12 ms·
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NAT
by The_Colonel 4y ago
Finland got de-Finlandized at last.
Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months.
NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggression).
- chinathrow 4y ago> Finland got de-Finlandized at last. What does this even mean?
- dantyti 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
- tcard 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
- diimdeep 4y ago[flagged]
- Convolutional 4y ago[flagged]
- spookie 4y agoRussia didn't take over Finland because it couldn't. It wasn't for a lack of will. They committed 450k to 750k of their man and lost 300k of them. If that isn't defeat, I don't know what is.
- Convolutional 4y ago[flagged]
- mannerheim 4y agoRussia never wanted to take over Finland, that's why they created a puppet government in Terijoki that claimed Helsinki as its capital.
- leereeves 4y ago[flagged]
- spookie 4y agoIn the battle of Stalingrad they were the ones being attacked. Big difference.
- leereeves 4y agoYes, a difference of will. They were simply willing to fight much harder to defend Stalingrad than to invade Finland.
- spookie 4y agoIf we were to follow that mindset, then no country has ever truly lost a war. They simply lacked the will to win. They could do it anytime. They just chose not to. You truly believe this? Remarkable.
- leereeves 4y agoOf course that's not true. Nations can run out of at least three things required to wage war: resources, people, or will. And the Soviets were nowhere near running out of resources or people at the end of the Winter War, as shown by their ability to defeat a much more powerful enemy a few years later.
- spookie 4y agoYes, we all know that this move was played out by those sneaky Americans. 4D chess that invasion of Ukraine /s
- seanw444 4y agoA good politician never lets a catastrophe go to waste. U.S. may not have purposely caused the invasion of Ukraine, but it's certainly a useful tool to rake in those NATO holdouts.
- spookie 4y agoThe only one to blame for the invasion, or the fact that new countries are joining NATO is Putin, and his political colleagues. Making it seem as if Finland is but a vassal for the U.S. for this move is disingenuous at best. After Georgia, Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine, anyone would make such a decision. Out of their own will. In order to survive.
- GalenErso 4y agoI don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of influence or increase tensions with Russia. Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms.
- User23 4y ago> Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms. Amusingly, that status quo is enforced via the USA’s supposed overwhelming force of arms. Which in turn suggests your analysis is deeply deficient in its consideration of higher order effects.
- watwut 4y agoUkraine is asking for those guns ... and one of many reason is that being under Russian leadership means becoming poorer and poorer.
- red-iron-pine 4y agoWhich, apparently, matter. See also: Georgia, Armenia vs. Azerbaijan, Belorussian & Kazakh internal protests and revolts, or Ukraine c. 2014. Russian arms have been used on or by all of those countries. In the case of Armenia, support meant they kicked he shit out of the Azeris before... and not the case now, where Russian can't or won't help them, but the Turks are backing the Azeris. Force of arms has made a big difference for all of the states around Russia. And not necessarily in a good way.
- morkalork 4y agoReading about what the Soviet Union did in countries like Estonia and Ukraine is pretty harrowing stuff. Wanting to join NATO for protection after is completely understandable and denying them because it would upset their former (and present) abuser is a shameful thought.
- gambiting 4y ago
- kreeben 4y ago>> just Hah, yeah, that's not a big deal at all, neutralizing Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors, through threats of aggression. Like, who's scared of Russia these days? They're just empty threats. I'd like totally bet my life on it, just empty threats. EDIT: /s
- kgwxd 4y ago> Who's scared of Russia and their threats, these days? Ukraine?
- duxup 4y agoI’d say less scared than 14 months ago. Putin and Co. really hasn’t done much for Russia or it’s people lately. They looked stronger when they were a less aggressive bully and were poisoning people.
- lolinder 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukra... Russia doesn't have to win in order to be scary to their neighbors—they just have to persuade their neighbors that they're irrational and have no sense of self preservation.
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoI mean, they can still apparently send neverending waves of convicts to rape and pillage, which is worth avoiding.
- dralley 4y agoJust because Russia is not an existential threat to the vast majority of NATO countries except perhaps the Baltics, doesn't mean there's not a recognition of the amount of damage they could inflict in the process of a "failed" invasion.
- sensanaty 4y agoI'm in genuine shock that this obvious sarcasm needed an edit to add the /s
- torbica 4y ago[flagged]
- mantas 4y ago[flagged]
- torbica 4y ago[flagged]
- tokai 4y ago[flagged]
- torbica 4y agoWhy is that problem?
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoNobody in NATO wants to invade Russia and have a nuclear war. 20% of homes there don't even have indoor plumbing. Nobody wants anything from Russia except to not be attacked by them.
- torbica 4y agoNobody in my country wanted to be bombed by NATO and it still happened.
- selectodude 4y ago[flagged]
- torbica 4y agoI think that even one single human loss is disaster and hate to go along this road but please inform yourself more on "evidence" of those claims and heavy exaggeration of victim numbers.
- xkcd1963 4y ago[flagged]
- alkonaut 4y agoI know this is the worst kind of whataboutism and shouldn't be awarded a response but I'll bite. Finland joining means it becomes part of a defense pact. It's not like suddenly the "US sphere of influence" expands, or that there are somehow US military bases in Eastern Finland.
- lolinder 4y agoIf the US invaded Canada and Mexico looked to Russia for support in case they're next, I certainly wouldn't blame them.
- bee_rider 4y agoRussia should try and use diplomatic means and soft power to hang on to their sphere of influence. If they tried to put uncomfortably positioned bases in Mexico, the US has lots of diplomatic and economic leverage to get Mexico to reconsider. We wouldn’t have a war over it.
- mopsi 4y agoThere is no need for hypotheticals. Russia already has military bases in the middle of Europe and hosts nuclear missiles there. Map: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-3.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...
- andreygrehov 4y ago[flagged]
- sgjohnson 4y ago> Wouldn't it be smarter to actually listen to what Russia is trying to say? No. Nobody should care what Russia has to say about another country voluntarily wanting to (and joining) NATO > the irony is that the expansion of NATO gives the US ability to force its will upon NATO members and its neighbors All NATO members joined voluntarily. None of your business. > the ambitions are not different from the ambitions of Russia. I won’t even attempt to refute this.
- andreygrehov 4y ago> No. Nobody should care what Russia has to say about another country voluntarily wanting to (and joining) NATO I'm sorry, but Russia's concern is not out of thin air - you can only join NATO if your membership is not a threat to your border countries. This is one of the rules of NATO itself.
- sgjohnson 4y ago> This is one of the rules of NATO itself. It would be odd to have such a rule, because NATO is a defensive alliance that is of no threat to any of the bordering countries. Russia’s concern is out of the thin air, because if NATO really wanted it to, with how incompetent the russian army is, I estimate it’s 3 days to take Moscow. The only people afraid of the Russian army are Russian men of military age.
- andreygrehov 4y ago> It would be odd to have such a rule I mean, read their rules.
- sgjohnson 4y agoYou made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
- itsoktocry 4y ago[flagged]
- nirav72 4y agoNATO in Afghanistan was because of article 5 after 9/11. Also NATO was not in Iraq. There were some NATO member countries in Iraq as part of a coalition the Bush administration put together. But Iraq was not a NATO operation.
- staringback 4y agoWhat about Yugoslavia in 1999?
- nirav72 4y agoIn Yugoslavia , there was literally a civil war happening along ethnic lines on the European continent. Not to mention genocide.
- piva00 4y agoThey did, and that started a much larger discussion about what was the role of NATO in the 21st century. Before Russia's aggression NATO was heading towards irrelevance, Iraq and Afghanistan were a major point on opposition to NATO in Europe. Putin's decision lit a fire on that, now NATO has a purpose again.
- _djo_ 4y agoNo. NATO deployed some forces in Afghanistan as a result of the triggering of Article 5 in response to the 9/11 attacks, though it wasn't an all-out action and wasn't carried out through NATO's command structures. NATO did not deploy offensive forces into Iraq as an organisation. Some NATO members did on their own accord outside of NATO, but the organisation itself only ever had a non-combat training and advisory mission.
- staringback 4y ago
- ilyt 4y ago> if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. I mean, yeah, but the reason is probably just "we need more shit to shoot at civilians in UA" rather than "we don't fear NATO invasion"
- mupuff1234 4y agoSure, but if they actually feared a NATO invasion they wouldn't have had the liberty to shift those forces.
- tnel77 4y agoYes, but… no? If you want to give the appearance of strength, I wouldn’t suggest losing to a country 1/28 your size.
- The_Colonel 4y agoYeah, but it shows the priorities - conquer more non-NATO land or protect their borders against an apparently existential threat intent on destroying Russia? This is a mask off moment.
- jcranmer 4y agoI can't take credit for this quote (I think I got it from a War on the Rocks podcast, but I'm not sure), but it's definitely apt here: Putin may have been hoping to Finlandize NATO. Instead, he NATO-ized Finland.