4 ms·

> It looks a lot more like "Putin thought he could find a diplomatic solution and realised the only option left was to invade, but it was too late and didn't se

by mopsi 3y ago

> It looks a lot more like "Putin thought he could find a diplomatic solution and realised the only option left was to invade, but it was too late and didn't send enough forces". Ironically, this is the simplification that you speak of. It is an extremely simple narrative that people are trying to sell as a sophisticated analysis. It completely ignores the immediate 70 years of history still in living memory, and the preceding five centuries. No "scholar" and "expert" pushing this narrative ever speaks about Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and others, about the secret protocol between the USSR and Germany that divided Europe for half a century; about occupied countries and genocide committed by Russians, and the legacy of all that and its influence on the present day. Completely missing. For example, explain within your framework why in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden abandoned neutrality that they had maintained since the Napoleonic era.

hackandthink 3y ago
Sweden has been close to NATO for decades. There is not much to explain. It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. It's different for the baltic states. They were lucky to be able to join NATO without any major trouble from Russia. Russia was still weak in 2004. I think it was in 2007 that Putin felt strong enough to oppose NATO enlargements in eastern Europe (his speech at Munich security conference). Georgia caved in in 2008, they don't like dying for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The nationalists in Ukraine are less pragmatic, even Minsk 2 was too much for them. https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-sweden-joining-nato https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-argu...
- mopsi 3y ago
  > It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. Swedish military experts think otherwise. If Russia were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then one could reasonably expect that they would close the Suwalki gap that connects Lithuania and Poland, to cut the land route between them end rest of Europe, and invade the Swedish island of Gotland, to prevent any supply over sea or air routes. It would require an effort comparable to Normandy landings to liberate the invaded countries; unlikely to happen. Hence the Swedish reaction, to prevent that chain of events from starting in the first place: > During the 20th century, infantry, artillery, air force and naval elements were stationed on Gotland as part of Sweden's defense system, until all permanent military units were stood down in 2005. With tensions in Northeastern Europe and Russia escalating in 2014–2015, the Swedish government has taken a new interest in remilitarizing the island. And in September 2016 regular troops were once again stationed on the island, albeit as an interim measure until a permanent garrison could be reestablished. As of 1 January 2018 Gotland has re-established the Gotland Regiment. And even larger policy shift followed the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, from entry into NATO to establishment of joint air force command for Norway, Sweden and Finland - because the scale of Russian aggression against Ukraine made abundantly clear that none of them would be equipped to fight something like that off alone, and that Putin was willing to unleash it without provocation. The typical "america bad" narrative pushed by useful idiots completely fails to explain these developments.
  - hackandthink 3y ago
    Ok, technically the occupation of Gotland would be an invasion of Sweden. My intuition is that in the event of a war with Russia, the Baltic would be a no go area for warships anyway. Attacking ships with missiles and drones is quite popular und succesful at the moment. We can be glad that it was much harder for the Germans in WW II.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  As a person born in one of the ex soviet countries, i hate the narrative of 'nato expansion'. NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. Because all of them knew acactly what will happen otherwise. Precisely to avoid what was happening to Ukraine (russia defacto controlling it via puppet politicians) and now being actively invaded by russia. Russia complaining about 'nato expansion', is akin to wife-beater complaining his wife run away and got a restraining order.
  - hackandthink 3y ago
    >NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. I agree and it worked for many countries. Though it did not work any more for Georgia and Ukraine. The Ukrainian nationalist course may have been morally correct, but it was definitely risky and failed.
roenxi 3y ago
> For example, explain within your framework why in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden abandoned neutrality that they had maintained since the Napoleonic era. Because they're worried about being invaded by Russia, think NATO is substantially more powerful and likely to aid them? That seems like a pretty obvious one to me. > Ironically, this is the simplification that you speak of... Yeah. My argument is that only simple messages propagate. I don't know why people feel compelled to point out I'm pushing a simple message. Complex messages don't work. The issue I'm pointing out is that the current in-vogue simple message is catastrophic in consequence. US foreign policy has managed to go from unassailable global hegemon to conceivably taken out in a 3 front war + debt crisis by 2035. Not likely, but uncomfortably possible and there was no need to be staring at a debt crisis or to provoke a 3-front war - in 2016 it looked like the US and Russia could even have become friends aligned lightly against the threat of the Chinese military going rogue. There are 350 million people in the US, surely they can find another Bismarck instead of the clowns that were responsible for the clown show that was 2000-2020.
- mopsi 3y ago
  > Because they're worried about being invaded by Russia, think NATO is substantially more powerful and likely to aid them? That seems like a pretty obvious one to me. Why should they be worried about being invaded by Russia, if their policy was to stay neutral and accommodate Russia as much as they could, like Putin's apologist recommend?
  - roenxi 3y ago
    I think you're reading something I didn't write; it is pretty obvious why they should be worried about Russia and why they'd want to join NATO. Everyone wants to join NATO. Even Russia has tried to join NATO [0]. But the issue here is that Russia's actions if Ukraine joins NATO were very easy to predict. And we've discovered through the Ukraine war that Ukraine is already partially under the NATO defence umbrella. So Russia actions here are not random imperialism but actually fairly predictable from their long-standing defence interests. If the US (and maybe the EU, I dunno much about German/French politics) hadn't been flirting with coup support and closer military ties in the 2010s then war could probably have been avoided; especially if the diplomatic efforts of the Trump administration had been encouraged. As it stands, the US has managed to piss off the people who control the world's largest nuclear arsenal and top-10 oil reserves, done who-knows-what long term to their relationship with Germany through the Nordstream sabotage, run Russia's military through a whetstone so they'll be a lot more battle-ready and is encouraging that package to form a China/Iran/whoever alliance because they have no other choice. And re-militarise Europe after 70 years of relative peace. It is obvious that the US doesn't see diplomacy as an option and will not negotiate in good faith. This outcome is so bad that it would be more sensible not to have been provoking a fight in Ukraine. We can only hope that the CCP doesn't know how to take advantage of the gift that the US State Department is handing them. [0] Would probably have been a good idea to figure out a way to bring them in back when that was something they were trying to do.

by mopsi 3y ago

hackandthink 3y ago

Sweden has been close to NATO for decades. There is not much to explain. It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. It's different for the baltic states. They were lucky to be able to join NATO without any major trouble from Russia. Russia was still weak in 2004. I think it was in 2007 that Putin felt strong enough to oppose NATO enlargements in eastern Europe (his speech at Munich security conference). Georgia caved in in 2008, they don't like dying for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The nationalists in Ukraine are less pragmatic, even Minsk 2 was too much for them. https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-sweden-joining-nato https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-argu...

mopsi 3y ago
> It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. Swedish military experts think otherwise. If Russia were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then one could reasonably expect that they would close the Suwalki gap that connects Lithuania and Poland, to cut the land route between them end rest of Europe, and invade the Swedish island of Gotland, to prevent any supply over sea or air routes. It would require an effort comparable to Normandy landings to liberate the invaded countries; unlikely to happen. Hence the Swedish reaction, to prevent that chain of events from starting in the first place: > During the 20th century, infantry, artillery, air force and naval elements were stationed on Gotland as part of Sweden's defense system, until all permanent military units were stood down in 2005. With tensions in Northeastern Europe and Russia escalating in 2014–2015, the Swedish government has taken a new interest in remilitarizing the island. And in September 2016 regular troops were once again stationed on the island, albeit as an interim measure until a permanent garrison could be reestablished. As of 1 January 2018 Gotland has re-established the Gotland Regiment. And even larger policy shift followed the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, from entry into NATO to establishment of joint air force command for Norway, Sweden and Finland - because the scale of Russian aggression against Ukraine made abundantly clear that none of them would be equipped to fight something like that off alone, and that Putin was willing to unleash it without provocation. The typical "america bad" narrative pushed by useful idiots completely fails to explain these developments.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  Ok, technically the occupation of Gotland would be an invasion of Sweden. My intuition is that in the event of a war with Russia, the Baltic would be a no go area for warships anyway. Attacking ships with missiles and drones is quite popular und succesful at the moment. We can be glad that it was much harder for the Germans in WW II.
me_me_me 3y ago
As a person born in one of the ex soviet countries, i hate the narrative of 'nato expansion'. NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. Because all of them knew acactly what will happen otherwise. Precisely to avoid what was happening to Ukraine (russia defacto controlling it via puppet politicians) and now being actively invaded by russia. Russia complaining about 'nato expansion', is akin to wife-beater complaining his wife run away and got a restraining order.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  >NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. I agree and it worked for many countries. Though it did not work any more for Georgia and Ukraine. The Ukrainian nationalist course may have been morally correct, but it was definitely risky and failed.

roenxi 3y ago

> For example, explain within your framework why in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden abandoned neutrality that they had maintained since the Napoleonic era. Because they're worried about being invaded by Russia, think NATO is substantially more powerful and likely to aid them? That seems like a pretty obvious one to me. > Ironically, this is the simplification that you speak of... Yeah. My argument is that only simple messages propagate. I don't know why people feel compelled to point out I'm pushing a simple message. Complex messages don't work. The issue I'm pointing out is that the current in-vogue simple message is catastrophic in consequence. US foreign policy has managed to go from unassailable global hegemon to conceivably taken out in a 3 front war + debt crisis by 2035. Not likely, but uncomfortably possible and there was no need to be staring at a debt crisis or to provoke a 3-front war - in 2016 it looked like the US and Russia could even have become friends aligned lightly against the threat of the Chinese military going rogue. There are 350 million people in the US, surely they can find another Bismarck instead of the clowns that were responsible for the clown show that was 2000-2020.

mopsi 3y ago
> Because they're worried about being invaded by Russia, think NATO is substantially more powerful and likely to aid them? That seems like a pretty obvious one to me. Why should they be worried about being invaded by Russia, if their policy was to stay neutral and accommodate Russia as much as they could, like Putin's apologist recommend?
- roenxi 3y ago
  I think you're reading something I didn't write; it is pretty obvious why they should be worried about Russia and why they'd want to join NATO. Everyone wants to join NATO. Even Russia has tried to join NATO [0]. But the issue here is that Russia's actions if Ukraine joins NATO were very easy to predict. And we've discovered through the Ukraine war that Ukraine is already partially under the NATO defence umbrella. So Russia actions here are not random imperialism but actually fairly predictable from their long-standing defence interests. If the US (and maybe the EU, I dunno much about German/French politics) hadn't been flirting with coup support and closer military ties in the 2010s then war could probably have been avoided; especially if the diplomatic efforts of the Trump administration had been encouraged. As it stands, the US has managed to piss off the people who control the world's largest nuclear arsenal and top-10 oil reserves, done who-knows-what long term to their relationship with Germany through the Nordstream sabotage, run Russia's military through a whetstone so they'll be a lot more battle-ready and is encouraging that package to form a China/Iran/whoever alliance because they have no other choice. And re-militarise Europe after 70 years of relative peace. It is obvious that the US doesn't see diplomacy as an option and will not negotiate in good faith. This outcome is so bad that it would be more sensible not to have been provoking a fight in Ukraine. We can only hope that the CCP doesn't know how to take advantage of the gift that the US State Department is handing them. [0] Would probably have been a good idea to figure out a way to bring them in back when that was something they were trying to do.