4 ms·

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 res

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.

cjbgkagh 5y ago
Making triggering WW3 his only remaining choice does not sound like a good idea
- iso1631 5y ago
  When do the billionaires backing him decide they don't want to rule over a nuclear wasteland? Can they even stop him?
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    > 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'.
  - twox2 5y ago
    billionaire's do not "back" him, they are his proxy. It's his money they are holding, not theirs.
- ledauphin 5y ago
  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.
  - cjbgkagh 5y ago
    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.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      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?
      - cjbgkagh 5y ago
        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.
        sofixa 5y ago
        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.
        cjbgkagh 5y ago
        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.
- notapenny 5y ago
  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.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  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.
avgcorrection 5y ago
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.
alkonaut 5y ago
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…

cjbgkagh 5y ago

Making triggering WW3 his only remaining choice does not sound like a good idea

iso1631 5y ago
When do the billionaires backing him decide they don't want to rule over a nuclear wasteland? Can they even stop him?
- zajio1am 5y ago
  > 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'.
- twox2 5y ago
  billionaire's do not "back" him, they are his proxy. It's his money they are holding, not theirs.
ledauphin 5y ago
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.
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  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.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    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?
    - cjbgkagh 5y ago
      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.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        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.
        cjbgkagh 5y ago
        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.
notapenny 5y ago
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.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
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.

avgcorrection 5y ago

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.

alkonaut 5y ago

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…