4 ms·

NATO won't accept members that are entangled in regional conflicts which may turn into wars soon (that's why Ukraine couldn't apply anymore after 2014). So Russ

NATO won't accept members that are entangled in regional conflicts which may turn into wars soon (that's why Ukraine couldn't apply anymore after 2014). So Russia's solution would be to start such a conflict, sooner rather than later.

denton-scratch 4y ago
I think that NATO can't accept new members that are not in control of their own borders; the moment such a new member accedes, NATO would find itself in a state of war.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adrr 4y ago
US said they protect countries who apply for NATO. So attacking Sweden or Finland would bring the US into the conflict. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-05/u-s-gives-sweden-and-finland-security-promises-on-road-to-nato https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-05/u-s-gives...
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Would I, as a Finnish or Swedish lawmaker, trust that promise? The US has not won a war in eighty years, and their shoot first, ask questions later approach may ultimately be more destructive than Russians could ever be.
  - trasz 4y ago
    There is a fundamental difference: US is dangerous to armies, Russia is dangerous to civilians.
    - goldorak 4y ago
      Cooome on! the US is also extremely dangerous to civilian population, look at vietnam, afganistan, irak... this is almost obscene.
      - trasz 4y ago
        In Afghanistan an Iraq civilians were collateral damage, they weren't targeted on purpose. Whereas Russia is conducting planned genocide, as evidenced in Bucha and Mariupol.
trashtester 4y ago
I think the greater reason for hesitating to accept Ukraine up until now would be their still-unstable democracy and high level of corruption. When the war is over, it may be that the new-found unity caused by the external threat will be enough for them to reinforce their institutions significantly. This could reach a point that could ensure lasting democracy while enabling them to properly fight/eliminate most corruption. At that point, combined with a peace treaty with Russia, they should be able to Join.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  NATO has no problems with unstable democracies and high levels of corruption. It was founded by the US... More likely, Ukraine after the war will be a massively destroyed country, with widespread poverty and a constant need for western powers to pour money into - and that breeds corruption. The only way forward - should they survive as a nationstate - would be some kind of grotesquely enlarged Marshall Plan - they would become in the 21th century that what Germany was between 1946 and 1990: A military bridgehead and designated battlefield should Russia get another taste for war, with modest economic growth.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Ukraine can be paid war reparations with the money confiscated from Russia, including Russian reserves. It might actually boost their economy compared to pre-war situation.
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      Don't worry, that money is gone. It's already in the coffers of western oligarch-equivalents and shareholders. Did you think all that military hardware we've sent them grew on trees?
      - trasz 4y ago
        There’s a lot more money to confiscate from Russia.
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
I'm Finnish, and I'd like to see them try. (and fail (again)) Imagine diverting 50% of Russian troops from Ukraine, where they are already struggling, to another special operation in Finland. Can't see it happening. They'd have to actually declare war to conscript the whole population and what nonsense could Putin say to sell that to his people at this point?

denton-scratch 4y ago

I think that NATO can't accept new members that are not in control of their own borders; the moment such a new member accedes, NATO would find itself in a state of war.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

adrr 4y ago

US said they protect countries who apply for NATO. So attacking Sweden or Finland would bring the US into the conflict. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-05/u-s-gives-sweden-and-finland-security-promises-on-road-to-nato https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-05/u-s-gives...

DocTomoe 4y ago
Would I, as a Finnish or Swedish lawmaker, trust that promise? The US has not won a war in eighty years, and their shoot first, ask questions later approach may ultimately be more destructive than Russians could ever be.
- trasz 4y ago
  There is a fundamental difference: US is dangerous to armies, Russia is dangerous to civilians.
  - goldorak 4y ago
    Cooome on! the US is also extremely dangerous to civilian population, look at vietnam, afganistan, irak... this is almost obscene.
    - trasz 4y ago
      In Afghanistan an Iraq civilians were collateral damage, they weren't targeted on purpose. Whereas Russia is conducting planned genocide, as evidenced in Bucha and Mariupol.

trashtester 4y ago

I think the greater reason for hesitating to accept Ukraine up until now would be their still-unstable democracy and high level of corruption. When the war is over, it may be that the new-found unity caused by the external threat will be enough for them to reinforce their institutions significantly. This could reach a point that could ensure lasting democracy while enabling them to properly fight/eliminate most corruption. At that point, combined with a peace treaty with Russia, they should be able to Join.

DocTomoe 4y ago
NATO has no problems with unstable democracies and high levels of corruption. It was founded by the US... More likely, Ukraine after the war will be a massively destroyed country, with widespread poverty and a constant need for western powers to pour money into - and that breeds corruption. The only way forward - should they survive as a nationstate - would be some kind of grotesquely enlarged Marshall Plan - they would become in the 21th century that what Germany was between 1946 and 1990: A military bridgehead and designated battlefield should Russia get another taste for war, with modest economic growth.
- trasz 4y ago
  Ukraine can be paid war reparations with the money confiscated from Russia, including Russian reserves. It might actually boost their economy compared to pre-war situation.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Don't worry, that money is gone. It's already in the coffers of western oligarch-equivalents and shareholders. Did you think all that military hardware we've sent them grew on trees?
    - trasz 4y ago
      There’s a lot more money to confiscate from Russia.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

I'm Finnish, and I'd like to see them try. (and fail (again)) Imagine diverting 50% of Russian troops from Ukraine, where they are already struggling, to another special operation in Finland. Can't see it happening. They'd have to actually declare war to conscript the whole population and what nonsense could Putin say to sell that to his people at this point?