701–710 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. I highly doubt that any of NATO's members will veto an application from Finland (or Sweden).
How about Hungary and it's seemingly pro-Russian leader, Orban? They could vote against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Finland's doing this only because of Russia's actions. I can't imagine anybody vetoing Finland's membership. In fact, the more the merrier^Hstronger.
They can do a lot of things. None which are good for Russia but their leaders might perceive this as a direct threat to their sovereignty and take extreme measures. Either they stop this now or it's all over anyway. This is reckless - we need to start a path of de-escalation - give Putin an offramp. Get to back to calm waters. Then let diplomats do their little dances until there is a hopefully more reasonable people…
Thing is, Putin has boxed himself in; he's said publicly that Ukraine is not a thing, that so-called Ukrainians are in fact Russians, and that he aspires to a Peter-the-Great-style Russian empire stretching from Vladivostok to the Baltic.
The only "off-ramp" I can see being halfway-acceptable to Putin would be for Ukraine to surrender their claims to Donbas and Crimea, in exchange for Russian security "assurances". Even that would make Putin look weak; he's declared that one his goals is to "demilitarise" Ukraine. To do that he would have to conquer the whole of Ukraine.
So any promise by Putin to accept a proffered "off-ramp" would be seen with a very jaundiced eye by Balkan, Central European and Baltic states. And by me, actually.
I'm no warmonger; far from it, I've been mostly a pacifist most of my life. But any "off-ramp" plans would either be unacceptable to Putin, or they would lead to a new war.
I'm afraid it looks pretty bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Year ago, 6 months ago, 3 months ago, started a war, 1 month ago, last week, yesterday. At one very specific point it stopped meaning anything.
Agreed. “You are now on the unfriendly list,” says Russia. Except Ukraine was on the friendly list and look at where that got them.
Once, maybe, but not since the revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are we pretending conventional war between NATO and Russia is a thing?
Because Russia could easily start a conventional war and there is no way NATO would escalate that to nuclear without Russia using nuclear weapons first.
Warning: hot take. While it is unlikely that Putin would care a bit about Sweden, this is a huge gamble on Finland's side. HUGE. This can go in one of the two directions: either Putin dislikes but somehow swallows it (the way he did with Baltic states in 2004), or he can go about preemptively wrecking Finland (the way he did with Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 and 2014 respectively). Considering Russia was very negative…
Finnish military is built against Russia. We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000 which is second biggest army reserve in EU [1]. Current war time effort of 240 000 that can be rapidly assembled in few days.
It's also built to operate without air superiority, and is more suitable to ground war against Russia than any EU nation. With biggest artillery force in western Europe, Finland is an asset to NATO rather than burden.
You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military? After what Russia did to Ukraine, the foreigners will never understand how Finland could be seen as independent if it's not backed by west militarily. NATO membership is seen as among other things an economic benefit. When Russia eventually stages exercises near our borders, the investors know we are NATO country.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's been convenient to blame Hungary, but the truth is, plenty of countries are unhappy about banning Russian hydrocarbons, with Germany leading the list. They can weather the consequences of their veto, because there isn't much will to make it happen anyway - i.e. there are no consequences. I can imagine Finland/Sweden being very different. Who benefits/loses from Finland/Sweden joining? These countries are…
> plenty of countries are unhappy about banning Russian hydrocarbons But only one is blocking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Finland should have applied for NATO 10 years ago or in 10 years, not now with the tense situation. 10 years ago, it was reasonable to believe that Russia would never invade a neighboring country, so joining NATO wasn't seen as necessary or preferable to maintaining neutrality. 10 years in the future, based on what we're seeing now, Russia may have already invaded/attacked Finland and it would be too late to join N…
I am arguing that the risk of 'sparks' outweights the benefits of joining NATO right now.
Honestly, feels a bit suspicious with all these "only well-meaning" comments from various people... Comments that just "coincidentally" seem to further Putler's agenda.
(Yeah, I may be being a bit paranoid here. But this page has some pretty obvious trolls [and at least one total tinfoil-helmet kook]. So even if I'm wrong, maybe think about whether your comments are actually all that well-thought-out, when that's what they come off as?)
Let's hope that Sweden will also follow suit.
I hope not. To me it seems very unnecessary (please hear me out), first of all, it seems to be the common idea that Russia is losing the war, has a weak military, cannot invade another country successfully, but at the same time, we should be afraid of them? I've heard the argument that it's the nukes that we should be afraid of, but does joining NATO really mean that they will surely not use them? I also assume that…
Putin behaved irrationally and his people loved him for it.
It was stupid for Russia to invade Ukraine. It did it anyway. It’s stupid for them to keep prosecuting a war they’re losing. He keeps pressing. It would be stupid for Putin to attack remaining non-NATO European countries. He’s threatening Moldova and Finland and Sweden anyway. He would lose a war against Finland. That says nothing about whether he’s try it. The only thing he seems to understand is overwhelming strength, and that’s NATO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My take is that they should just have stayed out of the Russia US power game completely. I think so too. The West would tolerate invasion by Russia of Finland even less than it is doing for Ukraine, with or without NATO membership (notably, Ukraine is not part of NATO either). All this seems to be doing is escalating the situation with a man who is perhaps more interested in holding onto power and his own life than…
> The West would tolerate invasion by Russia of Finland even less than it is doing for Ukraine, with or without NATO membership (notably, Ukraine is not part of NATO either). That's not saying much. Ukraine isn't receiving military support from NATO countries. It only gets weapons, and western politicians (mostly US) keep making sure that they do not get the big guns (regarding e.g. airplanes). Initially Germany bloc…
"US"? Must be a typo for "Germany".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can do a lot of things. None which are good for Russia but their leaders might perceive this as a direct threat to their sovereignty and take extreme measures. Either they stop this now or it's all over anyway. This is reckless - we need to start a path of de-escalation - give Putin an offramp. Get to back to calm waters. Then let diplomats do their little dances until there is a hopefully more reasonable people…
Nobody wants war, but we also don't want to be part of Russia. Putin can de-escalate this anytime and "losing" doesnt make him seem any worse than starting a war, killing tens of thousands and making millions flee their homes.
I wish I believed that. His credibility depends entirely on his ability to threaten (to poison his opponents, to flatten cities). He's a strong man, and he can't afford to be seen to back down.
Here's the only off-ramp I can see working:
"Mr. Putin, you can keep your yachts and your offshore wealth; you won't be pursued for warcrimes. But you must exile yourself from Russia, and never darken the world stage again."
I don't think Putin would accept that deal; he'd rather go down with his ship. He thinks he's Peter The Great.