This caught my attention, because in my line of work, to deploy is the same as to launch. But of course, that's not what it means. — jamalrob

I read that the same, and I thought it was a good strategy, I mean did the Ukrainians not 'deploy' anti-ship weapons? These journalists are sloppy.

Russians are just marketing and blunt large force, but no brains.
— Christoffer

I agree. Even their war disinformation efforts appear amateuristic. — Olivier5

I look forward to evaluating this when it is all over, like Afghanistan. History will be harsh, and will be written by not the victors, but by the worlds only superpower.

I like my disinformation unsophisticated, so it is easy to sort out, hence RT and Sputnik News.

That totally doesn't read like a racist trope. But I get what you're saying, in this war the preparation and execution of the Russian attack seems incompetent (from where we're standing), which makes you doubt as to the qualities of its leadership. It's that or a gross underestimation of the abilities of the Ukrainians. I can't imagine their intelligence being off though, that close to Russia with that many familial connections across borders.

Having trouble threading together these two narratives myself. The threat of Russia driving countries into the arms of the world's largest military alliance for protection apparently comes from the same Russia whose incompetent command, out-of-date weapons, and brainless rank-and-file are being outmatched by the world's 22ndth largest military.

And with what army are they going to invade Finland or Sweden? Are we not assured that half of them are dead or captured, their hardware destroyed and military defeat is almost an inevitability.

Maybe Finland are worried about a nuclear attack...but that would be the same nuclear attack that Putin is definitely not going to launch so we're safe to pile as much weaponry into Ukraine as we like?

It seems there's two Russias to suit two purposes. The sharp-fanged attack dog reqired as blame for NATO expansion and the toothless mutt required to support dragging out the war of resistance for another week, month, year...

. I can't imagine their intelligence being off though, that close to Russia with that many familial connections across borders. — Benkei

And yet their intelligence was totally off. That is indeed a mystery of sorts, when you think of it. Maybe a lack of prudence and humility. As Chirac put it in 2003 (talking to UN inspector Blix if memory serves, about US / UK intel on Sadam's alleged WMD), sometimes intelligence services intoxicate themselves, they blind themselves through a combination of ideology, wishful thinking and echo chambers.

It seems there's two Russias to suit two purposes. The sharp-fanged attack dog reqired as blame for NATO expansion and the toothless mutt required to support dragging out the war of resistance for another week, month, year... — Isaac

Those two views easily combine into the image of a brute: strong, violent, and not too bright.

Those two views easily combine into the image of a brute: strong, violent, and not too bright. — Olivier5

So victory against such a brute very much an unlikely prospect for Ukraine then?

That totally doesn't read like a racist trope. — Benkei

BTW, I take exception to this. I appreciate Russian culture and folks. I've read Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Andreï Makine, Nabokov... Nothing in my comment pertained to a supposed Russian race or ethnicity or even to their culture. When I speak of 'the Russians' I mean their army.

So victory against such a brute very much an unlikely prospect for Ukraine then? — Isaac

They can outsmart it though... Look at the way they sunk two mighty ships with local technology and tons of smarts.

They can outsmart it though... Look at the way they sunk two if their mighty ships with local technology and tons of smarts. — Olivier5

So the super smart Finns and Swedes have nothing to fear and no need to run to NATO then?

So the super smart Finns and Swedes have nothing to fear and no need to run to NATO then? — Isaac

Are you crazy, just stupid or is it blind anger? Try and think, for a change.

Are you crazy? — Olivier5

Are you suggesting the Finns and Swedes are dumb?

If there are Finns and Swedes who want their people bombed by Russia just because they might have a chance to prevail in the end, they are indeed as dumb as you are, not to mention criminal. But I doubt it.

If there are Finns who want their people bombed by Russia just because they might have a chance to prevail in the end, they are indeed as stupid as you are. But I doubt it. — Olivier5

The bombing happens anyway, NATO don't do preemptive attacks on potential aggressors. They support those who are attacked. Support the smart Finns and Swedes clearly don't need against the dumb brute whose useless army is apparently half destroyed already.

You are exactly like them in a way: blinded by hatred and fear, and thus unable to think logically. Calm down already.

No bombing has happened to the Finns quite yet. Joining NATO would protect them from this eventuality by deterring aggression -- at least that's the idea.

Joining NATO would protect them from this eventuality by deterring aggression — Olivier5

So why didn't they join NATO before now?

So why didn't they join NATO before now? — Isaac

I don't know. @ssu would be better placed to answer this.

I don't know. ssu would be better placed to answer this. — Olivier5

The argument doesn't require you to know. It only requires that you accept they had a reason. Ie joining NATO is not a option with only one factor to consider.

As such (even without knowing what their reasons were) simply saying NATO acts as a deterrent is inadequate. They must act as a sufficiently necessary deterrent to outweigh the factors advising against membership.

So the question remains. Why is NATO now a sufficiently necessary deterrent, if Russia are now shown to be an easily defeated, half destroyed military force?

So the question remains. Why is NATO now a sufficiently necessary deterrent, if Russia are now shown to be an easily defeated, half destroyed military force? — Isaac

Military strength can be rebuilt; mistakes can be learnt from.

Military strength can be rebuilt; mistakes can be learnt from. — Olivier5

Rebuilt by the destroyed Russia we're assured will result from Putin's disastrous invasion? Mistakes learnt by the leader we're told listens to no one and is surrounded by yes men?

Yes. The world is not static, it changes all the time. Putin can learn a lesson. It's not impossible.

The wold is not static, it changes all the time. — Olivier5

The world was always that way. So why is it now sufficiently necessary to obtain the NATO deterrent where it wasn't before?

Putin can learn a lesson. — Olivier5

So he's not an egotist surrounded by yes men?

So why is it now sufficiently necessary to obtain the NATO deterrent where it wasn't before? — Isaac

As I said, @ssu would be in a better position to answer this question. I would guess they are now more scared of a possible invasion than they were before the war in Ukraine.

I would guess they are now more scared of a possible invasion than they were before the war in Ukraine. — Olivier5

More scared now that Putin's army has been shown to be easily defeated and half destroyed?

More scared now that thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been murdered by the Russians, yes. If you had a serial killer living next door, you would be scared too, irrespective of his current strength.

More scared now that thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been murdered by the Russians, yes. — Olivier5

So no one died in Georgia? No one died in Chechnya?

If you had a serial killer living next door, you would be scared too, irrespective of his current strength. — Olivier5

I may well be. Fortunately for me (and the world in general) international diplomacy in foreign policy is rarely conducted on the basis of knee-jerk emotive response. We expect a little more cold rational consideration.

Very few died in Georgia. Chechnya is part of Russia so it was not an armed aggression of another country.

Very few died in Georgia. Chechnya is part of Russia so it was not an armed aggression of another country. — Olivier5

I'm not suggesting they were identical, I'm asking why the deaths are significant yet not the military capability when it comes to an assessment of risk?

What are you trying to say, exactly?

We expect a little more cold rational consideration. — Isaac

What you expect is irrelevant.