4 ms·

> For example, explain within your framework why in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sweden abandoned neutrality that they had maintained since the

by 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.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > But the issue here is that Russia's actions if Ukraine joins NATO were very easy to predict. Ukraine has not joined NATO, and is not going to in any foreseeable future. At Russia's request, Ukraine and Georgia were denied entry into NATO already in 2008. The topic was completely off the table. And yet Russia invaded both of them. Leaving Georgia and Ukraine out in the cold decreased the risk for Russia and increased the likelihood of aggression against them. > 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. It's not obvious to me, if I accept the notion that Russia merely reacts to NATO. Sweden was not in NATO and accommodated Russia every way they could. Why did they abandon this policy? Why did Finland do the same? Finland is particularly notable, because its foreign policy gave birth to the term findlandization: "The term is often considered pejorative. It originated in the West German political debate of the late 1960s and 1970s. As the term was used in West Germany and other NATO countries, it referred to the decision of a country not to challenge a more powerful neighbour in foreign politics, while maintaining national sovereignty. It is commonly used in reference to Finland's policies in relation to the Soviet Union during the Cold War." If we accept the idea pushed by Putin's apologists that countries in Eastern Europe should stay away from alliances, remain neutral, sit silent and hold their breath to avoid angering Russia, then Sweden and Finland were doing exactly that. Why did this approach become utterly discredited in early 2022? What changed for Sweden and Finland?
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Unfortunately "has not joined NATO" has strong overtones of a bully's "stop hitting yourself!" routine. Russia has invaded Ukraine and encountered NATO materiel paid for by NATO money and NATO trained soldiers using NATO intelligence to kill Russian troops and generals. This is all happening according to achieve strategic objectives held by NATO. I'm just speculating from the sidelines here, but I suspect they see NATO aligning itself with Ukraine and I doubt the Russian leadership agrees with you. And they've probably pegged the Euromaidan as being organised by the US. They may have come to the mistaken conclusion that NATO is active in Ukraine. This compares to the US invading Iraq where there was a sound like a rodent becoming flat. I mean, maybe there was a huge amount of Russian support during the war and NATO just flattened it, but as far as I recall Iraq stood very alone. > It's not obvious to me, if I accept the notion that Russia merely reacts to NATO. Aha, we have found the point of difference. You are incorrect in thinking that Russia only reacts to NATO. I think in the Ukraine war Russia is reacting to NATO. Although there is probably a roenxi-equivalent in Russia who is thinking "this invasion is damn stupid and dooms us all, we should have kept trying diplomacy", but in Cyrillic. > Why did this approach become utterly discredited in early 2022? What changed for Sweden and Finland? Well, I'm not sure what their strategists are thinking but my take is the US demonstrated that peace was not an option and they are going to keep increasing the temperature until Russia's red lines get crossed. With that context, it makes sense to be on the side that will win the upcoming conflict(s). It is better than risking a US-backed coup, although I doubt that would be necessary in the nordic countries.

by roenxi 3y ago

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.
- mopsi 3y ago
  > But the issue here is that Russia's actions if Ukraine joins NATO were very easy to predict. Ukraine has not joined NATO, and is not going to in any foreseeable future. At Russia's request, Ukraine and Georgia were denied entry into NATO already in 2008. The topic was completely off the table. And yet Russia invaded both of them. Leaving Georgia and Ukraine out in the cold decreased the risk for Russia and increased the likelihood of aggression against them. > 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. It's not obvious to me, if I accept the notion that Russia merely reacts to NATO. Sweden was not in NATO and accommodated Russia every way they could. Why did they abandon this policy? Why did Finland do the same? Finland is particularly notable, because its foreign policy gave birth to the term findlandization: "The term is often considered pejorative. It originated in the West German political debate of the late 1960s and 1970s. As the term was used in West Germany and other NATO countries, it referred to the decision of a country not to challenge a more powerful neighbour in foreign politics, while maintaining national sovereignty. It is commonly used in reference to Finland's policies in relation to the Soviet Union during the Cold War." If we accept the idea pushed by Putin's apologists that countries in Eastern Europe should stay away from alliances, remain neutral, sit silent and hold their breath to avoid angering Russia, then Sweden and Finland were doing exactly that. Why did this approach become utterly discredited in early 2022? What changed for Sweden and Finland?
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Unfortunately "has not joined NATO" has strong overtones of a bully's "stop hitting yourself!" routine. Russia has invaded Ukraine and encountered NATO materiel paid for by NATO money and NATO trained soldiers using NATO intelligence to kill Russian troops and generals. This is all happening according to achieve strategic objectives held by NATO. I'm just speculating from the sidelines here, but I suspect they see NATO aligning itself with Ukraine and I doubt the Russian leadership agrees with you. And they've probably pegged the Euromaidan as being organised by the US. They may have come to the mistaken conclusion that NATO is active in Ukraine. This compares to the US invading Iraq where there was a sound like a rodent becoming flat. I mean, maybe there was a huge amount of Russian support during the war and NATO just flattened it, but as far as I recall Iraq stood very alone. > It's not obvious to me, if I accept the notion that Russia merely reacts to NATO. Aha, we have found the point of difference. You are incorrect in thinking that Russia only reacts to NATO. I think in the Ukraine war Russia is reacting to NATO. Although there is probably a roenxi-equivalent in Russia who is thinking "this invasion is damn stupid and dooms us all, we should have kept trying diplomacy", but in Cyrillic. > Why did this approach become utterly discredited in early 2022? What changed for Sweden and Finland? Well, I'm not sure what their strategists are thinking but my take is the US demonstrated that peace was not an option and they are going to keep increasing the temperature until Russia's red lines get crossed. With that context, it makes sense to be on the side that will win the upcoming conflict(s). It is better than risking a US-backed coup, although I doubt that would be necessary in the nordic countries.