Fortunately for world peace, Russia conveniently alternates between brutally masterminding existential threats to the whole of Europe and acting out Dad's Army in futile attempts to gadfly the world's 22nd largest army who'll easily defeat them any minute.

Phew!

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? — Isaac

I really don't know what you are talking about here. I know more than you about what is going on in my own country, I know more than you about the debates, discussions, social dynamics around the topic of Nato and defense and security against Russia. And as we have closer ties with the rest of the nordic nations, we have much more interactions than many other groups of nations in the world. When it comes to discussions about our military, security and identity as nations, I know more than you since I live within this information 24/7, while you have to filter it through outside reports, translations, cultural interpretations, media etc. And yes, if you move away from Sweden and don't have much interaction with people back home, you start to lose up to date stuff outside of the cultural identity you brought with you and the knowledge born from that. This is just basic logic.

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

Funny you should say :lol:

Yes Russia is absolutely losing and getting their ass handed to them in Ukraine but also they are Lord Voldermort and will conquer Europe if given half the chance so clearly all of Europe must immediately become an American foreign policy whore ASAP. This is totally not the reasoning of complete morons.

Oh you're quite right I will continue to point out how wrong you are about everything ever. Except for this one thing! But do continue to tell me how you don't care while caring a great deal. — Streetlight

I don't care at all about you :lol: Do you see me seriously engaging with what you say? I just hate bullies and like to put them in their place, but I don't care about you, sorry if you wanted to be seen by bullying other people.

"Around 2,000 people are returning each day to Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv, said the head of the city’s regional military administration, Oleh Synehubov. Russian forces bombarded the city for weeks but have recently withdrawn, in what military analysts describe as a victory for Ukraine."
NYT :clap:

in what military analysts describe as a victory for Ukraine. — frank

If this sustains and Russia is pushed back even further, then Ukraine won back its freedom and can rebuild. Going forward it's interesting to remember all of those who just argued for Ukraine to surrender and become part of Russia, giving up any future they had based on their Ukrainian identity and surrendering to the ideologies of Russia, erasing all the work against corruption they've speedily been doing to reach a point where they can become members of the EU which would then never be even considered a reality. And with all the atrocities that have happened, such things would probably have just continued and become a dark long period of hell in occupied parts of the nation.

So basically, if all goes right from this moment, resistance and the will to fight for freedom paid off, securing the future for all Ukrainians who want to live free and independent as their own nation.

So basically, if all goes right from this moment, resistance and the will to fight for freedom paid off, securing the future for all Ukrainians who want to live free and independent as their own nation. — Christoffer

:up:

Imagine taking seriously the idea that Ukraine will be in any way, shape, or form independant even if they do drive Russia out. Yet more fantasizing.

Its gleaming future: shoe factory and interest rate bearer for the West. And all that juicy black earth, ripe for international agribusiness, to be sold at bargain basement prices, and eliminating local farmer control. How exciting.

independent of Russia, yes. They'll be in NATO.

Yes Russia is absolutely losing and getting their ass handed to them in Ukraine but they also Lord Voldermort and will conquer Europe if given half the chance so clearly all of Europe must immediately become an American foreign policy whore ASAP. — Streetlight

After the American and Russian poster boy old farts die off who will direct American foreign policy and for what end, say in two years? Should Europe just wait it out?

They'll be in NATO. — frank

That's not going to happen. First of all, a country has to be functional democracy, which Ukraine isn't and won't be for a very long time.

Mm, from one set of murdererous freaks to another.

That's not going to happen. First of all, a country has to be functional democracy, which Ukraine isn't and won't be for a very long time. — Benkei

We'll see.

Mm, from one set of murdererous freaks to another. — Streetlight

Yep. Welcome to your own species.

Check the facts

In 1995, the Alliance published the results of a Study on NATO Enlargement that considered the merits of admitting new members and how they should be brought in. It concluded that the end of the Cold War provided a unique opportunity to build improved security in the entire Euro-Atlantic area and that NATO enlargement would contribute to enhanced stability and security for all. It would do so, the Study further concluded, by encouraging and supporting democratic reforms, including the establishment of civilian and democratic control over military forces; fostering patterns and habits of cooperation, consultation and consensus-building characteristic of relations among members of the Alliance; and promoting good-neighbourly relations.

It would increase transparency in defence planning and military budgets, thereby reinforcing confidence among states, and would reinforce the overall tendency toward closer integration and cooperation in Europe. The Study also concluded that enlargement would strengthen the Alliance’s ability to contribute to European and international security and strengthen and broaden the transatlantic partnership.

According to the Study, countries seeking NATO membership would have to be able to demonstrate that they have fulfilled certain requirements. These include:

a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
the fair treatment of minority populations;
a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
Once admitted, new members would enjoy all the rights and assume all the obligations of membership. This would include acceptance at the time that they join of all the principles, policies and procedures previously adopted by Alliance members.

No I think your line made a hard stop a few generations ago, evolutionary speaking.

After the American and Russian poster boy old farts die off who will direct American foreign policy and for what end, say in two years? Should Europe just wait it out? — magritte

Not sure what you're asking. American foreign policy will be consistent as ever: eliminate democracy in favor of market-expansion and the destruction of labor rights everywhere. Doesn't quite matter who is in charge.

To be fair this assumes NATO has principals which it abides by, which of course, it does not.

No I think your line made a hard stop a few generations ago, evolutionary speaking. — Streetlight

They said it was an infected boil.

I think they make up the rules as they go, though.

To be fair this assumes NATO has principals which it abides by, which of course, it does not. — Streetlight

Correct. Bad Motherfuckers do what they want.

The cartoon intellect hath spoken

The cartoon intellect hath spoken — Streetlight

But they said they don't want to sedate you to lance it, so they're going to just leave it. :groan:

Your think this based on what?

It's actually a pretty good litmus test to figure out who actually gives a shit about Ukraine and who's support is purely aesthetic based on Russia losing because it is a comic-book villain: those who think that a Ukrainian victory(?) over Russia will lead to its independence and overall good state of being - anyone who thinks this doesn't give a shit about Ukraine and never has - or those who recognize that a Ukrainian win means it's (re)opening to Western plunder and economic subjugation for the next century. Zelensky was already half-way to instituting the latter when Russia attacked - for it's own piece of the pie, of course.

Your think this based on what? — Benkei

Mostly just familiarity with the way people maneuver. If Europe doesn't want Ukraine in NATO, they might refer to the rules as a reason to deny Ukraine's application.

But if Europe wants to accept the application, they'll find a way.

January 2021

Russia: OMG! We suddenly realized that NATO has been expanding in Europe since 1997! And Ukraine might some day join NATO too! This is an existential threat! NATO must pull back right now!

Putinverstehers: See what you've done, NATO? Putin feels threatened!

February 2021

Russia: That's it! We can't wait any longer! We have to attack Ukraine right now, before it might some day join NATO and attack us!

Putinverstehers: See what you've done, NATO? Russia's war on Ukraine is totally your fault! You left Russia no choice!

May 2022

Finland & Sweden: We are going to joining NATO now.

NATO: Welcome, Finland & Sweden!

Russia: It's cool, we are not worried.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-14

Dude, according to most scholars “Turkic” means Mongol or related to Mongol:

Turkic migration refers to the spread of Turkic tribes and Turkic languages across Eurasia and between the 6th and 11th centuries. According to Yunusbayev et al. (2015), genetic evidence points to an origin in the region near South Siberia and Mongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity. Similarly several linguists, including Juha Janhunen, Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, suggest that Mongolia is the homeland of the early Turkic language. According to Robbeets, the Turkic people descend from people who lived in a region extending from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia to the West Liao River Basin (modern Manchuria).

Turkic migration - Wikipedia

Historically, the term Tatars (or Tartars) was applied to anyone originating from the vast Northern and Central Asian landmass then known as Tartary, a term which was also conflated with the Mongol Empire itself. More recently, however, the term has come to refer more narrowly to related ethnic groups who refer to themselves as Tatars or who speak languages that are commonly referred to as Tatar - Wikipedia

Also, “The Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate, an Ottoman vassal state during the 16th to 18th centuries” - Wikipedia.

Of course, they would have some non-Mongol DNA as they enslaved the local population and raped thousands of local women! The Cumans themselves were a "Turkic nomadic people that eventually settled to the west of the Black Sea" (Wikipedia).

In any case, that doesn’t make Crimea “Ukrainian”! :grin:



Well, your first few maps show Finland’s borders expanding north- and eastward under Swedish occupation. So, your so-called “status quo” kept changing and quite a lot!!! Plus, the border was between Sweden and Russia.

And no, contrary to your claim, imperialism isn't necessarily "to acquire territory through military force".

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change.
The policy of imperialism is usually considered to have begun in the late 19th century, though some consider US territorial expansion at the expense of Native Americans to be similar enough to deserve the same term. The federal government of the United States has never referred to its territories as an empire, but some commentators refer to it as such, including Max Boot, Arthur Schlesinger, and Niall Ferguson. The United States has also been accused of neocolonialism, sometimes defined as a modern form of hegemony, which uses economic rather than military power in an informal empire, and is sometimes used as a synonym for contemporary imperialism.

American imperialism – Wikipedia

In any case, if the NATO Empire keeps expanding its territory, then it is incorrect to say that its aim is to maintain the “status quo”.

This is confirmed by the West’s stated intention to destroy Russia economically and financially:

Western officials have described their campaign as an economic war meant to punish President Vladimir Putin and turn the country he leads into an international pariah — even if it takes years for sanctions to destroy the defenses of Russia's "fortress economy."
"We will provoke the collapse of the Russian economy," French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told a local news channel on Tuesday.

The West's $1 trillion bid to collapse Russia's economy – CNN

Also, in military terms, if Russia’s armed forces are degraded to the point that it can’t defend itself, then Russia can be conquered by the West.

Of course, NATO imperialists will keep claiming that their Empire is “defensive”, but I doubt that thinking people will agree :grin:

When it comes to discussions about our military, security and identity as nations, I know more than you since I live within this information 24/7, while you have to filter it through outside reports, translations, cultural interpretations, media etc. — Christoffer

How do you get 24/7 information unfiltered, just by being in Sweden/Finland? I'm in England, I don't get information about English military security, unfiltered. I still get it though the press, open source intelligence, and commentators I read - same as everyone else. I can't just walk up to MI5 and ask, just because I'm a local. Yet all these sources are online, for anyone in the world to access.

What sources of military and security information do Swedes and Finns have unfiltered access to which are not on the internet?

As I said. It ain't going to happen.