Kaliningrad is going to be squeezed ...
I assume you mean Königsberg?
221–230 of 1001 posts
Kaliningrad is going to be squeezed ...
I assume you mean Königsberg?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The former USSR states in Eastern Europe have until now (or until the early 2000s NATO expansion at least) served as a half-decent buffer zone between the West and Russia, and we've had peace. I think you should go and tell Ukrainian people that their country is a buffer zone meant to act as a burnt ground, and they are not allowed to work towards joining the alliances and economic systems that they want to join in…
> I think you should go and tell Ukrainian people that their country is a buffer zone meant to act as a burnt ground, and they are not allowed to work towards joining the alliances and economic systems that they want to join in order to better their livelihoods and stop facing the former-USSR-level of poverty. I didn't say we should dictate policy to Ukraine - they're a sovereign state like the rest of us. That doesn…
Why couldn't NATO publicly say "No!", particularly in the many years of Russia demanding we do so? Well, in my admittedly weakly understood opinion NATO are all "typically" open free liberal democracies who believe in self-determination by their peoples. Telling a nation they cannot possibly join us because a third party nation says we cannot allow it sends a somewhat mixed message. Perhaps more importantly it would've signalled to Russia early on "sure, this is your territory - do what you wish, we won't interfere". Is that a message we want to be sending? Buffer states only remain buffer states while all sides are sure the others will retaliate if they invade - Article 5 is the ultimate guarantor of that.
What's more I very much doubt NATO saying "No!" would've stopped Ukraine from asking, again and again. Even when it became clear that any chance had vanished following the annexation of Crimea they still asked over and over. Even when the Donbass flared into open combat assisted by Russian forces. Even when Russia had rolled tanks into the territory they continued to ask. And it seems to me at least their mere "asking" to join, regardless of what NATO may have privately said (and doubtless Russia were made aware) was the issue for Putin.
NATO is an incredibly powerful military force - I don't think everyone fully understands just how powerful it is. If it wanted to take on the worlds autocrats, dictators, malign regimes, etc. it could - quite easily - without resorting to any nuclear sabre rattling. That it doesn't, that it has with minor exception - typically related to easing command and control of operations rather than "military might" of its assigned forces - remained a defensive alliance speaks volumes as to its intentions.
In fact the worst thing to come out of this war is how it is showing "might makes right" in the worst possible manner. To those nations who wish to subjugate their neighbours (or their own people) despite an overwhelming majority of the world saying "Don't! Stop!" - just get yourself some nuclear weapons and NATO, the West, the World won't/can't do much to militarily stop you. That's setting a pretty awful precedent.
Russia made the best move to get Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Did NATO hire Putin? It almost seems like some sort of reverse psychology thing… Russia saying "We forbid you to join NATO" is one of few things that would get these countries to join NATO. "Don't tell us what to do!" What is Putin's play?
Why it has to be Putin's play? A lot of people seem to take for granted that Putin knows what he is doing and has a long play with an eventual win.
History is full of leaders making terrible mistakes that eventually put the last nail in their coffins, I don't understand why some think that the only possible option is that there must be something that we are missing because Putin is so smart and has so much control that this can't simply be a huge fail on his part
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they already said they wouldn't
They also said that russian energy ties are harmful. They also said that Russian energy ties are essential. They also said that they want Euro for the Hungarian economy. They also said that switching to Euro is no good for the Hungarian economy. They said that the EU membership is important to Hungary. They also said that Brussels is the enemy. They stated that liberalism is a core value for them. They also stated th…
Let's hope that Sweden will also follow suit.
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.
Turkey is a NATO member, but it didn't join the international sanctions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For readers not versed in Finnish politics, the only party with a majority opposed is Vasemmistoliitto (Left Alliance), the rebranded former Finnish Communist/Socialist party.
Also important to note that the members of the Left Alliance that oppose NATO are primarily skeptical of NATO, not supportive of Russia.
Look at the map, the NATO doesn't have much land borders with Russia. With Finland joining... the length of land border will multiply. This will surely pose a challenge.
Only in a technical sense obviously, not in any way that actually matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shall we really rattle off a list of political persecution in the USA? Because, honestly, you can't be so ignorant .. YES: The WEST DOES have political persecution the way Russia does. There is, literally, NO DIFFERENCE. Of course, we don't have evidence of a thousand Russian secret torture sites, like we do for the CIA (thanks Julian, thanks Edward), so there is some validity to the position that in fact the Wests'…
This is about picking a side. Luckily, people are free to move to the side they prefer (somehow Russia does not seem as popular as the "West"...). If you prefer the Russian system - move there. If you are totally indifferent, maybe make a coin toss.
And yes I have left my 5-eyes birth nation, and abandoned any and all ties to nationalist mental disease, over this particular issue. You should, too.
There was some discussion on plausible NATO membership of Finland and Sweden. At that point the disucssion was based on guestimates from media. But now it's official. This is not the NATO membership application, but a statement from the political leadership in Finland that they support and suggest parliament proceeds with the application process with maximum urgency. The President and Prime Minister of Finland have p…
>Translation: During the spring, there has been an important discussion about Finland's possible NATO membership This is a very generous description of what happened. There has been air of forced consensus in the "discussion" between media, politicians and people on social media. People have been branded as "putinist" or "playing into Putin's hand" for merely suggesting that the decision shouldn't be rushed, and that…
People who are against joining NATO won't change their opinion until Russia actually invades and by then it is too late. These people also like to make Finland's neutrality to be some noble stance as if it wasn't imposed on Finland by Russia after the Second World War.