Russia is a fading star. One last bright flash and it is all over. I think they all feel this. — FreeEmotion

I really don't think all Russians accept or support Putin's imperialism. Some do, but I know some and actually many if not all of them are against Putin. Many were in shock about what Putin has done.

They might love their country and culture, but they feel utter contempt what their country is now doing.

Would you desire to have your countries politicians do "one last bright flash and it is all over"? I don't think so.

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it. — FreeEmotion

How were they kicked around? By inviting Russia to the G7 countries (to become G8)? At least by size of the economy South Korea or India would be more likely.

Ask first, just why do countries neighboring Russia that don't have Russian troops want to join NATO?

That kicking around and demonization happened after the wars Putin has gotten Russia into.

Another criterion may be whether the alliance is defensive or offensive, most of times. This is based on the idea legitimate self-defense against illegitimate aggression. — Olivier5

I believe in defensive alliances, not offensive. And alliances that really put emphasis on that between members, if they have differences, the military option is out of the question. This ought to be self evident, but that it isn't, you have the perfect example of the Gulf Co-operation Council. The GCC acted promptly when one of it's member was attacked (by then Iraq). Unfortunately in an area that desperately needs sound and peaceful policies, later the relations became so bad among the member states that one was nearly attacked militarily by others.

Which just tells something about how wars can happen when you have individual monarchs ruling their countries without no restraints.

Russia has woken up, realizing everything is slip-sliding away from them unless they put a buffer stop of Ukraine and Crimea. Even so, there is no guarantee the West will destroy the rest. — FreeEmotion

Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.

So Russian imperialism is OK while Western imperialism is bad?

It is absolutely legitimate to heap focus on the most destructive and powerful imperial agent on the face of the Earth, especially as a bulwark against those who continue to swallow Western propaganda wholesale while spouting off racist narratives as a matter of casual conversation. — StreetlightX

Yet Russia's actions aren't Western propaganda, to put it simply.

Why do you think Finland and Sweden are now shedding it's foreign policy stance that one country since the Napoleonic Wars and the other for nearly all it's independence?

This I can agree with. Unfortuntely, without any recognition of the role that the West has played in bringing this disaster about - and subsequently affecting change there too - such sentiments are just more White Man's Burden bullshit. — StreetlightX

When errors are made, they should be pointed out.

Yet the agency and agendas of all players ought not be forgotten. Looking at the events from the agenda and objectives of one player, the West or more plainly the US and it's administrations, doesn't give you a correct view.

[Group of people X] have always been violent. Therefore, this explains why [group of people X] will continue to be violent. "These are just facts". Maybe try to be less racist. — StreetlightX

Ah, I understand your point. I don't like the rhetoric of "Russians will never change" or "Russia will never be democratic" either.

Well, I think a lot of Russian aren't happy with imperialist bullshit of Putin. A lot of Russians are against the present militarism and policies that Putin is driving.

Hopefully a disastrous war will make them really to change course. Usually countries change course dramatically only when everybody can see what a disaster the previous course was.

The unfortunate thing was that the US didn't have and seems it won't have a rethink after it's 20 year war in Afghanistan -debacle. Perhaps too few Americans died for there to be that discussion.

I don't. Or was this about who got to launch the satellites? India vs US? — Benkei

Brazil was the case. But of course India is another player too.

Basically the US uses it's foreign policy to keep competition out. Now usually it happens with trade barriers, whereby it just shoots itself in the foot as industries protected by trade barriers don't have to compete. With space tech it can push out competition on the basis that naturally if have rockets that can put satellites into space, you can also make intercontinental ballistic missiles.

But this is the typical assholery that nearly every country can do. But yet international trade happens and the US isn't on the top of everything.

so you think it's a good idea for Finland to join NATO? Or is there any alternative in the world of the possible (including the improbable) that you would prefer? — Benkei

We are only fooling ourselves now, actually. Everybody can see how reckless Russia can be.

Do you think a referendum on a European army would give different results if we'd have one now? — Benkei

Oh boy!

Would the Finns have liked that! EU having a defensive dimension was a wet dream of many Finnish politicians. Something extremely easy to "join"...as we already are in the EU.

That actually would happen if Trump would have it's way and he would have dissolved NATO.

Yeah, no, this is just straight racism. No thanks. — StreetlightX

?

If India was colonized by Great Britain and Kazakh Khanate by Russia, what is racist? It's a fact. The only difference is that other imperialist Great Power continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union. People don't just see the colonialism in Russia.

Don't then leave Brazil out of the club. When Brazil decided to get into lucrative satellite launching service with their own space program, one country deeply opposed this. I think you know who.

The 'basic problem' is that Russia is attempting not to be nothing but another vassal-state to a US governed world economic order, and this is a big no-no and cannot be tolerated. — StreetlightX

I think that there's actually many countries that want to keep a distance to the US. Like China and also India. Remember the BRIC countries? Yet Brazil, India or China haven't attacked for some time their neighbors.

, but to think that Russian nationalism is a problem that popped out of nowhere rather than a response to global conditions set almost entirely by the West is a farce. — StreetlightX

It hasn't popped out of nowhere.

Basically Russian history tells us how we got here. While other countries gathered colonies, Russia conquered more territory to be Russia, not colonies of Russia. And then this Imperial territory changed into an union of Soviet Republics still holding it's borders (that had been pushed even further after WW2). Hence when the Soviet Union collapsed, then was collapsing the last empire that there was. Even in Russia itself there is an internal dynamic going on here. It starts from things like the slavophiles vs the zapadniks, far before the US was any important player in the global theater.

Lol.

Well, it's MSNBC, the liberal version of Fox News.

Applying the same techniques like Fox, Russia Today etc. You just have to use your internal "cut bias" fader.

Watch out with the amount of evils, Olivier. :wink:

The general public does not differentiate between 'tactical' nuclear weapons or 'low yield' nuclear weapons. — FreeEmotion

..from strategic nuclear weapons.

And likely not in the mood to hear anyone say that it was only[/ii] a small warhead.

Just to make this point: how many people would remember hearing about the Fukushima nuclear accident compared to hearing about the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami? The latter's name wouldn't be so familiar than Fukushima. Yet the tsunami killed nearly 20 000 while deaths from the Fukushima accident ...are none, actually.

President Putin did put in a successor before - Medvedev, so it need not involve high drama. It would be a good tactical move. "Putin did it - he is now powerless, deal with me" — FreeEmotion

North Korea would be more respectable than Russia then. Just changing persons likely isn't enough.

Every nation will condemn it and then turn around and continue to do business with Russia except for the West. — Benkei

I'm not so sure about that. Likely the West would put sanctions on those countries that carry on as if nothing had happened. The big issue is what China would do. So you can end up with basically a divided World and the end of globalization.

The basic problem is that Putin's Russia sees itself as what either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union was and it is this that makes it so dangerous. It's like if after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire Austrian leaders had decided that it was a temporary setback and all the new countries are under it's "sphere of influence". And then it would started annexing territories and intervening in the countries.

The Russian's have to wake up sometime to understand that the empire has gone. Perhaps a disastrous war will help them with this.

At least this story has a happy ending. 2 billion dollars for Jared's fund.

Draining the swamp, as Trump said.

I think a bit more than the Hunter Biden thing, but anyway...business as usual in Washington. Perhaps this time only a bit more excessive.

Maybe but not sure what the advantage would be. Allowing conscription? — Olivier5

Conscription happens normally every year in Russia. With martial law you can call the reserves, those that have already done their conscription service. So basically your pool for potential soldiers jumps to the millions.

But also likely to keep up war mood (the rally around the flag phenomenon) and make things easier to deal with economy or if people have any grumblings about the war.

The fact that Russian propaganda is feeding this narrative and blowing it out of any sensible proportion is precisely the reason we are talking about it right now. Otherwise, what relevance is there to the idea that Bush once made promises he couldn't keep? It's long been water under the bridge. — Olivier5

I think the sinking of the Moskva and the alleged attacks on Russian towns can result that Putin finally admits this is a war. And he can declare a martial law.

I think the probability of a Russia declaring martial law has gone up.

What are their alternatives? — frank

If Russia uses one tactical nuclear weapon, that actually isn't an existential threat. Then an Ukrainian unit or part of a city is destroyed. If it would be tens or hundreds of tactical nukes, that would be different, and then even the Russians would be nervous about the radiation effects. The Ukrainian army is so large and dispersed in a large country that one nuke doesn't matter so much. It's impact is far more political and psychological as then the Pandora's box has been opened. Never underestimate what kind of issue the media would make of it.

With the use of nuclear weapons, I think the obvious response would be widespread condemnation of the act and a global cry for imminent cessation of the hostilities. You would see it everywhere, even on this forum, how shocked people would be...and how they would get over it as the "new reality". The Zelensky government would be under immense pressure to accept a ceasefire. But so would be the Putin regime.

Likely China would at least in this case try get a ceasefire. China really wouldn't like that it's new junior ally would go off shooting nukes in Ukraine. I think the response would be that not only Russia would be embargoed, but any country that does have trade with it. So the World could start drifting to separate blocks, which spells the end of the era of globalization.

Of course, I still think the use of nukes is unlikely as Russia can still simply halt the attack and go on the defensive. Since Ukraine obviously cannot invade Russia and end this thing with having their tanks Red Square, it's all about a negotiated settlement... or simply a ceasefire and cessation of large actions and returning to the frozen conflict situation. The one that lead to only 15 000 dead in eight years. That would be a horrible outcome.

In fact, I'm not sure if there was any peace agreement that both sides agreed upon between Russia and Georgia after the Russo-Georgian war of 2008. Just a cease-fire and some attempts on a peace-agreement, I guess. But I can be wrong in this.

One alternative is that it's only Putin's successors that will make a peace-agreement with Ukraine.

Ummm... the BM-21 Grad is quite functional and useful. Nothing wrong with it, does it's job.

I think the most popular multiple rocket system ever. An AK-47 of in the family of MLRS.

What do you think the US will do if Putin uses nukes? — frank

More interesting question is what the Ukrainians will do.

And what do you see as the benefit of questioning that 'delusion'? — Isaac

One shouldn't have delusions.

Why? Give me an example of the use 'remembering' these facts can be put to. — Isaac

Because it really questions this delusional idea that war could have been avoided ...if only NATO wouldn't have enlarged itself.

If the Baltic states wouldn't be in NATO, then Putin would have now Russian bases in them. The example of Moldova, a country that has neutrality enshrined in it's constitution, simply shows the nature of Russian policy. Hence there are reasons for countries to want to join NATO. It should be obvious.

This seems more like a poorly thought out plan to reestablish Russian dominance in these satalites, not to deal with NATO. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That Russia has these imperial aspirations to dominate other former Soviet states is obvious. NATO has nothing to do with it.

First a Russian minority declares independence and if the countries military tries to intervene and it doesn't look good for the Russian proxies, suddenly Russia launches "a peacekeeping mission" and assists the proxies and you have in the end a frozen conflict. Because that's how to keep the tabs with the country. This has happened in Georgia, Moldova and in the last version in Ukraine. Although the Russian forces operating in the Donbas weren't called peacekeepers. Their existence was simply denied.

Worth remembering that Russia was indeed led to believe that NATO wouldn't advance beyond 1990 borders.

Doesn't excuse Putin's war crimes. But if we're serious, we have to look at relevant antecedents. — Xtrix

Worth remembering that Ukraine was indeed led to believe that Russia would respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders it had.

Worth remembering that Ukraine isn't the only country that Russia has annexed territories or has intervened military in and created puppet states and frozen conflicts. And one of these countries, Moldova, has never applied to NATO, has had no intention join, but still has a "puppet state" and Russian "peacekeepers" on it's territory.

Doesn't excuse the fact that NATO has enlarged and that promises were given ...to the Soviet Union. But if we're serious, we have to look at the reasons just why countries want to join NATO.

Some experts are already pointing out that we are being compared to a Hitler alliance in Russian media. It's laughable really. — Christoffer

The propaganda push will basically be naturally to the Russians themselves. But yes, there's also a crowd in the West that is willing to such lies as truth.

I think Russians hope that it will be somebody like Marine Le Pen that will put the brakes on ...if she wins. Yet the Trump/Putin World that Le Pen has enthusiastically supported doesn't look so cool now.

First and foremost, information warfare both in Sweden or Finland won't work. In 2014 Russia could get it's stooges to appear here in the TV to make ludicrous statements that confused a lot of people. People were then confused and startled when popular discussion forums about childcare was suddenly full of how evil the Ukrainian nazis are who overthrew an elected leader of Ukraine. Now people know what that is. And now no media is going to invite a Russian troll to discuss the war in Ukraine as to give "both sides and fair chance". Besides, the most active Finnish trolls of Putin were exposed ended up in an spectacular way in the Donbas puppet states and actually got work there.

Don't ascribe to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence. — Banno

I can ascribe to incompetence or that leaders have these utopian visions of grandeur that can sometimes backfire. Or simply failed regional policy of making malinvestments.

And I've been doubtful of the whole Chinese "debt trap" argument. You see, now in 2020's Third World countries ought to know the "debt trap" idea, so I agree with them that find it annoying that the US goes to talk about this issue.

I think the main issue for China is simply to search for new projects when the huge infrastructure projects in China are basically over: once you have built new cities for the countryside people, then that movement to the city finally stops some time.

The sad fact is that it might not only be Sri Lanka as these are really bad times for the global economy.

Didn't btw Sri Lanka already default in it's debt in a Chinese port venture? I remember that China took over the port (70% of the stock) and leased it for itself for 99 years, when Sri Lanka couldn't pay up.

So is this time China again the creditor.

So now we get the answer just how China will manage this and will it use the "debt trap".

I think that China has to be very careful here. If it turns to a bully, it might have a backlash. But I guess they are smart. Hopefully.

The more I learn, the more absurd that seems. — frank

It is absurd.

Historical events don't happen for one reason, but for a multitude of reasons. Yet to argue that Putin needed to make a large scale attack on Ukraine in 2022 because of NATO enlargement when there was absolutely no probability of NATO enlargement is wrong. And simply to disregard practically everything that Putin has said prior and during the war and the fact that he annexed Crimea makes it all so obvious that to insist that this war happened only or largely because of NATO expansion is absurd. Is it one factor? Yes, but likely without NATO for Putin to conquer Ukraine would have been easy.

It is absurd, because Russia in Central Asia by diplomatic moves got the US airbases out from those countries without bullying or invasions, but has been close to the countries, had military exercises and even helped one government when it faced domestic protests.

All while if we join Nato, the pressure from the north will make Putin sweat even more while they default on payments and crash the economy even more. — Christoffer

I think he (Putin) will portray this as he has been correct all along. See how treacherous Finland and Sweden have been? The West is out to get fortress Russia all along! That's the official line in Moscow. Old puny enemies are gathering up. So likely we will be portrayed as nazis too who discriminate ethnic Russians and are the worst scum on Earth. It's totally in a different reality. Of course the Western media isn't where it was in 2014, so that the good thing here.

But when he cannot do something, he cannot do it. And attacking EU member states with nukes wouldn't be a smart move. Perhaps that would be too thick even for the Chinese who have their patience with their ally.

But in reality you are starting to have serious discussions even in the media what the military options are for Russia. The the incursions to our (or your) aerospace and service-denial attacks are simply a nuisance. If they would be so awesome, why then is the net up in Ukraine?

And now I don't understand why Ukraine didn't join earlier. — frank

Now here is the ACTUAL mistake that NATO did.

President Kuchma declared that Ukraine was seeking NATO membership in 2002. NATO basically responded that Ukraine could be a member "in the future", but not immediately. And then US President Bush blurted that both Georgia and Ukraine could become NATO members in 2008 (not a thing the US President can actually decide).

That was enough for Putin to have the Russo-Georgian War (even if it was the time of Medvedev) and later 2014 happened.

One really has to understand the logic here: ONLY AFTER the Russo-Georgian war for example any plans to defend the Baltic States were made. Before they were considered "too aggressive" for NATO to make. In the 1990's and well into this Millennium it was talk about the new NATO, something totally different from the old Cold War relic -NATO.

It's now a fully materialist world, in which one measures quality of life only by the amount of stuff folks can accumulate. — Olivier5

Yet the people aren't actually as materialist as they even think they are. Put them into a tight spot and actually those old values that everybody thought nobody cared are important.

This might be a likely way the attack happened against the Moskva. History books certainly will tell it later the facts. But the fact that Russian reported that all crew were evacuated obviously means that the cruiser sunk. I don't think that the Russian Navy is so incompetent, but what is fact that it can have difficulties to track multiple targets as it was an old Soviet era ship. So now the "Slava"-class cruiser joined the "Slava Ukrajini"-class of ships.

Yes, there's that too, I guess: an opportunity to seize now -- when the Russians cannot do much about it, busy as they are elsewhere, can't even argue credibly against Finland's need for protection, and when the Finnish people support it -- or perhaps never. — Olivier5

Yes. Basically we have simply lied to ourselves that we can have NATO membership as an option and also have good ties to Russia. Well, Putin doesn't care about having good relations.

Such self-flagellation by affluent yet guilt-ridden westerners would be entertaining and even occasionally rightful, if it wasn't also worrying in terms of collective security. — Olivier5

Bravo. :100: :cheer:

And who believed Solzenitsyn or at least made similar conclusions?

I think that Vladimir Putin did this. If he has extrapolated from the West's past actions when he has invaded countries earliers, it's not surprising that he could have thought invading Ukraine would be a great idea.

The West isn't weak. The people simply aren't asked to be brave or anything else than to pay taxes. It's a mirage that democracies put up actually unintensionally, as public discourse in our societies can veer of to some bizarre "woke" nonimportant issues. So we can discuss the topic of gender neutral bathrooms or something. And when Noam Chomsky's of the World criticize the West's actions, the authoritarian regimes think this shows the weakness of the West. Dictators who manage what is talked about in their countries don't understand this: they assume that the public discussion is similarly lead by the rulers of Western countries. Russia's homophobia and thoughts about Western decadence show this.

For totalitarian regimes democracies look inherently weak. They aren't. But some dictators are fooled again and again by this. Self-criticism is important if it meant to improve yourself, not to despise yourself. And I think the vast majority understand the difference.

I remember that earlier discussion. For Finland and Sweden, the benefit of joining NATO is deterrence. So will they join now? — frank

Likely they will ask to join.

Likely they will be admitted and likely the countries will be in NATO in the end of this year or so.

But of course, surprising things can happen. We live in interesting times.

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. — Olivier5

When the Russian army is getting is ass kicked in Ukraine and has massed it's troops there, what better time to join NATO?

You know, it's quite telling that Isaac now takes up this issue about this issue when I and @Christoffer already discussed the matter a month ago and then discussed the frantic communication between Stockholm and Helsinki and the shuttle diplomacy before this. But of course, the topic is now in headline news and so now the issue comes up. Well, people can talk here about issues that have not yet come up in the media yet in this forum.

So I would refer to what I said a month ago here. It's also useful to listen to the comment of an Finnish ex-prime minister who tells our position quite well and the what is left of the idea of Finnish "neutrality". After all, Putin is both against the EU and NATO.

But I guess there's no worth to discuss it if the response is just rants and ad hominems and the only correct topic are the evils of the US.

Just how off the discussion is among some commentators here can be seen from an excellent historical commentary made by Indy Neidell and Spartacus Ohlssen:

(Starting from simple facts:)


The video series (few of them) is worth watching as it gives a good historical perspective for the events in Ukraine.

Could you rephrase this, I'm not following. — Manuel

Ok. An example

El Salvador isn't a threat itself to the US during the Cold War.

But the Sandinistas presented a threat for Reagan government because a) if other Central American countries would become communist too, the domino theory, or b) if Russia build naval bases or airbases there. Perhaps even go for the option that they tried in Cuba.

Both options a) and b) were purely hypothetical. But enough to be reasons for the US to finance it's Contra's to fight the Sandinista government. Yet in fact, after the Cold War ended Daniel Ortega came again into power and now is your typical Central American dictator and nobody cares!

Which just shows how wrong the hypothetical reasons a) and b) actually were.

Hope this clarified what I meant.

I asked for a source. It's not rocket science. You find the article from which you got that assessment and you paste the web address (or paste the quote). — Isaac

If the referral is that "to assist a third country with weapons" didn't mean that the Cold War would escalate to WW3, I think history pretty well shows that.

Russia's aid and actual involvement in the fighting in Korea against the US -> didn't escalate to WW3
Russia's aid to North Vietnam fighting the US -> didn't escalate to WW3
US aid to the Mujaheddin fighting the Soviets -> didn't escalate to WW3

These are example were the other side has assisted a country or faction that is directly engaged with the other sides armed forces. In none of these cases it escalated to WW3.

This in not rocket science. It' basic historical knowledge.

The old Soviet "Slava" got it. Talk about a warship boasting with huge missiles.

I think this puts an end to the thoughts that there could be a maritime invasion. From the debacle with the "Alligator"-landing ship that was providing supplies now to this shows how vulnerable you are without total air dominance. Few anti-ship missiles carried on a truck can tip the scales.

All I'm saying, is something that I think should not be controversial: no big power would want a hostile military nation on its border. — Manuel

I would put it in a different way:

Big powers justify (or portray) their imperial aspirations with reasoning that they are threatened by hostile powers. And if the little country they take interest in cannot be in any way a threat, then it's the hypothetical argument of another great power using that little country.

After the Soviet Union collapsed only the Armenian-Azeri conflict wasn't about Russia having these imperial aspirations of being a Great Power. Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and naturally Ukraine have been those places where Russia has intervened with "peacekeepers", with puppet states and now with a "special military operation" and "denazification".

They're not Mexican, either. Lol — Changeling

California to Oregon used to be Mexican, besides Texas. Of course much of California was like the Baja California then and not many people besides native Americans lived their.

What?

Oh, then let Russia put a base in Mexico in Canada, no problem. — Manuel

If the US states that they are artificial countries, they belong to the US and would
continue annexing parts of their territory, I guess both Canada and Mexico would look for help from Russia and China. Likely they would be happy about it. And of course Russia has basing rights in Cuba, for your information.

(From 2019:)


Mexico actually has took a brilliant stance with being non-aligned. It has sent it's troops only to the US, actually. Quite telling how you can smartly reason with the US being your neighbor.

'Seems' to whom? I've pressed frank, @ssu and @Count Timothy von Icarus for some expert opinion on which they're basing their assessment, but all are being suspiciously tight-lipped. — Isaac

Tightlipped? If I remember correctly (I may remember incorrectly), you are the one making accusations of me keeping here a blog and putting links and that I should go and see a therapist. :roll:

Your falling to just ad hominems here.

Word is that many of the FSB officers from the 5th Division, the office responsible for Ukraine intelligence, have been fired and may be facing prosecution. If true, this would likely be the biggest purge in the security services since Stalin. The head of the office has been charged with embezzlement and premeditated disinformation. On some level this is encouraging: at least this shows that Putin is aware that he was massively misinformed before the invasion. — SophistiCat

It's likely true.

I've heard this also and many ex-intelligence officers here commentating the war have noted this, so it might be very likely. Putin's personal intelligence service raided the FSB HQ that was responsible for the "near abroad". Usually other countries are handled by the SVR (and of course the GRU), but the near abroad states (as Ukraine) were given to the FSB.

I haven't heard about such things in Russia proper though. — SophistiCat

Russia may dip into the vast reserves of those that have served their military service. But that would take a month to bring them up to speed. And popularity of the war might dramatically change with that. Not publicly, but through hearsay and kitchen talk, as usually it is in a totalitarian system.

It's hard to imagine that the atrocities that the Russians are already committing could be made worse, but I fear that chemical weapons could take them to a new level. — SophistiCat

If the bombings of civilians and the killings have forced people to became refugees, then the strategy has worked for Putin.

The escalate to de-escalate can be used when Putin either has gotten the objectives he desires and wants for the Ukrainians to get the message that now is the time to end the war. Or if it going to be a similar mess as with the attempt to encircle Kyiv.

As we have seen in Syria, these heavier than air gases are terrifyingly efficient at killing large numbers of civilians sheltering underground in cities. — SophistiCat

And if the Syrian example tells us something, it is that many will believe the arguments that it's the Ukrainians using the chemical weapons on their citizens. :vomit: