This morning, the CNN headline was basically "Ukraine reports Russia is taking heavy losses".

The headline right now is:

Ukrainian forces reach border near Kharkiv: 'Mr. President, we made it!'

Skipping over this front page, first headline news article starts with "A Ukrainian unit fighting north of Kharkiv says it has reached the Russian border. According to Ukrainian officials," with zero verification, aka. journalism of any kind, just whatever Ukraine says is reported immediately as front page headlines ... where have they "made it" too?

There's no reason to assume the Kharkiv positions are strategically important. It can be claimed that this is a prelude to strategic gains, that Ukraine is "about" to win, etc. but we've been hearing that every day for literally 3 months.

If Russia is intent on consolidating the gains so using only "contract" professional soldiers, and not conquer and passify Karkhiv with troops it doesn't have, then consolidating defensive lines makes sense, and these Ukrainian troops haven't "made it" to anywhere important.

They could invade Russia (let's just ignore there was plenty other parts of border to do that all this time) ... that then gives the Kremlin the mobilisation card (the Kremlin is so far playing by Russia's legal rules as far as possible).

Now, some "pro-Ukrainians" here seem to think that escalating further total war with Russia—even to the point of NATO slipping Ukraine a few nukes on the downlow to casually nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg—is a good thing.

That harming Russia, even if they don't lose but are just harmed according to our standards and not the Kremlins standards (which we don't even know how things are being evaluated), is justified whatever the cost to Ukraine.

People should really think longer, in my opinion, of non-Ukrainians holding this position that any and all harms to Russia, even nuking Moscow, is justified for Ukrainians to carry out, regardless of the cost to themselves.

A position that basically reduces to: Do what we want and cheer for, without any cost-benefit analysis of any kind, ever!! Do it!! Dot it for the vine!!

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

No I think I will criticize anything I want, especially your overactive imagination, thanks. You can continue to cry about it, of course.

And as it so happens, AUKUS is a fucking joke, and I welcome your solidarity on that front.

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

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?

No I think I will criticize anything I want, especially your overactive imagination, thanks. You can continue to cry about it, of course. — Streetlight

You can criticize anything you want, but you add very little to anything in here other than just being an annoying fucker from down under commenting on stuff you clearly know little about compared to us in the middle of it. If all you do is to try and bully around the thread for your own amusement then you're just making a fool out of yourself as an interlocutor and we won't care about anything you say other than as an annoying fly buzzing around. You don't criticize, there's no substance in your criticism, you're just irrelevant noise.

You wrote a three paragraph fantasy novella and I was complementing you.

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

Why would we let Russia ever get to the point of trying? Ukraine might have beaten Russia, but at what cost for the Ukrainians getting systematically executed, tortured, and raped by Russians? Joining Nato blocks any attempts and any attempts are impossible to know about. That's why it's a security strategy to join Nato.

It's also in support of the Baltic nations which are at greater risk than we are.

But your question of "when" could have been asked to Ukraine before they were invaded and arrogantly remarked as something never to happen, but it did.

On top of that, we can mock the pathetic military that Russia has today, but what if they learn and improve after this conflict to have greater success next time that shouldn't be underestimated.

You don't build security out of guesswork, you build it out of the necessary defense against a number of possible scenarios. This is not a board game with dice throws, we build strategies in order to get double sixes every time.

You wrote a three paragraph fantasy novella and I was complementing you. — Streetlight

Were you equally pathetic at bullying people in school? Did they laugh behind your back at those attempts? :lol: If you're not adding anything just fuck off into the outback or something.

Why would we let Russia ever get to the point of trying? — Christoffer

We agree there's basically zero danger right now or for the foreseeable future.

We agree that Russia may likely win in Ukraine, survive economically, rebuild its military stronger and better than it was before, and, therefore, could be a credible threat to Sweden at some point in the future.

Therefore, the risk of Russian military, economic and diplomatic victory over Ukraine should be taken seriously, and mitigated by joining NATO.

Even if all this we both agree on is true, the counter arguments are simply the same ones from the cold war, that being in NATO guarantees being targeted by nukes in a nuclear war, NATO having more land border with Russia increases (rather than decreases) the likelihood of nuclear war, which one is now a guaranteed nuclear strike target.

Of course, the rebuttal to that would be that major Finnish and Swedish cities are already targeted by nuclear weapons as Russia sees them as functionally part of the West anyways, in which maybe there is some marginal benefit to be in NATO anyways if Russia sees it that way anyways.

This argument can go back and forth.

The rebuttal to this rebuttal, that Sweden and Finland are already nuclear strike targets, is that the benefits are therefor only analytic edge cases and the optimum cost-benefit would be to reduce likelihood of nuclear war overall, which joining NATO increases rather than decreases.

To which is countered that more countries joining NATO lowers, rather than increases, chances of nuclear war, and so on and so forth.

If we're talking about some distant future where the context has radically changed and Russia wants and feels it can invade Finland and / or Sweden with conventional or even nuclear weapons, it's possible that NATO is a deterrent for that ... or it's possible that NATO is not a deterrent for that in this new future context. Indeed, being in NATO may actually increase the likelihood of an attack designed to demonstrate that NATO article 5 is not a credible deterrent anymore.

The general problem of nuclear weapons is that it's rational to cede to nuclear blackmail. For instance, 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.

Which is why "madman theory" was developed by the Americans in the cold war, as the only way for nuclear deterrence to work (especially in covering other countries by your nuclear retaliation umbrella ... which Article 5 doesn't quite do), is that you are willing to do the irrational thing and launch nuclear weapons even if it is irrational to sacrifice most or all of your citizens that would not otherwise be harmed, due to a paragraph on a piece of paper.

Why the Western press calling Putin and the Kremlin insane is actually a strategically optimum favour (from a nuclear rivalry point of view, that we don't necessarily need, but NATO has insisted on us having), as it allows the Kremlin to play Kissinger's madman playbook without even trying very hard (American's had to spend significant effort to convince the Soviets they were cowboy crazy enough to launch a first strike if they woke up and felt like 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. — Christoffer

This makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you're literally walking to these sites in person you're getting your information from the same internet we all have access to. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the internet does stretch all the way to Australia.

Oh, you hadn't heard that arguments are geolocked?

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

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.

Here's Michael Beckley, for example, on America's record of alliance fidelity

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.

If they're prepared to tear up commitments for trivial political expediency, I don't see how NATO membership is going to mean anything if nuclear war is threatened.

Oh, you hadn't heard that arguments are geolocked? — Streetlight

Bugger, I didn't know. Well, you can all look forward to my thrilling forthcoming thread on the curfuffle about parking for the fishing boats down at the local harbour.

Of course none of you will be able to comment... Shame, its quite the scandal.

Even if we weren't part of Nato a nuclear war would annihilate us anyway. We're surrounded by nations that are targets for nuclear strikes, a strike on Germany with a southern wind would down us in fallout.

There's also a deterrent in expanding Nato as a response to Russia's aggression. If they, like most other nations of the world, as referenced in the video of the Kenyan ambassador I linked to, keep their nation within the borders that are set, there won't be any conflicts. Sweden and Finland joining should be, for any rational Russian, a clear point made about how the modern world functions, something they clearly haven't caught up to. Few had any problems with Russia pre-2014 and if they'd kept within their borders they could have been closer to China's success, with great trade and a booming economy. But they bitch about their great empire and live in old outdated fantasies, while the bulk of their wealth went through corrupt oligarchs instead of businesses, and that's "ok", if they keep it within their borders, but the problem is when they invade others to make those fantasies a reality, trying to cosplay something into real casualties.

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. If they attack out of the blue with nuclear weapons then they would have done so anyway. This is the new cold war and as long as Russia keeps to itself there's little risk of anything, especially with the hard iron curtain drawn against Nato.

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. I think they clearly understand the Nato/Russia dynamic but they use propaganda and lies as a weapon trying to control other nations, which this time failed miserably for them. It might even trigger a shift towards better diplomacy when the fallout of the Ukraine conflict starts to happen in Russia. There will be a lot of internal questioning of the information tactics they've been using since it ended up expanding Nato instead of deterring it. The message to Russia is clear, don't invade other nations believing you have any rights to it, because you don't, and the world will punish you for it, whatever delusional justification you present as a lie to "trick" people into supporting your cause, it's blatantly obvious. 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.

Nuclear war is unlikely, it would only be a reality as a suicide action by Russia; "if we can't have the world, then no one will!"

Unless you're literally walking to these sites in person you're getting your information from — Isaac

Or just have other sources for the information than online ideological bloggers. Outside of that, I don't think someone in Australia would have a clear sense of the discussion, debate, and events going on in Sweden and Finland, however much time they spend online. I don't think he keeps 24/7 information going or has constant social interactions with people living and working or even being in the military here.

So, outside of your continuous black and white fallacies trying to point out that it doesn't make sense because I'm literally not bending over the possible war maps of strategic planning of defense, it makes sense in that I know more about our situation than some random Australian trying to bully himself to earning intellectual respect. :lol:

As if a flimsy piece of paper is going to hold any weight at all against the gravity of nuclear annihilation. — Isaac

Neutrality or non-alliance won't hold against nuclear annihilation either. You can only plan a military defense against common warfare and that is what Sweden and Finland are doing. Nuclear annihilation would annihilate us even if we weren't in Nato.

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

... 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?

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

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.

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

Maybe do some very basic geopolitical research.

Whether Russia invasion of Ukraine (to get water to Crimea and do other strategic things) turns out in the end to be a good idea or bad idea from a geopolitical point of view ... the "grow up" theory of international relations is new to me.

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?

They learned their lesson and now you are 100% behind these "adults" teaching the Kremlin trouble making "rebels" the same lesson?

Or just have other sources for the information than online ideological bloggers. — Christoffer

Are they secret? Would you have to kill us if you told us - so exciting!

has constant social interactions with people living and working — Christoffer

Again, why would people living and working in Sweden have any more idea than us about the geopolitical implications of NATO membership? Are you all secretly told about it via some complex system of Chinese whispers and knowing glances?

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.

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.

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

You're making the case against your own position. World politics is changing drastically in the wake of technological and economic globalization. Old alliances are fading and Pax Americana is coming to an end. Political polarization, not in small part generated by Putin's triumphant cold war strategy, has changed the stability of American commitments. America will do what serves its needs just as other nations do. Russia's foolish and incompetent war opened the door and this period of confusion is precisely the right time for Sweden and Finland to affirm their European identity.

"Pax Americana is coming to an end. This is why we must continue and buy into pax Americana".

Gotta love it. The West basically did all it could to make sure Russia would respond by murdering Ukranians, and then, when it does just that, gets people to affirm that it needs Western unity now more than ever.

, diplomacy :up: The more the better

I don't think anyone is simply declaring that Ukraine is winning, will win, militarily.
Yet, note that Russians like Yuri Podolyak and Vladlen Tatarsky have commented on Russian military failures and criticized Russian efforts. (Careful with the words people, cf polonium.)

My comment was about the continuing implicit denial that the Kremlin can be moved.
(And, in contrast, Ukraine can be moved and should be convinced to give up.)

Eh? Which position is this making the case against?

America keeps or reneges on its agreements according to its own political expediency, right? So Sweden and Finland's membership of NATO isn't worth the paper it's written on in terms of military aid against a nuclear threat (of questionable value against a conventional threat even, as Beckley's examples show)

So...therefore it's a good time for Finland and Sweden to join NATO? I don't follow...

precisely the right time for Sweden and Finland to affirm their European identity. — magritte

And NATO does that how?



You see that massive blue block on the left? That's not Europe.

... 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

If someone invades Russia, that's a valid existential risk for them, but no one is invading them. If they use the existential risk as a propaganda lie for a false flag operation with nukes, that obviously brings an existential threat to them due to the risk of counterattacks. It's the whole point of nukes as deterrents. The only risk of nuclear war would be if Russia sank so low on the intelligence charts and promotes a total lunatic who would just push every button possible to annihilate everyone who's not Russian, but that equals nuclear annihilation and then it doesn't matter if you're in Nato or not. Being in Nato helps block any attempt at common military invasion tactics or strikes. Nuclear war would be destructive for everyone regardless of alliances, especially back at Russia.

It doesn't matter if Russia keeps its word or not, an act that could destroy themselves entirely would only be taken by suicidal morons which, outside of the fact they are lunatics, is probably not the length they would go.

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

They are delusional morons around their imperial fantasies, but they aren't suicidal, they know what happens if they start bombing the world with nukes. And even if they were, being outside of Nato wouldn't mean much if such a thing happens.

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

We're not talking about the US, but you don't think the US has gotten extreme criticism over the years on how they've handled the middle east? I'm equally critical of US foreign affairs, they did however not use nukes as retaliation for 9/11 which, even if the war was in no way justified for that reason, would probably have been the "existential threat" Russia would have argued as the reason if they were in that position.

the "grow up" theory of international relations is new to me. — boethius

Well, it's basically that we've moved away from imperial mythology. Even if we can argue that the US acts as if they are an empire, they're not really doing it in the way pre-WWII empires did. What I refer to is the invasion and shifting of geographical lines, planting flags and shit. We can criticize a lot of how war and conflicts are fought today, proxy wars and resource-based politics and conflicts, but even with the presence of the US around the globe, they haven't planted a flag and expanded their land as part of their empire. They have a military presence, but the land they're in is ruled by the owner of that land. If they want to kick out US troops, they can, which happened in Afghanistan, regardless of what we think of the Talibans.

The old imperial methods were mostly based on myths, on conquering and ownership of other lands. Since WWII most nations have moved away from such war geopolitics to gain assets. Instead, like China and the US, superpowers have gained influence through more peaceful means (yes, sometimes proxy wars), but mostly through investment and ownership of corporations in other nations. Trade has become the new way to build an empire.

And yes, we can criticize that as well, it's pure capitalism as imperialist might, but the lemonade is that we don't have the horror of hell that is world wars. I much rather prefer something bad than hell, a bad that "can" be improved upon when the old die and the young grow into power. We can criticize globalism for the negative effects it create, but it has also brought different nations and cultures closer to each other and built up a sense of social peace between people. Many young people today have no interest in geopolitical conflicts because they see lesser differences between them and people in other nations. This is the good thing about globalism, the weakening of imperial delusions, of fantasies of the might and power of a nation owning the world. Collaboration becomes more interesting than owning others.

Russia acts with the old imperial ideal and it's so out of date that when the rest of the world "grew up" they tried to play the new game with oligarchs and money flow, but their deep corruption and toxic mythological ideals made it impossible for them to play the game like China successfully did. While Russia failed, China's economy grew to the extreme. Maybe it's not so much that they need to "grow up", but more kill off the old holding the nation back in these outdated ideologies.

Are they secret? — Isaac

Yes

Again, why would people living and working in Sweden have any more idea than us about the geopolitical implications of NATO membership? — Isaac

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.

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

Maybe my social circle is just more educated than that and has more insight into things. But you know, you don't believe in education so you won't grasp such concepts.

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

Here comes the lecturer on ad hominems by the guy who constantly tries to bully others and add nothing but his egocentric bloatedness to the discussion. You're just acting like a toxic troll, no one seriously cares about your input. :lol:

Every time some hysteric waxes lyrical over Russia Bad, it's worth asking why they are. You'll either get the tautologous Russia bad because Russia Bad, or else the Russia Bad because it would like the West to fuck off from its borders, which is of course the only reasonable answer to anyone who doesn't think international politics is a video game.

And if the latter is the case, then there is no worse response on the planet to Russia Bad than: let's make the West nestle right up against its borders. It has all the logic of: if we add oil to these flames, these flames will get tired and go away.

You're welcome to ignore me. But you probably won't.

You see that massive blue block on the left? That's not Europe. — Isaac

Canada and Greenland, what did they do wrong to you?

You're welcome to ignore me. But you probably won't. — Streetlight

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. You may need to talk to someone, preferably not a kangaroo though, they hit back.

Are they secret? — Isaac


Yes — Christoffer

Cool, so you are a spy! I knew it, how exciting! I won't tell anyone, promise.

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

That's the geopolitical implications in the sense I mean. What your security would be against Russian aggression. Are you suggesting that's something Swedes somehow know more about by virtue of their place of birth? How does this work exactly. If I'm born in Sweden but move away do I still have the magic?

Maybe my social circle is just more educated than that and has more insight into things. — Christoffer

Well, yeah, I should imagine you have James fucking Bond round to dinner and everything...

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

Oh you're quite right I will continue to point out how wrong you are about everything ever and are basically a war slut. Except for this one thing! But do continue to tell me how you don't care while caring a great deal, over and over again. I knew you couldn't keep away :heart: