4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
    - mopsi 3y ago
      > 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. They did not. It took 8 years, until the renewed invasion, before any meaningful supplies began arriving in Ukraine. Western leaders had to be shown mass graves before they were willing to provide heavy equipment. > 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). Sweden had been neutral since 1814: it went through both world wars and the Cold War without choosing sides. If we accept the premise that Russia is reacting to NATO and that the Americans are responsible for everything, then why would the events in Ukraine drastically change the outlook for Sweden? You can't give a plausible explanation, because there is none, because the situation has nothing to do with NATO or the Americans. Russia has begun violating agreements that even the USSR adhered to, such as the 1975 Helsinki Accords (in short: no violent territorial changes in Europe)[1]. For a long time, Sweden and Finland believed that they could avoid Russian aggression through careful diplomacy, and stand against Russia independently when required, but the war against Ukraine was unprovoked and far beyond Nordic military capabilities, dashing both hopes. So now you have two key factors: 1. Increasingly hostile neighbour. 2. Insufficient military strength. How do you respond? Nordic military and political leaders concluded that tighter international cooperation is the only way to survive this situation. For example, a country with 5 or 10 million people can't afford air defense network that could protect their people from such drone and cruise missile attacks like Ukraine is experiencing; they need external help. Nordic countries have a fair bit of history with Russia too and can see through the bullshit that many westerners don't immediately recognize. You know where "Molotov cocktail" came from? In 1939, Russians staged the shelling of Mainila[2], claiming that Finns were responsible. Four days later, Russians launched unprovoked war against Finland. As Russian planes were bombing Helsinki, Russian propaganda kept blasting that the planes were delivering food to starving Finns. Molotov cocktail was the hot drink Finns devised to go with the "bread baskets" that bombers were dropping. And like the fake republics of Luhansk and Donetsk that Russians set up in Ukraine, Russians had established the Finnish Democratic Republic[3], ready to take over the entire Finland as soon as Russian tanks rolled over it. But Finns put up a stiff resistance and kept their independence. All that is still in living memory, people still have grandparents alive to tell how it was back then. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, using the same methods, leaves no room for doubt for what's really going on and who's responsible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic

by mopsi 3y ago

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.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > 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. They did not. It took 8 years, until the renewed invasion, before any meaningful supplies began arriving in Ukraine. Western leaders had to be shown mass graves before they were willing to provide heavy equipment. > 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). Sweden had been neutral since 1814: it went through both world wars and the Cold War without choosing sides. If we accept the premise that Russia is reacting to NATO and that the Americans are responsible for everything, then why would the events in Ukraine drastically change the outlook for Sweden? You can't give a plausible explanation, because there is none, because the situation has nothing to do with NATO or the Americans. Russia has begun violating agreements that even the USSR adhered to, such as the 1975 Helsinki Accords (in short: no violent territorial changes in Europe)[1]. For a long time, Sweden and Finland believed that they could avoid Russian aggression through careful diplomacy, and stand against Russia independently when required, but the war against Ukraine was unprovoked and far beyond Nordic military capabilities, dashing both hopes. So now you have two key factors: 1. Increasingly hostile neighbour. 2. Insufficient military strength. How do you respond? Nordic military and political leaders concluded that tighter international cooperation is the only way to survive this situation. For example, a country with 5 or 10 million people can't afford air defense network that could protect their people from such drone and cruise missile attacks like Ukraine is experiencing; they need external help. Nordic countries have a fair bit of history with Russia too and can see through the bullshit that many westerners don't immediately recognize. You know where "Molotov cocktail" came from? In 1939, Russians staged the shelling of Mainila[2], claiming that Finns were responsible. Four days later, Russians launched unprovoked war against Finland. As Russian planes were bombing Helsinki, Russian propaganda kept blasting that the planes were delivering food to starving Finns. Molotov cocktail was the hot drink Finns devised to go with the "bread baskets" that bombers were dropping. And like the fake republics of Luhansk and Donetsk that Russians set up in Ukraine, Russians had established the Finnish Democratic Republic[3], ready to take over the entire Finland as soon as Russian tanks rolled over it. But Finns put up a stiff resistance and kept their independence. All that is still in living memory, people still have grandparents alive to tell how it was back then. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, using the same methods, leaves no room for doubt for what's really going on and who's responsible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic