3 ms·
It has become increasingly clear that reluctance to integrate with euro-atlantic security cooperation means exactly that: high risk of becoming a possession of
by mopsi 5y ago
It has become increasingly clear that reluctance to integrate with euro-atlantic security cooperation means exactly that: high risk of becoming a possession of Russia.
Staying neutral and having greater freedom to pick and choose positions on issues is convenient, but not worth the price tag of Russian invasion. Now that Russia has shown the willingness to engage in conventional war in Europe, illusions of peaceful cooperation have been shattered and the cost/benefit calculus is against neutrality. Sweden has been neutral for 200 years and now they've seriously discussing joining NATO, simply because the cost of staying neutral has grown too large. Even eventual victory in conventional war would mean destroyed cities and unimaginable horror for civilian population.
- pydry 5y agoUkraine wasnt a possession of Russia before. Finland is not a posession of Russia either. It wouldnt be a possession by remaining neutral. In case it's not abundantly clear invasion is not the price of staying neutral. The invasion is the price of admission to NATO.
- mopsi 5y ago> invasion is not the price of staying neutral Pretty much every country in Europe has done the calculus and reached a different result. Even Ireland is reconsidering neutrality after the recent harassment. Acquiring nuclear weapons or at least allying with a nuclear power is looking like the best option to ensure peace in Europe.
- pydry 5y agoThe calculus is completely different for countries not on strategically critical sections of Russia's border. Papua new guinea could join I dont think that would bother them. Not a risk for them. No country bar perhaps georgia, belarus or kazakhstan would bother them as much as ukraine joining.