2]
I don't think that's necessarily a good idea.
Ignoring the fact that no country should be pressured to accept becoming allies with some other country they don't like, what would Sweden expect from Turkey if, say, Russia invades?
The same as Turkey would expect of Sweden if, say, Russia invades.
Please stop thinking that Turkey (or any other country) is doing a favor to Sweden (or to Finland) by accepting their NATO application. It benefits all parties - Russians included.
I presume parent is implying that war doesn't really provide any benefit to the occupants of either nation, so by expanding NATO--or otherwise encouraging 'don't start a fucking war'--we get to keep the populace out of war.
War might benefit _some_ russians, or _some_ americans, or _some_ <whatever_nation>, but I doubt that on balance 'peace' is a worse situation for most people. So, if NATO can encourage peace (even through threat of force), that's overall a benefit
It has been understated what a disaster this is for Putin's paranoid war plans: Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, Moldova, etc. are all on the list to be occupied because these are what he thinks are key to the security of Russia, and that Russia is entitled to rule these places.
Now not only is Ukraine out of reach, he has gained 800 miles of border directly exposed to NATO. A single road near this new NATO border connects Murmansk to St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg and the exclave of Kaliningrad are the only access to the Baltic Sea, with NATO nations directly adjacent.
Putin is presiding over one of the greatest geostrategic blunders in history and he doesn't even drink enough to have that excuse.
The recent news about Finland and Scandinavia forming unified air force command is a major shift too:
> COPENHAGEN, March 24 (Reuters) - Air force commanders from Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark said on Friday they have signed a letter of intent to create a unified Nordic air defence aimed at countering the rising threat from Russia.
In total, they have 200+ modern fighter jets, soon mostly F-35s. And if you look at the map, they are right next to the main bases of Russia's Northern Fleet and Baltic Fleet.
This is a total disaster. Might as well sell warships for scrap.
Paranoid dictators will always eat themselves. Delusion and extreme corruption can only get one so far.
I’m happy that Putin has been exposed for the weak baby he is as opposed to the strong man image that he projected (and many people understandably believed) before this war.
Whatever Putin thought he would accomplish, it completely backfired. But the Ukrainian people shouldn't have to pay the price of his lunacy. Neither does his own people which I know too well to know a lot are also suffering from having to fight against their brethren. Stupid war.
The US grand strategy is to build the largest military, democratic and economic alliance in order to dominate world affairs? Finland (and Sweden) punches above their weight in all three
HELSINKI (AP) — Finland's main conservative party claimed victory in parliamentary elections Sunday in a tight three-way race that saw right-wing populists take second place, leaving Prime Minister Sanna Marin's Social Democratic Party in third, dashing her hopes for reelection.
Half of the Left Alliance either voted against it or abstained. They're not one of the big 3 parties, but they have enough seats in parliament to have an effect on things.
I'm very happy that Finland is part of the team now. Sweden can stay out of Nato for all I care unless they finally cooperate with Germany when it comes to the Nord Stream bombings instead of hiding their findings.
Well, that's just my opinion. Germany's infrastructure was attacked, Sweden said "We're not gonna share our findings with German intelligence". Not sure how there's any situation in which Germany should go to a literal war - no questions asked - should Sweden be attacked if Sweden cannot even share their findings when it comes to an attack on an supposed ally.
Would you be willing to help out your neighbor if he told you that he has information about who robbed your house but won't share it with you? I highly doubt it.
Sweden doesn't care about NS2, but they'd rather not embarass the US (if this is true). After all both countries were very vocal since day 1 that Russia blew up their own pipelines. I'd love to find out the truth, even 10 years from now.
This is an excellent deal for Finland, whose sovereignty is protected.
Is it the same for the US? Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? An attack against the US can unleash the end of humanity. I find very risky to leave this at the whims of some out of touch Russian dictator.
So the small countries exist and if they cannot rely on big countries for protection against nuclear states, then the only way forward for them is to have their own nuclear weapons. Do you like that world better? Does it lower or heighten the risk of unleashing the “end of humanity”?
> Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store
Difference is those weapons are not Belgian to deploy against e.g. Austria whenever anti-Austrian fascist party is in power in Belgium. Example sounds absurd today, but you can use Hungary for example, another country bitter of its lands lost a century ago. That’s basically what the world with nuclear weapons everywhere looks like. Game of chicken against the opponents perceived weak over opportunistic use of century-old grievances.
I don't accept that dichotomy despite I see value in the argument. Since the invention of nuclear bombs, how many countries without nuclear weapons have lost their sovereignty of those surrounding Russia?
Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?
You make a good point. But Finland would develop nukes now if not for the option to join NATO. People are saying that the nonaligned countries didn't use to worry because Russia used to respect the international order, the one where you don't touch borders for no reason, and that illusion has now shattered.
> Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?
Finland is a small country and nukes are very expensive (and hard) to deal with all the way: development, manufacture, deployment, service. The pressure to have your own nukes is low when you consider an attack unlikely, which was the case for Finland for the last 60 years.
Countries that did not feel so safe moved much faster (considering different fates of Mr. Gaddafi and Mr. Kim). But recent Russian actions motivated a lot of its neighbors who were not worried before to spend whatever is needed to make an attack on them prohibitively expensive.
The collective West had way more resolve to respond to the further Russian expansion westward during the Cold War, you can say they were fools risking the end of humanity and maybe so, but it worked better for the stability in Europe than current deference to Russian interest and Americans openly pondering why they need NATO, because woke something something. It is weak, perceived as weak, and acted upon.
As for Finland during the Cold War, not sure if it had a pathway to NATO, same as modern Ukraine, or if the USSR would give it time to develop a bomb. They treaded carefully and forfeited a great deal of their independence.
If Finland doesn't need NATO, then why is Finland now joining NATO after 60 years?
Finland's policy was one of soft appeasement. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has revealed this to be a bad idea, so Finland continuing as it was is no longer a responsible option.
Finland having powerful allies as we move closer to WW3 is well worth celebrating. The only people not celebrating are vatniks and vatnik sympathizers. Polarized indeed.
Yeah however does not want a 3rd world war, billions of lives lost and a destroyed planet, is Putin's agent, sounds legit. Whoever is a warmonger celebrating for going towards that direction is fan of democracy and liberalism, somehow.
NATO is the organization set up by the US to look after its interests in Europe. It was Truman's goal that with a sufficiently powerful defensive alliance there would be no such attack in the first place.
> Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US?
Lots of people in 1939 said that they didn't want to go to war over Czechslovakia. But of course, once a dictator has successfully annexed one territory without a fight, what does he do next? Annex another one.
The US is arming the fighting in Ukraine so it does not have to fight Russia in Poland.
Don't be so condescending - Finland is one of the few countries that successfully resisted a Russian invasion. It is very much capable of protecting itself, much more so than Ukraine (which is also doing it, albeit with significant support from the west).
The NATO (and the US actually) benefits a lot by Finland joining, and will benefit from Sweden joining too - only a matter of time.
Dunno man. Booting the invaders and keeping sovereignty after your tiny nation of 3 million is invaded by an army of over 500K soldiers seems like a win to me, especially when literally every other neighbor fell. But whatever. Finland's ready for Russia.
Article 5 says it will be considered an attack against "them all", not against the US. In reality this is very convenient for US. What ukraine is suffering now is what would happen if russia invaded finland: the US would provide endless material support and the threat of nukes, but the vast majority of damage and losses would be Finnish. NATO acts as a shield for the US in Europe, keeping the wars away from the Americas. That's how it has been designed to be from the beginning
It would be a sheer impossibility for a country of 5 million to defeat the Soviet Union which could mobilize tens of millions of soldiers. It simply became too expensive for them and it was terrible timing for the soviets to launch an attack. Bad weather and their officer corps had been culled to shit
Interestingly enough - the US is the only country to have invoked article 5 which is the principle that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all - in response to the 9/11 attacks.
To nitpick: it was not the US that invoked article 5 after 9/11. It was driven by its European allies, which wanted a show of support at that time, to be expressed any way they could.
The actual impact of that article 5 was pretty non-existent. 9/11 was not a declaration of war by a state; it was an action of a well-organized group. There are no specific actions that this article 5 could imply beyond the PR.
I do not think you are wrong. It was a joint declaration, but from what I vaguely remember, the idea came from Europe and everyone understood it to be a great PR value with no technical pull. My 2c.
If you’re mad at some of the Allies, be mad at the European “big powers” that have let their hard power rot and are unable to defend their interests in Europe (see Ukraine would be extinct without the US). Finland has an army more capable of defending their territory than any other EU country other than Poland after their latest expansion. They just prefer not to have to do that - hence NATO which raises the threshold to invade immensely
> Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US?
NATO is about deterrence, not really defense per se. NATO membership makes wars with Russia less likely, and provably so. So your answer is yes: the only way the modern global economy works is if all the players are guaranteed they won't get crushed and pillaged by rogue neighbors. A continuous land war in Europe is absolutely not safer for the USA than a decades-long cold war.
The "whims of some out of touch Russian dictator" are going to be dangerous no matter what we do. We can't control Putin and we aren't able to effect regime change in a nuclear state. The only decision left to us is how best to control it.
NATO's action vis a vis Russia is clearly deterrent, and the core purpose of the alliance is quite clearly deterrance. That the same command structures have been used to coordinate non-Russia-related actions (Yugoslavia too) isn't relevant to the point you're responding to.
You can deploy all the anti-imperialist hyperbole you want, but the "reason" for having a mutual defense treaty among quite-clearly-non-dominated nations like Germany or the UK is pretty obviously defense.
Yeah your right Mr Chamberlain, its only Czechoslovakia, oh and Poland, and oh shit its France too now, and are those plane overhead?
letting power mad dictators take over their weaker neighboors territory uncontested tends to not turn out well be it Napoleon, Hitler Stalin, or Putin.
How many lives would have not been completely destroyed had the powers that be 15-20 years ago gotten their act together?
I should say that IMO Zelinsky is doing as excellent a job as he possibly can with the situation now. The main issue is not joining NATO when it wouldn’t have resulted in war before the process can be completed. And maybe NATO needs a provisional membership process that allows a country to be temporarily considered an ally via a much quicker path so that while it gains full membership it cannot be invaded.