4 ms·

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 NAT

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.

hnarn 5y ago
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.
- pakitan 5y ago
  > 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.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    >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.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > 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.
  - iostream24 5y ago
    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…
    - pakitan 5y ago
      > 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?
      - iostream24 5y ago
        > 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…
      - iostream24 5y ago
        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
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO?
- pakitan 5y ago
  Did I say that the only reason to get invaded by the Russians is wanting to join NATO?
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    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.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    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?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > 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.
ynfnehf 5y ago
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/uutiset/3-12268949 https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12268949?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp 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."
watwut 5y ago
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".
CRConrad 5y ago
> 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?

hnarn 5y ago

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.

pakitan 5y ago
> 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.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >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.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > 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.
- iostream24 5y ago
  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…
  - pakitan 5y ago
    > 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?
    - iostream24 5y ago
      > 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…
    - iostream24 5y ago
      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

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO?

pakitan 5y ago
Did I say that the only reason to get invaded by the Russians is wanting to join NATO?
- alkonaut 5y ago
  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.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  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?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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.

ynfnehf 5y ago

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/uutiset/3-12268949 https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12268949?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp 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."

watwut 5y ago

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".

CRConrad 5y ago

> 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?