And same stupid arguments are given on page 245 as in the early 10's and 20's.

Somehow not interested to reply to such bullshit.

Now, obviously they don't discuss any of this without passing it by you and ssu first, that goes without saying, and we're ever so grateful that you've decided to tell us here on this obscure philosophy forum before, say, briefing cabinet, or the UN, but once you've made your secret intel public, is it too much to ask that us mere mortals can have an opinion about it? — Isaac

Unlike you, we do look up what is happening in our countries and what is talked about. It's a common misconception to think that others are as ignorant as you are and are just follow what is on the mainstream evening news and nothing else. Me and @Christoffer started immediately discussing the possibility of our countries joining NATO when the war started. Not because of any "inside information", but because it was simply obvious. If you had followed anything about security policy in both countries. Global media just picked it up far later.

Unlike you, this does effect me. You are just engaging in your spare time on a Philosophy Forum. I notice these developments even in my work, so perhaps I've got an incentive to follow the news and stay informed.

Yeah, NATO is "not likely to have planned" for the literal reason for their entire existence. Uh huh. At least make the things you pull out of the sky semi-fathomable. — Streetlight

Stick to issues you know. Your best field of knowledge maybe isn't military doctrine or nuclear weapons.

And it really was hype from the US, whether or not Russia attacked or not. They could not have been more excited. They are even more so now. — Streetlight

Yet Russia did attack. It started a large conventional war of the kind we haven't seen in Europe since WW2. I was an optimist and hoped that Putin wouldn't attack (as invading such a large country with such a force was crazy), but then he made quite clear in his speeches what he intended to do. It really wasn't about Minsk protocols or NATO enlargement. That should be obvious when the leader starts to talk about denazification.

Yeah and ths US and NATO "likely have not thought about" this, but you, random ass person who says wrong things all the time on the internet, have. Please excuse me while I laugh to infinity. — Streetlight

Likely have not thought about = Likely have not planned to do

This from the guy who until the end didn't believe that Russia would attack, that it all was just hype from the US.

Weak.

I rather take the lesser evil as security than risk the worse one going postal on us. — Christoffer

The fact is that Russia simply isn't a normal country that would try to have good relations with it's neighbors. It seeks the role it had when it was an empire/Superpower, makes huge gambles and takes extreme risks. It's extremely reckless. There simply are no benefits in trying to appease Putin.

Hence there simply is no win-win in trying to behave as before. It's all lose-in-every-scenario. What does having good ties with Russia mean? Being Belarus? Kazakhstan?

Or Armenia?

Armenia is in a military alliance with Russia in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), along with four other ex-Soviet countries, a relationship that Armenia finds essential to its security. Or thought was essential. But Russia didn't intervene or come to the help of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked in the Nagorno-Karabach. It actually had sold weapons to Azerbaijan. And is all but happy using the divide and rule tactics in the Caucasus.

A unified European defense has been mentioned here and there.
What timelines might that take to implement anyway...?
For something to become effective?
As far as I know, it's not particularly on anyone's desk. — jorndoe

Well, we obviously don't have an unified Europe, if we think that Russia is an European country (and I think it is, even if half of it is in Asia).

Mmm, tell me again how the US and NATO have not thought all that much about nuclear weapon deployment.

Does it come from the same intelligence reports that the US and the West don't like war? — Streetlight

So obviously you don't know shit about the deployment of nuclear weapons.

Hopefully you know what the US nuclear triad means. Hence two of those legs of the triad aren't in any NATO country, but in CONUS and on (under) the seas. What are deployed in NATO countries are the old free fall nukes, which also can be dropped by some aircraft of NATO countries. But these are limited and notice that the nuclear weapons haven't been deployed to Eastern NATO states (the map above). So it's extremely unlikely that they would be deployed (meaning that they are storaged) into Sweden or Finland.

(Russia already has it's nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and Russia proper, so that part is already in place.)

Assuming that everybody is as ignorant as you about military issues just tells something about you.

Can you teach this power of making things up? — Streetlight

Oh I make this up? FYI, not all NATO countries have nuclear weapons deployed in them.



France and UK don't have their nuclear weapons in other countries either. Deployment of Pershing's in Europe is history.

NATO can be happy with getting both countries to the alliance.

But as with Poland and the Baltic States, both Sweden and Finland are happy to join the "Retro-NATO", an alliance that is about article 5 than an alliance designed for global police duties, peace enforcement etc. For those the contribution will be small: at the largest a battalion or a few aircraft or a naval vessel. The typical force that a small NATO countries deploy to an international NATO operation. Basically what NATO-Sweden and NATO-Finland will offer to the alliance has already been seen in Libya and in Afghanistan. But in Northern Europe it's a different matter and in the matter of deterrence.

It's very likely that neither country has any appetite for large NATO bases or deployed nuclear weapons, which likely the US or NATO has not even thought about. The countries will be happy about one or two NATO squadrons that could be deployed to the countries in a crisis. And that's basically it and both countries know it: we have to defend our territory, inside or out of NATO.

And likely now Swedish and Finnish warplans will be coordinated even more.

So I think the outstanding question is whether Ukraine should push to retake the Donbass region or not. Is that going to be a long separatist war? Crimea seems a step too far considering Russia's territorial claim to it and statements on use of nuclear weapons. What do you think, ssu? — Benkei

I agree with you.

I think Ukraine has a good chance to halt the assault in Donbas and push back as they have done in Kyiv and Kharkov. They surely can stop the attack on Odessa and even limit the "landbridge" to Crimea. But Crimea is going to be the really tough issue. That will be viewed by Putin as Russia proper, so I would think twice before pushing the luck to go there.

I remember one former high-ranking British officer saying the obvious thing which isn't said: That there has to be a negotiated peace to end this war. At some time, even if Ukraine is victorious, they have to seek a negotiated settlement of then adapt a low-intensity stalemate, what we saw after 2015 before February 24th. Going to the Red Square isn't an option.

There is a lot of enthusiasm both in Ukraine and to support Ukraine, but if the war prolongs, it might wane. Russia can always simply halt it's offensives and go to the defense. It still will take some time that Ukraine can start making large attack operations with several brigades. The attacker will be the one that suffers more casualties.

Looking good, but it's not over yet.

It's going to be an interesting summer. And the best thing is that both countries are doing this together. It might be even with some kind of joint declaration when President Niinistö visits Sweden next week, but basically this is already a dual application: both the Swedish and Finnish foreign ministers already informed jointly NATO leadership were the application was going in both countries, so it's already very coordinated. And of course, when applying to an alliance, it's good to show you can be a team player and coordinate your actions with others.

The likeliest response from Russia, that "military-technical response" it has promised, will be a restructuring of defensive and offensive assets inside Kaliningrad and Russia proper. Which actually is quite understandable and naturally Russia can do that. I'm not sure what some hybrid attack would do, actually. Already some assumptions have been proven false.

(Washington Post 15th May 2022) So great is the threat to Russia’s strategic interests that Moscow will be compelled to take some form of action against Finland, said Dmitry Suslov of National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow.

At a minimum, he said, Russia will need to fortify its military presence along the Finnish border because Finland will no longer be considered a “friendly” country. It will also have to step up its naval presence in the Baltic Sea which will become, he said, “a NATO lake.”

I think Turkey won't be a problem, Erdogan just wants to make a point as all foreign policy is in the end domestic policy. And of course when thirty different parliaments etc. have to agree on something, it does take time.

Finland’s border with Russia was drawn by Sweden and Russia, not by the Finns. — Apollodorus

Last three border drawings have been drawn by Finns and the Soviet Union.

If Russian presence in Crimea is "imperialism", so is Ukrainian presence.

If countries have "no rightful owners", on what basis are you claiming that a country belongs to a particular nation or state? — Apollodorus

What is imperialism is to acquire territory through military force.

When countries acknowledge the sovereignty of a state, then that typically defines also the territory then. With Ukraine, these were furthermore acknowledged with the Budapest memorandum.

Such actions and peace treaties define who are the "rightful owner" of a territory. Disagreement can lead to war, because assuming that the last treaties / peace agreements are wrong, that there's another "rightful owner", are accusations that can (and have lead) to wars.

The invasion has, in effect, has destroyed 30 years of economic progress, eviscerated the tiny shoots of democratic freedom that Russia was beginning to enjoy, and now engineered the exact opposite outcome in foreign policy of what he hoped to achieve through his military escapade. — Wayfarer

Now the future for Russia is either bleak or even worse.

I remember when I stayed in Moscow in a family, acquaintances of my parents, during the last year when it was the Soviet Union. There was this nervousness on what the future would bring. It didn't look good. It looks similar for Russia now.

Then the possibility of a civil war loomed in the background. Well, it didn't come then, the civil war came now with the actions Putin and the war with Ukraine. In a way, this is the civil war after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yet that's nothing compared to what Ukraine is going through now.

Why didn't Finland join earlier? They just didn't think there was any need? — frank

The simple answer: The blowback from Russia seemed to be more than the security given by NATO. And earlier, especially during the Cold War and when there was the Soviet Union, we could have been in a similar situation as Ukraine is now. And basically (joining NATO) would have been a breach of the peace arrangement with the Soviet Union.

Because the policy of determined neutrality worked for them. Both policies carry risk. If you're attacked, you're alone when you're neutral. On the other hand, you won't be dragged into wars for expediency and are aren't a target by association. — Benkei

With Finland it was sort of like that as @Benkei said.

Yet this neutrality was forced on to Finland. The country was left to the Soviet sphere and Finland understood it couldn't just waltz into the West. Not to NATO, not to the EEC. As I described earlier, the position after WW2 and when NATO was formed in 1949 was dire and there wasn't any guarantees that Stalin wouldn't do his "unfinished business" with Finland later.

And one should remember that the Finnish Army, the largest political parties of the country and the institutions are the same as before WW2. We have the same army that fought against the Soviets in the Winter War, then fought alongside Hitler's Germany and then finally fought against Germany. The army wasn't disbanded and a new formed as in every other country that fought on the Axis side. This experience had a severe effect on Finnish psyche and thinking. There was no "VE Day" for Finland in WW2. No allies liberated us (thankfully!). And when a Finnish general that had served during the war was once accused by someone in the West that "You fought with Hitler. ", he snapped back "And you with Stalin!". He represented the Finnish attitude quite well.

This had the effect that Finns were highly sceptical about NATO prior, as were the Swedes. In fact the views of Benkei or Isaac were quite typical in Finland when it came to NATO and later people were happy of just having a "NATO option", but being separate from it. No need to anger the bear next door.

But then came 24th of February and broke that glass house we were living in like a 9/11 moment. Russia simply wasn't the reasonable, the normal country that you could have normal friendly relations with. This dawned to everybody. Old policies simply didn't work: no matter if you would be neutral, Russia would continue it's threats and abusive policies and would try to get into the dominating role it enjoyed during the Cold War in Finland. It is abundantly clear now. Above all, Putin is so reckless that it could start a large scale conventional war against a neighboring neutral country that was far larger than Finland.

Yougov did an interesting poll among European countries, which show how Finns compared to others view the war in Ukraine:

People in Finland are widely of the opinion that Russia is entirely or mostly responsible for the war in Ukraine, reveals a 17-country survey conducted by YouGov and the European University Institute.

As many as 85 per cent of respondents in the country estimated that responsibility for the situation is attributable entirely to Russia or more to Russia than Nato.

Only five per cent contrastively viewed that the responsibility should be attributed entirely or mostly to Nato and four per cent that the responsibility should be distributed equally between Russia and Nato.

Russia was regarded as the party mostly to blame by at least 70 per cent of respondents also in Sweden (80%), the UK (79%), Denmark (79%), Poland (73%) and the Netherlands (70%). Most Bulgarians and Greeks, by contrast, did not agree with the view that all or most of the blame should be put on Russia.

In Bulgaria, only 23 per cent of respondents viewed that Russia is entirely or mostly responsible for the situation, whereas 44 per cent viewed that most of the responsibility should be attributed to Nato and 13 per cent that the responsibility should be distributed equally between Russia and Nato. In Greece, 28 per cent of respondents stated that most of the responsibility lies with Nato and 29 per cent that the responsibility should be distributed equally between Russia and Nato.

Russia was nonetheless regarded as the sole or primary responsible party by at least 50 per cent of respondents in 13 of the 17 countries surveyed.

One could say that this is Putin’s strategy, to galvanise, expand and strengthen NATO. — Punshhh

Putin pretty much nailed that.

Getting one country to change it's course in security policy after 200 years of a successful policy that made it to avoid WW1 and WW2, and another one basically the time it has been independent, one surely has had to make some radical decisions. And Putin has made them.

Maybe he just thought taking over Ukraine would be worth it. Who knows. Yet starting a large scale conventional war does change things.

What's in question (and remains uncited) is the notion that the alternative is 'nonsense'. — Isaac

As I said that (nonsense) referred to this:

SSU said that joining Nato would lead to Russia attacking Finland? Really, ssu? — Christoffer

It's here — Isaac

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — ssu

Yet if you think Russia really will invade Finland, well, this was then a window of opportunity for us as Russia isn't a normal country trying to have normal relations with it's neighbors. If you haven't notice the abnormality from Putin's actions in Ukraine or Russia's actions in general in Ukraine. Or in Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Belarus...

A hybrid response is far more probable. And a political response is very probable.
— ssu

...is a classic example of the falsehood of...

As usual, we do quote or make references to sources.
— ssu — Isaac

Russia has it forces in Ukraine (do you need references for that?). There aren't many forces on the Russian side of the Finnish border. (Here in Finnish, but use google translate).

So why hybrid?

Russia’s resources are currently focused heavily on Ukraine and on its own domestic operations. The situation may nevertheless change very quickly.

“Supo considers it likely that Russia will expand its cyber and information operations from Ukraine to the West. An increase in operations targeting Finland is therefore also considered probable in the coming months,” Pelttari notes.

Most online cyberattacks take the form of denial of service attacks and defacing of websites. Their perpetrators seek to give the impression of paralysing society, when in reality they do not compromise information or critical processes. While denial of service attacks and measures to combat them are commonplace for online businesses, the threat of more serious cyberattacks has nevertheless also increased. Businesses must continually ensure that the control circuitry of critical infrastructure such as energy distribution systems cannot be accessed directly from the public network.

link here

Or then the information front:

Tweeting on Wednesday (16 March), the Russian embassy in Helsinki encouraged Russian citizens in Finland to report by email if they have experienced hate speech, discrimination or human rights abuses. Close to 30,000 Russian citizens live in Finland, and more than 80,000 people speak Russian in the country.

Or in general, just what Russia could do... can be anticipated from what it has done:

Form Hybrid Operations and the Importance of Resilience: Lessons From Recent Finnish History (Carniege endowment for international Peace, author René Nyberg)

Few countries can match Finland’s long experience of dealing with Soviet and Russian hybrid warfare—before, during, and after the Cold War—and few countries have had as much success in standing up to it. The secret of Finland’s success can be found in the resilience of Finnish society, which is derived from its unique history and record of combining firmness with flexibility in dealing with its much larger, difficult, and unpredictable neighbor.

* * *

Another example is more recent. In the fall of 2015, third-country nationals without proper documents started to cross over the border from Russia to Norway. Since pedestrians are not allowed across the border, these people used bicycles. The Russian daily newspaper Kommersant coined the expression velobegstvo (flight by bike). Over 5,000 people crossed into Norway from Murmansk.

Soon after, the same pattern was repeated in northern Finland. Over 1,000 people without proper documents were allowed by Russian border authorities to cross into Finland. Most of these people were Afghans and others who had lived in Russia for years. They were now advised to leave the country and, with the help of criminal schleppers who helped them migrate, systematically directed toward the Norwegian and Finnish border crossings.

Again, the Finnish and Norwegian authorities were stunned. This was a breach of the border regime and, even worse, a breach of the confidence that had been painstakingly built up over decades. In hindsight, the argument that hurt Moscow was the question put to the FSB border guards: How does the FSB allow criminal elements, the schleppers, to operate on the Russian border? These poor souls with small children in arctic conditions were flown to Murmansk and Kandalaksha from Moscow, and then herded into hotels. Provided with rickety second-hand Soviet-era cars—for a hefty price, of course—they were directed during a polar night through uninhabited forests and past multiple Russian border posts toward the lights of the Finnish border crossing. At no point was Finland defenseless. It could have closed the border but did not do so.

What had happened? One interpretation is that the Russians just could not resist exploiting the refugee crisis in Europe that had unsettled all countries on the trail from Turkey into Scandinavia. It was a textbook hybrid operation to create mischief, but also to send a clear message that Moscow can cause trouble.

Hence, when your military is fighting a war in another place, then you obviously have to use different methods. Or is that too daring of a conclusion to make?

Oh oh... Stocking up firewood yet? — Olivier5

Why?

I've already have ample firewood at the countryside place. And trees, if it comes to that. And it starts finally to be warmer here. And anyway, this is the time to keep cool heads.

Russia: We will take retaliatory steps.

Finland: We are safer now! — Streetlight

Yeah. I think many were indeed quite naive about Putin's Russia. 24th of February finally changed that.

Because they were mostly educated people. Indoctrinated, but educated and intelligent as to how to handle that collapse and they did it in a group, not through a bloated self-absorbed despot. — Christoffer

Yes.

And of course, and what really broke the back of the Soviet Union was the 1991 putsch attempt, which put the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic directly opposed to the Union.

It's hard to explain how bizarre that situation was. It would be like a US President declaring that he would be taking all the powers from the States and the States then all walking away from the union. That wouldn't leave the Federal Government...with Washington DC?

Your argument for "rightful owners" of a piece of geographical land is just plain stupid. — Christoffer

Those that uphold ideas like "rightful ownership" are usually the one's who start wars.

As I've been saying, a Russian revolution would be better for the world and for Russia itself. — Christoffer

I'm not so sure about that. If the Putinist regime would collapse like the Soviet Union, that would be great. We don't give enough credit how well the last leaders of the Soviet Union did handle the collapse of Union. Then it didn't go the way of Yugoslavia. But with people like Putin, you do have similar types as Milosevic. As one Serb intellectual put it, Milosevic was one of the worst things to happen to Serbia and the Serbians. There are many who believe in Putin in Russia. Those who oppose him flee to countries like Georgia.

It would be great if Russia did come to it's sense, but the real problem is that the Putinists might fight to the bitter end if it would come to it. And that isn't something I hope for.

* * *

Of course these issues should be looked from their positive effects: at least now Putin has a wonderful opportunity to help us to go green and off from (at least Russian) hydrocarbons. (The energy minister has said few days ago that Russia could cut off gas exports to Finland in weeks)

That's why I'm against imperialism, be it American, European, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, or whatever. — Apollodorus

Then only a few sentences later:

What I'm saying is that Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than Ukraine has. — Apollodorus

:snicker:

Or earlier, of the Russian expansionism according to our troll:

As for Siberia, most of it was uninhabited land that the Russians gradually colonized and took over, no big deal. — Apollodorus

What I have referred to nonsense is you saying I have said that Russia will invade Finland. I've only quoted what Russian officials have said.

"Russia will" is definitive. What I've said that a military response is unlikely. Russia is already engaged in one war. A hybrid response is far more probable. And a political response is very probable.

perhaps
— ssu

I guess
— ssu — Isaac

How Putin exactly will respond we cannot know. So saying "perhaps" isn't hubris.

You come up with a load of armchair speculation ranging from the motives of leaders, the military tactics of armies, political strategies, economic repercussions... — Isaac

?

Obviously you simply do not know anything about such issues as military tactics, and obviously think that others are as ignorant as you. As usual, we do quote or make references to sources.

So what would the military repercussions be then? — Isaac

Well, starting from the things they already have said: deploying more nukes to Kaliningrad and perhaps to the Finnish Border. I guess the obvious thing would be to reinforce the air defenses in the Leningrad area and basically put more troops on the border. Assuming when they aren't fighting in Ukraine anymore.

And of course if you forget the actual events, Putin can now declare this as obvious proof that the West is out to get Russia. Yet the truth is that without the invasion of Ukraine, neither the Swedish or Finnish administrations, which both are lead by social democrats, wouldn't have made such a move and opted to use the "NATO option".

The probability of a military attack against Finland or Sweden is low. But at least the military here understands it's a possibility. Reservists are called to exercises far more frequently than before.

SSU said that joining Nato would lead to Russia attacking Finland? Really, ssu? — Christoffer

It's here — Isaac

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — ssu

Oh boy, Isaac.

Russia has genuinely said that, yet "serious military and political repercussions" doesn't mean Russia will attack Finland. Actually very typical nonsense from you, so enough with your rubbish counterarguments and twistings of what people say.

From Interfax:

March 12 (Interfax) - Finland and Sweden's possible accession to NATO would have serious military and political consequences and require Russia to take retaliatory measures, Russian Foreign Ministry Second European Department Director Sergei Belyayev said.

"It is obvious that Finland and Sweden's joining NATO, which is a military organization in the first place, would have serious military and political consequences requiring use to revise the entire range of relations with these countries and take retaliatory measures," Belyayev said in an interview with Interfax.

My quoting this statement (and there are others), doesn't mean that I'm saying that Russia will attack Finland. But of course you will just twist things.

Besides, several counties (among the UK) have given security guarantees for both Sweden and Finland now for the time the countries apply for membership. So let's see what those retaliatory measures are.

From today:

Finland should join Nato to better handle its security, said the country's Prime Minister and president in a joint declaration on Thursday morning.

Sanna Marin (SDP) and Sauli Niinistö said they had come to the conclusion after a wide-ranging debate on security policy following Russia's renewed attack on Ukraine.

"Now that the moment of decision-making is near, we state our equal views, also for information to the parliamentary groups and parties. NATO membership would strengthen Finland’s security," read the statement.

"As a member of NATO, Finland would strengthen the entire defence alliance. Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay. We hope that the national steps still needed to make this decision will be taken rapidly within the next few days."

I don't write here with dual personalities, so notice what I say. I don't think Russia will destroy Finland.

Why would Russia want to invade Finland and Sweden? Again, as far as we've seen, Russia's military has been quite bad at war. Why then go after these countries? — Manuel

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. If Russia hadn't started a large scale invasion of Ukraine this year, both countries surely wouldn't be applying for NATO. Both have leftist administrations in power, who would have had no desire to join NATO and face the wrath of Russia otherwise. But things change.

but, my guess would be that if Ukraine had completely fallen, then, Finland and Sweden would be even more enthusiastic about joining NATO. — Manuel

The fact is that Russia has shown enough recklessness and that it's untrustworthy with also having it's hands tied in Ukraine. If Ukraine was now under control of Russia, it could draw back it's troops for example to the Finnish border. So now you both have a) an obvious reason to join and b) a window of opportunity to join.

Now think about the situation in 1949, when NATO was formed. The Iron Curtain had fallen between the East and West. Wasn't this the time when Finland had to be really worried about what Stalin would do? Sure thing! Stalin had already back then put Communists to run the Finnish "secret police" VALPO, and some Finnish Communists had declared that "The way of Czechoslovakia will be the way of Finland". And Russian troops were in a military base west of Helsinki in Porkkala, where they were in artillery range from the Capitol. So the situation was reminiscent of how it was in Eastern European countries. With the exception that Finland did have an army, which wasn't infiltrated by Finnish communists. And a lot of war veterans that likely would have taken up arms, if the Soviets would have attacked. And the Soviets had just this one military base in Finland.

In that kind of situation, you don't apply for NATO. Heck, Finland didn't even dare to apply for Marshall aid. We had to be reaally good friends with Russia, yet the Finnish army had hidden weapons for an insurgency, if the Soviet Army would have invaded the country.

(Former NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen explains the "window of opportunity" for the two countries)

I don't think it's hard for him to understand that concept at all.

For instance, he's spoken about the Palestinian issue, and was worried about the problem, before Israel came into existence as a state. — Manuel

So before he was 20 years, he was talking about it? OK, if you say so...

But Chomsky refers only to those instances where it's either the US or an ally of the US that shows aggression. Chomsky doesn't see it being his role to comment on the aggression of Russia. If Russia does something bad, he doesn't see it's his role to comment it. Russian opposition (that is, those likely outside of the country) are according to Chomsky the people to talk about Russia. Well sorry, but we have that over 1000 km border with Russia, not Israel or the US.

Again, a small skirmish in the border would be drastically different if NATO were involved, it seems to me. — Manuel

As both Sweden and Finland have now at least gotten spoken promises that during the time when they admit their application and when they are accepted as members (which will take time), they will be supported, I think the probability of a Russian response like in Ukraine or Georgia won't happen.

How does this work? Let's take a hypothetical:

What if Putin would have been victorious and Ukraine would have collapsed faster than Afghanistan crumbled? That the fighting would have been over in a couple of days. And now Putin would be pondering what to do with Ukraine. And it seemed there wouldn't be any serious opposition to his forces in Ukraine.

You think Sweden and Finland would be joining NATO? I'm not so sure. If Russia's attack on Ukraine changed dramatically the populations views about NATO both in Finland and Sweden, then the success of Ukrainian defense has pushed it also forward. Now there is a window of opportunity.

Yep. Destroying Finland has always been Russia's dream. — Apollodorus

Having the Soviet air defence shield in Finland and a coastal defense on both sides of the Gulf of Finland was the dream of the Soviet Union. Leningrad's (later again St. Peterburgs) defense and the defense of Murmansk would need this "defense in depth". Last time Soviets proposed to the Finnish leadership to have Soviet Air Defense units taking care of Finnish aerospace happened in the 1970's. Along with demands Finland joining the Warsaw Pact. The suggestions were politely refused, but not forgotten.

Russian imperialist aspirations are always veiled in defensive arguments.

This is quite interesting, especially the first 15-20 minutes, made faster if one chooses 1.5 or x2 speed — Manuel

At least Chomsky is honest that he doesn't have much to say when it comes to Sweden and Finland, and is puzzled. When it comes to Russia, perhaps Chomsky ought to know the famous line that "Russia is never as strong as she looks at her best, but also Russia never as weak as she looks at her weakest." Russia isn't a "floundering paper-tiger" as Chomsky puts it. It still has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

For Chomsky to say that Russia has never hinted of invading Finland is a bit thick, because there's a whole term, Finlandization, to describe how the Soviet Union pressured the country. And Putin's Russia has used some similar rhetoric towards Finland as it has done for Ukraine (although no talk of us having to be denazified yet, at least).

Perhaps it's hard for an American to understand that security policy can be about the survival and existence of your country, as Finland and the Baltic States are quite expendable. In rare American maps from the Cold War you can see that the US didn't accept the annexation of the Baltic States by Russia, but the vast majority of countries took it as de facto realpolitik. So we know that people wouldn't give a damn if Finland would be independent or a satellite state of Russia. Or would have been annexed by it in 1940 as the Baltic States were.

Hence in this case you move when your potential adversary is weakest. Finland got it's independence only because the Russian empire collapsed. The Baltic States regained their independence only because the Soviet Union collapsed. You would make any moves when your potential adversary is the strongest. Now the only Russian troops on the other side of the border are in Ala-Kurtti garrison where they are training new recruits.

And still, we know that there is a possibility, not a big one, but still a possibility, that Russia's response to a NATO application is a military response. The armed forces understand that this possibility exists.

On the other hand, to think that Russia will ever consider developing an army capable of controlling, not only Ukraine, but both Sweden and Finland is crazy. Heck, the US couldn't even deal with Afghanistan, much weaker than Ukraine.

The issue is, by joining having them join NATO, Russia will be forced to put nukes on the borders with Finland, making the situation much more delicate. — Manuel

OK this doesn't make sense. Russia has nukes in Russia. Russia has already nukes in Kaliningrad. Russia's nuclear bombers can launch their cruise missiles well within deep in Russian aerospace out of the reach of Finnish air defenses or Hornet fighters and hit targets allover Finland.

Second, Russia doesn't have to try to do what it tried in Ukraine. Finland (luckily) isn't so crucial to Russia as Ukraine is. It doesn't have to invade and occupy the country, doesn't have to get tangled fighting a large mobilized wartime reservist army, that even Chomsky mentioned. It can for example just declare a blockade of the maritime routes. Over 90% of Finnish exports and imports go by sea, so have some mysterious sea mines cause accidents that sink a few merchant ships and Finland is economically on it's knees.

There's a myriad of things that Russia could do. But likely, and I hope it's likely, there wouldn't be much they will do.

The Biden Administration, however, has to know what a dangerous game they're playing wrt Ukraine and Russia. If Russia was giving intel to one of our enemies that resulted in deaths of many senior officers (and they were still doing it!), we would want some payback. — RogueAI

The US media commentators surely wanted payback during the Trump era when an Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan. Of course the Taleban weren't as successful as the Ukrainians have been with the intel. But then again, if you use Ukrainian mobile phone network, you're asking for it. Ukrainian military intelligence is far more capable than the Taleban could be, even with the help of Pakistani ISI.

Yet the Cold War gave both sides guidelines how to act in these kind of situations when one side in engaging in a war where the other side is sending vast amounts of material to the fight. During the Vietnam War, roughly about 3 000 Soviet military advisors were in North Vietnam assisting with the Soviet material given in huge quantities. Of them 16 Soviet advisors died during the war. Hence both countries know how this war of "assisting your side" is done.

The notable point is that Putin is still fighting the "special military operation" and hasn't taken steps to enlargen the conflict. And that the Biden administration is getting the jitters when Ukrainian military successes are directly linked to US assistance tells something. Both sides aren't actually opting to ante up the situation. The fight is still being fought on the Ukrainian battlefields.

I have read that we are now post racial, post industrial, post modern, post colonial, post binary, post brick and mortar retail, post feminist, post Christian, post-human, post de jour.

Unfortunately we are not post bullshit yet. — Bitter Crank

:grin: :100:

I think the US surely could have prevented the invasion, by submitting to Russia's demands, and pressuring Ukraine, and all NATO countries to submit to Russia's demands. But we do not know the full scope of Russia's demands. — Metaphysician Undercover

We do know, at least partly.

Russia wanted NATO to withdraw to 1999 lines, hence starting from Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, would be countries (and all later ones) where Western NATO forces shouldn't practice or do anything. Hence for NATO to basically kick out 14 countries, because Putin's Russia otherwise feels threatened.

And when it comes to Ukraine, in the end Putin wasn't at all interested in the Minsk II agreements. After all, he recognized Donetsk and Donbass and stated clearly he wasn't interested in the process anymore:

(22.2.2022) Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday the Minsk Agreement on the Ukrainian settlement ceased to exist when Russia recognized Ukraine's breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.

Speaking at a news conference in Moscow, Putin said Russia had struggled for eight years for the implementation of the accord while the Ukrainian authorities had stalled them.

"Now the Minsk agreements do not exist. Why should we implement them if we recognize the independence of these entities?" he questioned.

Of course, from the Ukrainian view Russia had already annexed Crimea and was asking even more, so at least to me it's understandable that they didn't trust much the obvious salami-tactics. Putin had made it quite clear what he thinks of Ukraine and what plans he had for it. And this was from the Russian playbook where they have first their proxies and then act as mediators or "peacekeepers", who apparently are quick to come to the defense of their proxy forces, if they are threatened.

The radical right isn't new. They have phased in and out of importance ever since Reconstruction. Think of the KKK and the late 19th century authors of the Jim Crow laws; think of the violent reaction to the labor movement; think of Father Coughlin (an odd-ball fascist in the 1930s), think of Joseph McCarthy, the John Birch Society, and so on and so forth. They tend to be hateful bastards, and they have a much larger base than the sad left, which might fill up a good sized church if they all got together in one place. — Bitter Crank

I think there's a link here which is quite an American phenomenon, which then is copied in other places. It's what I'd call a populist right, which sees that the conservative foundations that the US was built on are under an attack by a leftist liberal elite which has forgotten them. This idea that a leftist elite is in control makes it populist. (Of course actual leftist liberals don't see it that way and likely emphasize how much the conservatives rule, but this is besides the point.)

I also found this interesting in Kurt's article:

"Liberalism can provide a common ground, a least common denominator, for many states in one international organization in a way that nationalism, by its nature, cannot.“

Liberalism creates a motive for reaching out to the rest of the world with organizations like the UN and the IMF. Plus there's a moral imperative to spreading democracy from an American point of view. To admit that people in the middle east don't want or need democracy seems either insulting or it's a betrayal of middle eastern women, gays, etc. — frank

I think in this World many countries can be "nationalist", but yet participate in international cooperation. It doesn't have to go in hand in hand with American liberalism (free markets, individual freedom etc.) as it isn't the only ideology which can bind nations to cooperation. For example, The African states have many organizations or then there's the Arab League etc. Many of these organizations do have cooperation, but focus doesn't have to be in free-market capitalism. These naturally just don't come up in Western media.

(The complex arrangement of organizations in Africa)

Why do you think that? — frank

I remember everybody poking holes at Fukuyama's ideas even when they were stated. And when 9/11 happened, Fukuyama admitted that his view of the World wasn't happening. And later Fukuyama backed down from being in the neocon camp.

Basically Fukuyama's "End of History" shows that this was the pinnacle where America felt it had achieved supremacy. After, there wouldn't be such history as before. And now we see just how much Americans believed in this: when China had it's most rapid economic growth (which indeed was historical), Americans just assumed that this new prosperity would transform China also, just like the Fukuyama's argument went. But now we can see that the Chinese and especially the CCP saw this as a victory of true practical Chinese Marxism, not the dogmatic idealist Marxism leftist intellectuals drool about.

I don't think that's what he meant. I think he was saying that acting as a nation-state (so having a cohesive political class) has always been a challenge for America because it's so big and it's basically the world in microcosm.

He's saying the US was only a nation-state for a few decades, and it ended with WW2. Since then, he's saying it's been post-modern, which is clearly not a good thing in his view. He ends with the conclusion that the American education system needs to be improved to keep America from sinking further into illiteracy. — frank

Well, at least he himself in The Real Clash makes the juxtaposition between Western culture and Post-Western culture (that is multiculturalism, feminism etc.)

Unfortunately it seems that his articles are behind a paywall, so I cannot say much now. But I'll listen to some of the lectures/interviews he has given.

Algorithm: "Choose the field of Philosophy that can best answer the question you start with".

Again, still the stupidest statement in this entire 228 page thread. — Streetlight

Say's the guy who glaringly posted how absurd it was to think that Russia would invade Ukraine...



And later, just few days (hours) that the war started:

Anyone notice any kind of trend? — Isaac

That's quite a truthful graph. Calling it an "Central Bank bubble" is quite apt.

...only a few countries left to go, then they'll have the full set. — Isaac

An interesting table. I don't know how they have made it. If we put UK and England to be the same country, then it's number is 241, so 3rd place. Others put the UK to be the country that has had wars with the largest number of other countries. Of course this is a historical perspective, not confined to the 20th and 21st Centuries.

The Countries That Have Had The Most Wars

1. Spain: 300+
2. France: 250+
3. Hungary: 190
4. United Kingdom: 180
5. India: 148
6. Austria: 115
7. Poland: 115
8. The Philippines: 110
9. Iran: 104
10. United States: 101
11. Argentina: 90
12. Brazil: 78
13. Russia: 75
14. Nigeria: 67
15. Denmark: 66
16. Sweden: 64
17. Afghanistan: 61
18. England: 61
19. Germany: 57