You mean like electing a president with good relations to Russia who proceeded to declare an end to further NATO ambitions? Because that is what happened in 2010. — Echarmion
Obviously, presidents or politicians who have some rapport with the Russians are useful. But once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine, it's over. — Tzeentch
This shows how you really don't understand Europe. You think that US and Russia act and behave in Europe similarly, because they are Great Powers.I think what plays a large role is that, despite all the historical evidence, Europe seems chronically incapable to view the United States as a ruthless great power which follows realist logic. — Tzeentch
I do value your opinions, Tzeentch, but this is ignorant bullshit.So Finland and Sweden gave up their neutral status and put themselves in the crosshairs of a future conflict to 'protect' against a power that was trying to return to stability to begin with. The power who is trying to avoid a return to stability is the one they chose to jump in bed with. — Tzeentch
I don't.You clearly have a problem with the idea that things can return to normal after this war, even though it would likely be the best scenario for all parties involved (except the US). Why? — Tzeentch
I'm aware of the context — Tzeentch
deNazification, this, sham referenda + swift annexations, this, irredentism — Jul 22, 2024
Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"? — Tzeentch
This is just the reality Ukraine has to deal with. — Tzeentch
They told us exactly what the problem was, and they told us exactly what the consequences would be. — Tzeentch
anyway.as mentioned before, what they're doing won't solve their (supposed) NATO-phobia — Jul 22, 2024
once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine — Tzeentch
Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,(91) and the influence of oligarchs.(92) — Euromaidan
This shows how you really don't understand Europe. You think that US and Russia act and behave in Europe similarly, because they are Great Powers.
I assume that you come to this conclusion with thinking about how the US has treated let's say Guatemala (and how the US has acted in it's backyard). Well. in the long run the US policy towards Guatemala has been more like the United Fruit Company's policy towards the country. The US doesn't behave similarly towards France, Sweden or Finland (as Russia doesn't behave similarly towards Brazil and India as it does towards Georgia, Moldavia or Ukraine).
And the simply fact is that you simply don't seem to understand European integration and NATO at all. NATO isn't like Warsaw Pact, which primary function was seen in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO isn't just a puppet for the American President, which has been shown quite many times (for example from how much Trump despises the organization this should be evident). You insist Ukraine would have been invited to NATO, because American presidents wanted so, even if it was obvious that many NATO countries opposed this. Yet NATO could never give formally an outside member. And the de facto assurances didn't matter for Russia, because it has territorial interests in Ukraine. Just like EU hasn't officially stated that Turkey cannot be never an EU member, this is de facto real. It's an international defense pact that sovereign states have willingly put their defense into, just as EU countries are committed to European integration.
The simple fact is that even if for Yemenis or Palestinians and many Latin Americans, the US seems to be a ruthless Superpower, but that isn't the case for Sweden, Finland or East European countries. Just as Russia wouldn't never dare to do any hybrid attacks towards India and try to involve itself in Indian politics. I'm sure Russia behaves quite cordially towards it's BRICS partners. It doesn't act the same way in it's "near abroad" thanks to being and seeing itself something else than a nation-state, but a great power. This is something you have to understand, but you just ignore it. — ssu
Especially Finland has been in the crosshairs of a conflict with the Soviet Union starting from the armstice in 1944. It was in the crosshairs and continued to be in the crosshairs especially after Putin has wanted to make Russia a Superpower again. Russia did it's hybrid attacks by organizing refugee flows into Northern Finland in 2015-2016. It has GRU sleeper cells in the country ready to do sabotage and to assassinate important people as the way of it's "deterrance" in Finland, if war breaks out. It has breached consistently Finnish aerospace with military aircraft, has jammed GPS signals and kept up belligerent rhetoric all this time prior to 2022, hence Finland has all the time been in it's crosshairs. What you are saying is simply ludicrous.
You simply don't understand that there wouldn't have been any end to this if Finland would have stayed neutral, likely the hybrid attacks would have continued even more to push Finland back into a weaker spot. There would be no "normal relations", there would be only Finlandization, where the Finnish President would get his international speeches from the FSB chief in the Russian embassy. That's the fucking "normal relations" that Putin wants. That we would talk the "lithurgy" as in the Soviet times.
And wtf stability are you talking about? Russia's military has always been multiple times larger than Finland's or Sweden's? Do you think annexing territory from Georgia and Ukraine is a way of Russia attempting "stability"?
It's simply imperialist revanchism, an attempt to fix what Putin sees as the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century (collapse of the Soviet Union). Nothing else. — ssu
The war ends when the two sides come to some conclusion, either a peace deal or a cold armstice (as with the Koreas). And it's the job of Ukraine and Russia in the end. — ssu
The thing we've learned from history is that Russia has to be forced someway to a peace agreement: if continuing the war looks to be a better option, the Russia will continue the war. Plain and simple. — ssu
Remember that the war isn't hurting Europe so much, so this can go on for years, even a decade. — ssu
In Europe, especially countries like Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States see the situation as the continuation of Cold War. Hence they usually are flabbergasted when (and especially after 2022) when some idiot starts talking about the present as totally different from the Cold War.What you're describing are US-European relations during the Cold War. During this time, Europe was a key US ally against the Soviet Union.
What I am saying is that this relationship has been fundamentally changing since the end of the Cold War, and especially since China has emerged as the new threat to US power. — Tzeentch
I have no idea what you are talking about here. European and US interests are quite the same: the totally reckless territory annexing Russia threatening with nuclear weapons is a threat. You seem to be in your own echo-chamber.Since the Ukraine war, it has become increasingly clear that US and European interests divert in a way that is dangerous for Europe. The US is using European naivety in this regard to have us hamstring ourselves. — Tzeentch
That's why Europe simply needs to rearm. The assistance it has given to Ukraine has in now way been a real burden.Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch
Bullshit again.We are now no longer "friends," but temporary assets to the US, and the US is already preparing the ground for when Europe finally slips its orbit. — Tzeentch
Again wrong. Russia has a very large armed forces and a nuclear deterrent, while European armies have fallen in size dramatically from the Cold War era. And present day Russia is as aggressive if not more aggressive than the Soviet Union.There's no point in talking about the Soviet Union. Russia today has nowhere close to the power of the former Soviet Union. It's a completely different country. — Tzeentch
Assuming that the EU started at 1993 is wrongful, the treaty of Rome in 1957 would be far more correct. Naturally Finland has tried to have as much of ties with the West, earlier there was naturally the obstacle of "Finlandization".But Finland has been working with NATO for a long time, and has been a member of the European Union almost since the start. — Tzeentch
You really don't get it, do you.Obviously once tensions start rising as they did post-2008, Finland is going to be in the crosshairs. That's where it put itself when it aligned to a bloc that became hostile towards Russia. — Tzeentch
At least I refer to the peace agreements and the wars the Russia / Soviet Union has fought, unlike you.You are quite selective with the lessons you learn from history, I've noticed. — Tzeentch
Fragile states like North-Vietnam or Israel? Hmm...Do we learn nothing from Vietnam, the Middle-East, etc. when it comes to US involvement in fragile states? — Tzeentch
Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch
One good thing if Trump wins: he’ll probably stop funding the war that the US provoked. That’ll save many Ukrainian lives. — Mikie
What you don't care about the russian lives it would safe? — Echarmion
In Europe, especially countries like Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States see the situation as the continuation of Cold War. Hence they usually are flabbergasted when (and especially after 2022) when some idiot starts talking about the present as totally different from the Cold War.
The idea of a fundamental change is nonsense. It was the nonsense when it was eagerly talked in the 1990's, when the membership of Russia in NATO was on the table. Then it was the "New Threats" and things like conscription were "ancient relics of a bygone era". Not anymore. If you wouldn't have ex-KGB officers at helm in Russia, yes, Russia could have been totally different.
What has changed is that Germany is unified and now has a bulwark of Poland between it and Russia. For Poland the situation is far more perilous than it was in the late 1990's (and thus it's vast rearmament program). — ssu
I have no idea what you are talking about here. European and US interests are quite the same — ssu
That's why Europe simply needs to rearm. — ssu
NATO countries don't want the US to go. — ssu
Russia has a very large armed forces and a nuclear deterrent, [...] — ssu
There's no other option. There's no option of "Let's be friends with Russia" that would have a better outcome for Finland: Russia would just increase it's efforts to dominate Finnish policy, if it would be let to do it. — ssu
I think in your naivety you think that if only Ukraine given up on everything and done as Russia wanted, everything would be fine. — ssu
Or you really think that Ukraine or Finland, Sweden, is similar to South-Vietnam or Pro-Western Afghan government? — ssu
Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch
Just because no-one has challenged this false claim yet: Europe's militaries are not "stripped". Most frontline equipment that has been handed over has been old models from storage. — Echarmion
In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears. — Tzeentch
Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war — Tzeentch
Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia. — Echarmion
Are you aware of this knee-jerk reaction you seem to have, where every attempt at diplomacy is caricatured as "giving up on everything and doing as Russia wants"?
"Diplomacy is capitulation" I hear you saying, like you're the minister of propaganda in a George Orwell novel. — Tzeentch
At the moment we see no grounds for hope that there will be any positive changes in the foreseeable future. Russia remains open and ready to discuss the most difficult issues at the negotiating table. But not to the detriment of our own interests.
— Dmitry Peskov — Oct 25, 2022
It is completely not feasible. It is not possible to implement this. It’s not realistic and everybody understands this, but at the same time, they say this is the only basis for negotiations. — Sergey Lavrov · Sep 23, 2023
In Ukraine, those who are aggressive towards Russia, and in Europe and in the United States – do they want to negotiate? Let them. But we will do it based on our national interests. We will not give up what is ours.
— Pukin — Dec 19, 2023
Sure. Let me know when that happens. — Tzeentch
These people have been making accurate predictions about where this war would lead since Day 1. — Tzeentch
(Besides, you ignore requests to account for whatever observations with your theory.) — jorndoe
When one side issues conditions (declarations/demands/ultimatums masquerading as proposals, which have to already be accepted) — conditions that go against international law and recognized land and borders, instead of demonstrating wanting to come to the talking table to negotiate — then there's no negotiation on the horizon, there's a "Yes" or "No" to those conditions. — jorndoe
A naïve attitude towards Putin's regressive Russia is, well, not particularly smart, or is a particularly kind of blindness, or whatever. Not going to repeat all evidence already posted. — jorndoe
When pressed on the specifics you invoke your interlocutors ignorance and run away. — Echarmion
the theory that Europe and Russia are natural allies. — Echarmion
Russia can replace neither the US nor China as an economic partner to Europe. All it can offer is cheap raw materials. It's neither a big market nor a big manufacturer. — Echarmion
If China and the US go onto a direct collision course, Russia is in no position to materially soften the blow for Europe. — Echarmion
Nor is a security partnership plausible given the military capacities and the way the Russian elite justifies it's rule (as a bulwark against westernisation). — Echarmion
All the other contradictions just follow from the premise that the theory trumps the details. How can the following statements be reconciled?
In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears. — Tzeentch
Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war — Tzeentch
Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia. — Echarmion
deNazification, this, sham referenda + swift annexations, this, irredentism — Jul 22, 2024
as mentioned before, what they're doing won't solve their (supposed) NATO-phobia — Jul 22, 2024
...? How does your story stack up against whatever else?Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,(91) and the influence of oligarchs.(92) — Euromaidan
Doesn't matter when Germany has a tiny army that could be swept away. Just look at the difficulties that Germany has had in increasing it's defense spending. Bureaucratic Germany with it's people not threatened with Russia isn't going to budge easily.Russia has a population of 144 million, and a GDP of 2.2 trillion.
It's tiny. Germany alone doubles Russia's GDP. — Tzeentch
You have to have deterrence to keep the peace.War with the Russians is in European interests?
The fact that you're saying this is why I keep emphasizing you're war-hungry to the point of absurdity, and you don't even seem to notice it yourself. — Tzeentch
First of all, the globalized World won't profit from something far more devastating than a trade war. The disruption to the global trade routes and supply chains would be far more bigger than anything experienced during the Covid pandemic.We are no longer a key ally to the United States, since we are nowhere near the Pacific and likely to stay on the sideline if large-scale conflict were to break out there. In fact, we will profit from a war in the Pacific, directly and indirectly. That now makes us a threat and a potential rival to the US. — Tzeentch
Pointlessly antagonizing Russia?Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war - which is of course exactly what Uncle Sam is trying to achieve in Eastern Europe. — Tzeentch
(See here)(The Barents Observer, August 2023) One of Russia’s most powerful men this week paid a visit to the Republic of Karelia, the region located along Russia’s border to Finland. Nikolai Patrushev is Secretary in the Russian Security Council and a close ally of Vladimir Putin since the 1990s.
In a meeting on national security held in Petrozavodsk, the Karelian capital, Patrushev warned against terrorist attacks from the West.
“In Karelia, ten crimes of terrorist character planned by “westerners” and Ukrainian special services have been averted only over the last half year,” Patrushev said. He claims that western security services are deliberately trying to stir separatist tensions with the aim of destabilising the political situation in the region.
And the foreign services are especially working towards youth, he argues.
“On social media, separatist calls are propagated [and] western special services’s sabotage and terrorist pursuit in the region constitute a security threat to population,” the security chief said.
Patrushev’s meetings in Karelia are covered by regional government newspaper Respublika.
According to Nikolai Patrushev, additional measures must now be taken to disclose and avert terrorist activity in the region. And effort should be concentrated on transport infrastructure, as well as energy objects and objects of biological and chemical character. Also teaching institutions and public places of mass gathering of people must be given priority, he underlined.
The Republic of Karelia has close historical ties with neighbouring Finland and cross-border relations thrived through much of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Actually it is guided. Biden was all in favour of the "pivot" to Asia and his administration full of the "pivot people", just like Obama's. But he cannot and couldn't. That's the power of Atlanticism.As though US geopolitical strategy is going to be guided in any way by what NATO countries want, as oppossed to what necessity dictates. — Tzeentch
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.