When you have already bilateral security guarantees from the US and UK (and other NATO member states), I wouldn't be worried about it. — ssu

Yeah, funny that. It's almost as if it doesn't really matter what the other countries think.

I've heard that argument before somewhere... can't quite remember where...

And other screens perchance? :D

At this rate we can soon hear from Russian screens that it was USA and NATO that attacked Ukraine, not Russia. — Anton Gerashchenko (Oct 26, 2022)

, as far as I know, the "weaken Russia" aim dates to the Cold War; original/declassified documents would be nifty to take a glance at, though it doesn't really seem to have been much of a secret. In this case, there's a "strengthen Russia" aim, except at Ukraine's expense.

Reasonably clear (repeated) messages:
• UN 68/262 (Mar 27, 2014)
• UN 2623 (Feb 27, 2022)
• UN ES-11/5 (Nov 14, 2022)
• UN (Feb 23, 2023)

Russia was always "strong" though, certainly "stronger" than most peer states, heck by size/resources alone. Russia isn't doomed to destruction without Ukraine (or Transnistria for that matter), but "weaker" than it would be if having assimilated others, which I suppose holds for such takeovers.

So for all practical purposes, Finland is in NATO now. Does that feel like a big shift in Finland's long term strategies to you?

There are important economic factors here, no doubt as you showed in the article you shared. And indeed, there may well be other economic factors which the US has an eye on in the near future - or after the war.

The case of the Nordstream bombing is an illustration of such interests. Nevertheless, states also want power for the sake of wielding it. Now the issue is Russia, but the real concern for the US is China. But there is also plenty of business that could be done with China without recourse to provocations in Taiwan and sanctions on Chinese technology.

Why deny an immediate source of income? They don't want China to be as powerful as it is. Likewise with Cuba and Iran, sanctions on those countries are hurting what would otherwise be a business bonanza. But Cuba and Iran disobeyed the US, that is not liked. So, the profits can be set aside, while we teach them a lesson in obedience.

So yes, economy is important, but so is raw power.



Sure, I never meant to imply it was a secret. Makes some strategic sense too, in so far as Russia does not obey the US in several matters.

How far this attitude should be taken, i.e. what price should be paid in terms of lives for this expressed goal, is not clear.

I think we've had enough murder and war. Plainly, the powers at be do not.

So you're just going to support the US efforts to stoke the fires? — Tzeentch

Hmm Skipping it is, then. There are a few "fire-stokers" including the US, much to Prigozhin's dismay; there's also one fire-ender (skipped). Not that it matters much, as it stands I will run with the UN:

Reasonably clear (repeated) messages:
• UN 68/262 (Mar 27, 2014)
• UN 2623 (Feb 27, 2022)
• UN ES-11/5 (Nov 14, 2022)
• UN (Feb 23, 2023) — earlier comment

Shit! (apologies if my French is off)

Today a god has arrived in our galaxy!
You know, an all-powerful and infinitely good being...
"But!?! It smells like..."
"I'm covered in..."
"260 tons of shit in the silos at this base..."
It was a dream... The nightmare is when you wake up...
:D (absurdity of (industrialized) human killing)

André Franquin
Idées noires
1977-1984

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/02/putin-has-no-chance-to-win-the-war-in-ukraine/

Yeah, funny that. It's almost as if it doesn't really matter what the other countries think. — Isaac

Oh but it does.

Which just shows that NATO is an international organization where the opinions of the member states do matter, hence the idea that NATO is just a pawn for the US and it can rule through whatever it wants is a false idea (which has been promoted even on this thread by some).

Same thing with EU, getting all the sovereign countries to get behind something isn't an easy thing to do.

The US bombed Nord Stream for the simple fact that it didn't want European opinions getting in the way of war, and the Europeans, especially Scholz, took it like a ...

Oh but it does. — ssu

You literally just said it doesn't. I quoted you.

Here...

When you have already bilateral security guarantees from the US and UK (and other NATO member states), I wouldn't be worried about it. — ssu

Agreements between (and with) the most powerful parties are what matter... No need to worry about the rest.

So for all practical purposes, Finland is in NATO now. Does that feel like a big shift in Finland's long term strategies to you? — frank

Yes.

February 24th 2022 was a huge change for Finland (and Sweden). Only a minority of Finns had wanted to join NATO beforehand, but now instantly it became a huge majority.

Basically Finlandization finally came to an end, the idea that we can manage both to have good relations with the West and with Russia. This change naturally started to change when the Soviet Union collapsed and Finland joined the European Union. Then neutrality changed (as Russia is basically hostile towards the EU). It wasn't the Russo-Georgian war, the annexation of Crimea, but this all-out attack on Ukraine that finally broke the camels back. Joining NATO was quite unanimous, now 184 against 7 votes in the Parliament passing the law to join NATO, which is far bigger majority than when Finland joined the EU.

Now the relations with Russia are as cold as they were... I guess in the 1930's. Finnish Prime minister Sanna Marin (a social democrat) and the Estonian president have been referred in Russian media to be "female nazi concentration camp guards". So that's where the relations are with Russia. All time low.

Personally I started to see the change a few years ago when as a reservist the local the sotilaskoti (cafeteria for soldiers) at the military base was filled with British troops eating pizza. Seeing foreign troops in a Finnish military base hadn't happened for a long time. Now the reservists and the conscripts have trained in mixed teams with the US marines. It's a big shift.

The truth is that both Finland and Sweden would have been happy to stay outside NATO and have membership just as an "option", hence trying to have good relations with Russia. But those mean little to Putin, so enough was enough.

There are two things you seem to mix here.

One is bilateral defense agreements, then another is the effectiveness of NATO.

For imminent security concerns a bilateral defense agreements with the US (and others) secure Finland. But that doesn't improve much the security of others.

NATO membership would provide more as NATO membership would bring us far more benefits... and Europe. The Baltic states would be very happy if both Finland and Sweden would be in the alliance. If you have just bilateral agreements, then there is no coordination among the countries that have these agreements with the US. With NATO you have coordination with a multitude of countries, and possibilities for example for operations like NATO countries having a permanent air capability in the Baltics and these little states don't have to buy expensive fighter aircraft, but can concentrate on their ground forces. And I would remind that actually NATO's article number 1 is also very important... as this is Europe.

The US is already facing this problem in South East Asia with the absence of SEATO: yes, the US has agreements with Japan, the Phillipines, Australia (with AUKUS), but these countries have no coordination among each other.

That's were this is going. In a post-truth environment where people are ignorant about the facts, you can make whatever reality, as long as you stay credible to some with an agenda that benefits from the lie. Current tribalism and polarization just enforces this.

There are two things you seem to mix here. — ssu

There are two things. No "mixing".

I'm not in any doubt about your ability to rationalise post hoc, it's not hard. I'm just pointing out for anyone following along the evident hypocrisy in claiming that the military support of a few key nation satisfies you that you're defended, but when @Tzeentch made that exact same argument about Ukraine's de facto reliance on the military support of the US you started bleating on about how important the support of all the other nations was.

If you have the world's largest military, supported by the world's most influential government, on your side, that's all that matters.

That's what you said about Finland and It's what motivates Russia's security concerns regarding Ukraine.

In both cases, the opinion of the smaller countries is largely irrelevant. The ability to coordinate is pretty low down the list. If I saw my neighbour in a bilateral military deal with the US, the potential lack of coordination with Lichtenstein is not going to take the edge off my concerns by much.

:up:

In a post-truth environment where people are ignorant about the facts — ssu

Well then it looks like all that's needed is for people to learn 'The Facts ™', then problem solved...

So. Where are these 'facts' kept so we can all look them up?

The 'fact' about how significant multilateral agreements with weaker partners are relative to bilateral agreements with stronger ones, for example. Where's that 'fact' such that we can resolve this latest disagreement we have? No point in us arguing about it here when we can simply go and look up the fact-of-the-matter.

If you have the world's largest military, supported by the world's most influential government, on your side, that's all that matters. — Isaac

Yet you should understand the difference of between a) sending weapons to a country and b) defending it with your own troops.

This was evident before this escalation of the war with Ukraine. Yes, the US sent aid, and trained Ukrainian defence forces. In Finland or Sweden they don't train Finnish or Swedish troops, the train to fight here. When you have B-52s training to mine Swedish waters (to defend against possible landings), it's a bit different than sending (or selling) sea mines to Sweden.

when Tzeentch made that exact same argument about Ukraine's de facto reliance on the military support of the US you started bleating on about how important the support of all the other nations was. — Isaac

Because you assume that Europe is just made up of Lichtensteins. What I noted that actually countries like Poland and others have done their share also. In aggregate it starts to mean something.

The 'fact' about how significant multilateral agreements with weaker partners are relative to bilateral agreements with stronger ones, for example. Where's that 'fact' such that we can resolve this disagreement we have? — Isaac

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

A multilateral approach to security has it's benefits. Starting from NATO's article 1. Then comes the actual coordination between the armed forces between different countries. Something that didn't succeed so well in the former treaty organizations (CENTO and SEATO).

Yet you should understand the difference of between a) sending weapons to a country and b) defending it with your own troops. — ssu

The difference is that one involves weapons and the other involves people.

How'd I do?

Now. The significance of that difference is what we're arguing about and merely pointing it out doesn't even begin to address that contention.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. — ssu

Evidently. Don't worry your little head about it.

Now the relations with Russia are as cold as they were... I guess in the 1930's. Finnish Prime minister Sanna Marin (a social democrat) and the Estonian president have been referred in Russian media to be "female nazi concentration camp guards". So that's where the relations are with Russia. All time low. — ssu

At least it's just the media and not Putin himself. That would inch us closer to world war.

The difference is that one involves weapons and the other involves people. — Isaac

The actual difference is just who are the belligerents. Try as much (as Putin does) to make supplying weapon to a belligerent an act of war, but it isn't. But as noted, some try to make it look that way.

Try to get that into "your little head".

At least it's just the media and not Putin himself. That would inch us closer to world war. — frank

In fact, Putin gave a "meh" to the membership application of Sweden and Finland. The only reaction was that Russia doesn't want permanent NATO bases, which in fact is quite unlikely.

Which actually goes against the cherished view (by some active participants here) that the war in Ukraine was only about NATO expansion.

Which actually goes against the cherished view (by some active participants here) that the war in Ukraine was only about NATO expansion. — ssu

What is it about in your view (a year into it)?

, I think Mearsheimer argued that the Kremlin decided Crimea is important enough for a Russian power position to grab. Maybe that's just part of it. Anyway, never mind me, carry on.

The actual difference is just who are the belligerents. — ssu

The difference between " a) sending weapons to a country and b) defending it with your own troops", is who are the belligerents? That doesn't even make sense.

No one was the 'belligerent' when the US were arming, training, and sharing intelligence with Ukraine prior to 2022. Or were all the Donbas and Crimean separatists and pro-Russians not 'real' Ukrainians?

That must be it. That'll be why the fact that Ukraine shelled the crap out of them in the months before the invasion doesn't figure in your little Disneyland version of events. They're already officially 'belligerents' because they disagree with their government.

I think Mearsheimer argued that the Kremlin decided Crimea is important enough for a Russian power position to grab. Maybe that's just part of it. Anyway, never mind me, carry on. — jorndoe

But they took Crimea in 2014. I think he wanted to squash Ukrainian prosperity and block its efforts to join the EU. I think he also wanted to use the war to shore up his grip on dictatorship. He wins whichever way events roll, that's why he's kind of unbeatable. BTW, I just learned this trading strategy where you sort of buy and sell at the same time so you mitigate the losses no matter what happens. Putin's position is kind of like that.

I think Mearsheimer argued that the Kremlin decided Crimea is important enough for a Russian power position to grab. Maybe that's just part of it. Anyway, never mind me, carry on. — jorndoe

In a nutshell, this is basically it. Crimea is the prize here, however the connection a lot of people don't make is that a Ukraine in NATO (or otherwise allied with 'the West') would put Crimea in a permanent state of vulnerability since its only connection to Russia proper is the Kerch bridge.

This is why Russia chose to invade Ukraine. The first thing it did during the invasion was establish a land bridge with Crimea.

Much of Russia's conduct in this war, including what we know about the peace negotiations that took place in March 2022 point towards the securing of Crimea being their main strategic goal, either through annexation of parts of Ukraine, or through a negotiated deal.

I think he wanted to squash Ukrainian prosperity and block its efforts to join the EU. I think he also wanted to use the war to shore up his grip on dictatorship. — frank

I don't think either of these explanations hold much water, and basically exemplify the inability that is prevalent in this thread to see the Russians as anything other than cartoon villains.

, then there's a land corridor connecting Crimea and Russia (Kerch is a bit skimpy), and perhaps connecting Transnistria, all of Ukraine being the "best" outcome, right? And, just as importantly, hanging onto it. All (seen as) up'ing Russia's power position. Others might get in the way of such plans/aspirations (the Ukrainians certainly are). Crimea seems to have some importance to the Kremlin. And Sevastopol hosts their Black Sea fleet.

I doubt it's geo-political-military type dominance exclusively, though. The grain incidents in the summer showed the comprehensive market share of Ukraine for all to see. Now sweep all of that (on a national level) under the Kremlin. Control and profit from "The Breadbasket of Europe". Europe's largest nuclear plant is north of Kherson south of Zaporizhzhia, various other industries, ... Might look good on Putin if he managed to assimilate that stuff. Bonus.

Sometimes the invaders have been kind of extensive in activities (for lack of a better word). While still occupying Kherson, they emptied out the art gallery/museum there. The admin kept working there when allowed to by the soldiers. Pretty much empty now. One might hope they moved the art stuff out of the way of their upcoming shelling, right? But who knows, they didn't say, there's no paperwork, heck no piles of them having burnt it all, the stuff's in the wind. "There is no Ukraine, only Russia."

Anyway, ssu probably has more/better insights than me.

EDITED

then there's a land corridor connecting Crimea and Russia (Kerch is a bit skimpy), and perhaps connecting Transnistria, all of Ukraine being the "best" outcome, right? And, just as importantly, hanging onto it. All (seen as) up'ing Russia's power position. Others might get in the way of such plans/aspirations (the Ukrainians certainly are). Crimea seems to have some importance to the Kremlin. And Sevastopol hosts their Black Sea fleet. — jorndoe

Why couldn't Russians just drive through Ukraine to get to Crimea? What's the benefit of national sovereignty there?

The grain incidents in the summer showed the comprehensive market share of Ukraine for all to see. Now sweep all of that (on a national level) under the Kremlin. Control and profit from "The Breadbasket of Europe". Europe's largest nuclear plant is north of Kherson south of Zaporizhzhia, various other industries, ... Might look good on Putin if he managed to assimilate that stuff. Bonus. — jorndoe

Right. And since Putin runs a kleptocracy, it would have made him richer.

Sometimes the invaders have been kind of extensive in activities (for lack of a better word). While still occupying Kherson, they emptied out the art gallery/museum there. The admin kept working there when allowed to by the soldiers. Pretty much empty now. One might hope they moved the art stuff out of the way of their upcoming shelling, right? But who knows, they didn't say, there's no paperwork, heck no piles of them having burnt it all, the stuff's in the wind — jorndoe

They'll just leave a shell behind, I know. It's amazing how quickly people can rebuild, though.