Ukrainian forces reach border near Kharkiv: 'Mr. President, we made it!'
I think you should shut the fuck up. You're not even on the same side of the globe so you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to criticize alliances you should criticize your Aukus involvement more than commenting on us joining Nato. — Christoffer
Now they won't. Without Nato perhaps as a flank position for missile and weapon placement on Gotland when their military has been built up again, but now that we're about to join Nato they won't, which is the point. — Christoffer
No I think I will criticize anything I want, especially your overactive imagination, thanks. You can continue to cry about it, of course. — Streetlight
Ok ... well then, when were they going to invade before?
And how does this concern for Finland and Sweden square with the idea Russia is losing in Ukraine?
If Russia can't even beat Ukraine, why would Finland and Sweden be in any danger at any point? — boethius
You wrote a three paragraph fantasy novella and I was complementing you. — Streetlight
Why would we let Russia ever get to the point of trying? — Christoffer
I think you should shut the fuck up. You're not even on the same side of the globe so you have no idea what you're talking about. — Christoffer
if Russia dropped nuclear weapons on Finland and Sweden today or even the day after they join NATO, it still remains completely rational for the US, UK and France to not attack Russia with nuclear weapons, fearing a nuclear counter attack. — boethius
I find many cases in which alliances restrained the United States, or in which the United States restrained its allies or sidestepped costly commitments. I only examine U.S. military conflicts and therefore cannot evaluate fully the prevalence of such cases of peace, but even within my biased sample, there are at least four cases in which alliances prevented U.S. escalation, and another seven cases in which the United States reneged on security commitments and/or restrained an ally from attacking a third party.
Oh, you hadn't heard that arguments are geolocked? — Streetlight
Unless you're literally walking to these sites in person you're getting your information from — Isaac
As if a flimsy piece of paper is going to hold any weight at all against the gravity of nuclear annihilation. — Isaac
But if nuclear weapons are only to be used as an option for Russia if they feel an existential risk, then there's no risk. — Christoffer
The only one holding the cards here is Russia, if they want to annihilate themselves that's up to them, but even in their battlefield stupidity and imperial fantasies, they don't seem that stupid. — Christoffer
Stay within your borders and fix your shit, until then we won't be fooled into some surprise attack, we will keep our guns aimed at our borders until you grow up from your toxic fantasies. — Christoffer
Or just have other sources for the information than online ideological bloggers. — Christoffer
has constant social interactions with people living and working — Christoffer
Yeah, I think this is one of the major flaws in the whole "we're safe now we're in NATO" argument. As if a flimsy piece of paper is going to hold any weight at all against the gravity of nuclear annihilation. As if countries don't renege on agreements all the time.. — Isaac
precisely the right time for Sweden and Finland to affirm their European identity. — magritte
... So when the use of nuclear weapons is inconvenient to your position, then there's simply no risk ... based on Russia's lying word about "existential threat" ... which is up for interpretation anyways.
In short, if Russia keeps its word (about policies it could change anytime anyways), according to you, then there's no risk? — boethius
Ah ... I get it now, Russian's are stupid right up until the moment it's convenient to believe they aren't "that stupid" the moment that's convenient for you to believe. — boethius
How did it apply to US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq ... or were you dismissively telling the US to "grow up" the whole time, and they finally listened and have "grown up" from their toxic fantasies of controlling middle east resources since retreating from Afghanistan last year? — boethius
the "grow up" theory of international relations is new to me. — boethius
Are they secret? — Isaac
Again, why would people living and working in Sweden have any more idea than us about the geopolitical implications of NATO membership? — Isaac
Geopolitical implications are usually discussed by...you know, geopolitical strategists. I don't know about the quality of your pubs over there, but here its mostly farmers and fishermen, it's an odd day on which an international foreign policy scholar turns up to regale us firsthand with his hot-off-the-press analysis of the situation. — Isaac
Geo-identity politics. How fun. This Christoffer bloke likes to whine about substance and the employs the most vapid form of ad hom imaginable. I mean there probably is something to the idea of local knowledge but considering this bloke writes better stories than Harry Potter, he doesn't get to keep his geo-idpol card. — Streetlight
You see that massive blue block on the left? That's not Europe. — Isaac
You're welcome to ignore me. But you probably won't. — Streetlight
Are they secret? — Isaac
Yes — Christoffer
We weren't talking about the geopolitical implications in the sense you mean. I was talking about the Swedish and Finnish situation of joining Nato, how our perspective is on the matter and what our security would be against Russian aggression. — Christoffer
Maybe my social circle is just more educated than that and has more insight into things. — Christoffer
Likewise, I mean, I seem to remember askíng you to stop replying earlier in this thread, so it's rather you who can't contain your need to bully around — Christoffer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.