The long term strategic objectives: to secure Crimea with a land bridge, take land east of the Dnieper river (at least enough to easily attack any buildup on the near side), — boethius

When that "securing" happens through annexations, you do understand that is really classical imperialism.

And you do understand that the whole motivation for countries neighboring Russia to join NATO is the threat of this? (Which some here on purpose forget in their illogical reasoning)

True, Ukraine has a "right" to join NATO and sign the treatise it wants ... problem is NATO wasn't actually making an invitation with anything on the table to sign. — boethius

Yes, and people holding the view that the real culprit here is NATO hold dearly to what George Bush jr. proclaimed. Which was just one US President (that change every then and now) and which needs all the members to agree with the issue.

Ukraine also has a "right" to sign a treaty with Russia (committing to not join NATO for example), it can do so now, and it could have done so years ago too. — boethius

And that actually would have been totally possible, if Russia wouldn't have had the imperial aspirations towards Ukraine. Far before all of this, Putin used to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. Not anymore.

Logical fact is that Russia would be a dominant European player if 1) it wouldn't be hostile to it's neighbors and have imperialist aspirations and 2) had understood that it has to get it's economy competitive and better and that it's best resource is an well educated population.

Only the US can just go around ripping up treatise; other Nations would think twice before reneging on a treaty it just signed without any rational whatsoever. — boethius

And how much Putin thought of the Budapest memorandum or international law in 2014? I think you can put Russia in the same category.

it is likely the Israelis would have destroyed any chance of that, and also, why has Iran not developed nuclear weapons yet? — FreeEmotion

After the Osirak raid in 1981 I think Israel was complacent and people didn't notice that Iraq continued the research. Another example is how far the Syrians got with their nuclear program and Israel only by chance got information about it and destroyed it (without talking much about it).

Iran has balanced a fine line with their nuclear weapons. They have smartly understood that it's all about posturing and deterrence with nuclear weapons, not use. Hence to have even the ability to make nukes gives them deterrence and still they could agree with Obama and the West. Going full "North Korea" will likely just make the Saudis get their own nuclear weapons. Now in this situation, Saudis aren't opting for it.

Of course everything here is about Israel's neighbors (and historical enemies) trying to have a counterbalance to Israel's nuclear deterrent. As you can see from history, Israel can make strikes anywhere because no other country in the area has nuclear weapons.

. I am of the opinion that Putin has a valid point, if Ukraine joins NATO his hands are tied regarding Crimea. — FreeEmotion

How? You see, Russia has the Kaliningrad enclave surrounded by NATO countries, that doesn't have a landbridge (the famous Suwalki corridor) to Belarus or mainland Russia.And Russia has already built a bridge to Crimea. And Russia would have had a multitude of ways to keep a) Ukraine out of NATO and b) the European NATO countries disarming themselves. Starting annexing territories made the totally different response, which you seem not to get!

Here's Putin driving a Kamaz truck on that Bridge into Crimea:

Ukraine poses a threat to Russia in many ways, because its alliance with the West will benefit them to the detriment of Russia. If you do not accept that I can do nothing about it. — FreeEmotion

And where then do you yourself draw the line where countries "pose a threat" to Russia and are the ones where Russia is justified to use military force. I guess that means also that my country and @Christoffer's country pose a threat to Russia and for you, it's justifiable that Russia will attack us too, because of "the threat" we impose to Russia. Because that will be the next phase of this conflict. It's already well under way.

Or perhaps then Moldova? Oh, the huge threat Moldova possibly joining NATO makes to Russia. And why not include NATO members like the Baltic States? Would you agree to have WW3 if Russia goes for that landbridge to Kaliningrad through Lithuania? Above all, Russia has already demanded NATO forces to withdraw from all Eastern member countries and that the US and Western members cannot hold any exercises in Poland, Romania, the Baltic States etc. That is their demand. So that's were the appeasement policy and "understanding Russia's legitimate security needs" will go in the end.

Perhaps you just should demolish NATO, because Russia feels threatened about it.

I believe Zelenskyi is bound to doing the bidding of his NATO masters at the moment — FreeEmotion

Zelenskyi is trying to stay alive and lead his country against Russian invasion. Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO...

It is a pleasure (on one level) to view a horrible event than has no person consequences. 9/11 is a classic example: Fascinating event! I knew absolutely no one who would be or was affected. The forest fires in California were not entertaining, because I knew a couple of people who were directly affected, and we could both see and smell the smoke 1500 miles away. — Bitter Crank

How correct you are. And of course, the ugly parts in 9/11 like the people leaping to their death from the twin towers, or in war coverage of dead children or that insides of humans spilled out look quite like the stuff on display at your supermarket's meat counter is usually censored starting by the photographers themselves. If news or a media outlet shows truly shocking footage, they do have an agenda. Even if reporting atrocities is something good journalism ought to do.

The fact is that until now, the countries that had wars in recent history have had a language barrier between us and they haven't been so connected to the social media. With Ukraine, it's different. And when it comes to the information war, basically is focused on desperately hiding what is happening in Ukraine behind quite Soviet-style discourse. Likely it won't work, especially if the "special military operation" drags out to months or years.

Situation of the refugees. That one million have fled in a week out of 44 million tells about the intensity of the war. And what is also telling is the amount of volunteers going to fight to Ukraine. Something similar to the Spanish Civil War, actually. Things are really starting to be as in the 1930's.

If WMD's existed, and also don't forget the ability to 'hit London in 45 minutes' was a reality, I would have given the benefit of the doubt to NATO and the powers that invaded Iraq. — FreeEmotion

First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria.

Second, it's not if they existed. Iraqi missiles never had the range to hit London. Yet the nuclear weapons program did exist, he did use chemical weapons against Iranians and the Kurds. Hence there's no potentiality of them. Had the Gulf War not happened, it's likely that Saddam Hussein would have obtained a nuclear deterrence (even if the Israelis hit the Osirak reactor earlier). But the Gulf War, the later weapons inspections and Operation Desert Fox destroyed it. And thus the drumming for war, talks of the "Mushroom Cloud" after 2001 by Bush were propaganda concocted in the White House.

Similar false propaganda like the neo-nazi argument or that a genocide is (was) perpetrated by the Ukrainians in the Donbas.

In the same way, if Russia has the knowledge that the military arrangements being carried out in Ukraine posed a threat to its security, then I am not going to say that invasion was the wrong thing to do. — FreeEmotion

Sorry, but I draw the line to justifiable defense to when a country is actually invaded. Not to attacking other countries because of vague hypotheticals. Pre-emption is still an attack, and then the war preparations ought to be evident to have any justifiable credibility (which is usually difficult). What kind of a threat Ukraine posed to the country with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal? Just answer that yourself.

If you accept that Russia has the right to attack Ukraine, then to be logical you should accept that then the US had the right to invade Iraq, because of the "potential", basically hypothetical threat that it posed. But that isn't even the real reason why Putin attacked Ukraine: he wants to control Ukraine and already has taken chunks of it. It's simply classic imperialism.



Or think about it this way: if Russia would promise to withdraw from Ukraine, promise to give back the Donbass and Crimea and stick to the Budapest memorandum and only thing Ukraine had to do is promise that it never, never joins NATO and remains neutral, you think Zelenskyi wouldn't take that offer? I'm sure he would. I think that even NATO would go with that sighing a relief. Do you genuinely think that Putin would give that kind of proposal? Of course not!

To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous.

On the other hand, In addition to pressing for as much assistance as possible short of that, it is saying the ground forces are toast without Russia air support. In that respect, the impending decision to bombard cities into submission is an admission that the mission, as purported, is a failure — Paine

Or at least, it hasn't been a spectacular achievement like the annexation of Crimea. Naturally the reporting is biased for the Ukrainians (and why wouldn't it be), but the Russians have made advances in the south. We have to remember that Ukraine is a huge country and it's only been little over a week.

The truth is that Ukrainians themselves have to fight the Russians to the negotiating table, perhaps managed by China. What they need are huge amounts of anti-tank and surface to air missiles. And then for peace, accept to lose territory. Or then face a genocidal war of losing civilians and soldiers during the Afghan-Soviet war.

Unlike, for example, Iraq having WMD's which was proven to be false; obviously, that propaganda would have worked a lot better if they even found some WMD's — boethius

Actually, let's not forget that Saddam DID have a WMD's and a nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. In fact, what then later was found out that Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox" had destroyed the last remnants of Saddams WMD's. So it was false, but not totally made up. Yet it has been multiple times from various separate people shown how Cheney pushed for war and took the WMD issue without base as a reason for war. One of the few things that happened during the Trump era was that the lie "The President just got bad intel" was buried. He didn't, they simply tried to get any reason to start the war.

Just like Putin with his neo-nazi and genocide talk.

And the Ukrainian neo-nazi argument is something similar. Ludicrous. It would be as to depict neo-nazis having great power in the US run by the Biden administration, because of Trump's attitudes towards them when the Charlottesville attack happened. And if neo-nazis support Trump and Republican support Trump, then each and every Republican is a neo-nazis, right?

Drug addicts? Ruling Ukraine? I don't say these things. — boethius

Putin says these things. Those are the reasons given to this war. That is the Stalinist narrative. What do you think the de-nazification of Ukraine is about?

The main point is that this is a ridiculous war. It genuinely doesn't have credible argumentation. The Putin that annexed Crimea was totally different: thought about actual Russians and Russian speaking minorities, gained total strategic surprise and used well all his information warfare abilities. This is the propaganda of Stalin.

Why would we discuss neo-nazis otherwise? As the accusation that Ukraine is doing 'genocide' is so ludicrous even Russian don't try to give lies about, seems that to be "critical" about the West, then the narrative "Ukraine is filled with neo-nazis" is the only issue that sticks. Because in 2014 extreme right did play a part and people were confused about that.

It's really difficult for me to imagine that the entire EU really couldn't have prevented this war with credible negotiation. — boethius

Look, he already annexed Crimea and used proxies to gain more territory. Only Ukrainian resistance and him not using forces as now prevented a land bridge to be gained too between Crimea and Russia in 2014-2015. The annexations tell extremely clear what his intensions and objectives have been. If we assume that what politicians write and say doesn't matter.

What is so difficult to understand, when you look at what Putin has said and done, for whom the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that happened last Century?

No EU "credible negotiation" would have done anything. If one thinks so, one is just fooling oneself and basically going and trusting a liar, who said that Russia wouldn't attack. I guess this and the idea that "all this wouldn't have happened if no NATO enlargement" are just those arguments for those who only see to criticize the West as something valid (as they don't care so much about Putin or Russia).

It's like the argument that WW2 would have been avoided, if only Germany would have been given the right to annex the parts of Poland that it wanted. Yeah sure, a guy that write "Mein Kampf" and gives all those speeches and built that shining war machine would have then been totally satisfied and peaceful for rest of his life.

As I say, the argument entirely depends on how much credibility you lend these neo-Nazi's. — boethius

To talk about drug addict neo-nazi's ruling Ukraine is utter nonsense and just Stalinist propaganda rhetoric. It's the level Putin has fallen to.

It's for the ignorant clueless babushka in Russia who believes what is said in the State run television. It's the mantra that the officials use to show their dedication and trustworthiness to the regime. They don't believe really it, but that's not the point. It's a show of strength, you show where you stand, the official line! Russian discourse is rapidly collapsing to the Soviet era, to mantra's that don't mean anything, to lithurgy that you praise to show you are in favor of the rulers.

The dehumanization of the enemy is important. Especially when people have earlier felt that Ukrainians are their brothers. Just like Estonians are to us. So there has to be that evil, that they are "liberating" the Ukrainians from.

The style actually is closer than you think: it's the well-educated, professional Republican politician who then goes with the most outrageous Q-Anon conspiracy.

here was no insurgency in Crimea, citizens were in the least ambivalent about Russian control — boethius

Notice that not only Crimea was different, but that the whole situation was now different than in 2014. Let's remember that Kharkiv was a mainly Russian speaking city. Ukraine didn't collapse as Putin had estimated.

The parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan don't really make any sense as Russia isn't trying to "nation build" in an entirely different and hostile culture. — boethius

The nation building part has gone splendidly! Ukrainians have never been so united in defending their country against an hostile invader.

Putin's justification (why the Russian people aren't "rebelling" in any meaningful sense) — boethius

:roll:

Really, not "rebelling" in any meaningful sense? Oh, only thousands have been detained and tough sanctions have been set against demonstrations, but that isn't meaningful? It has been so meaningful that tough new laws proposals are made and rumors go around of martial laws.

is fighting neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, which are definitely there and have been coddled and apologized for by Western powers for some reason and largely ignored by the Western press. — boethius

Fighting neo-nazis...

Starting with the Jewish President who is a native Russian speaker and his party that has majority of the seats in the Rada, which has an ideology "denying political extremes and radicalism, but being for creative centrism".

Indeed, depending on how strong you believe these neo-Nazi elements are, it can be argued the Russian invasion is entirely justifiable if fighting the Nazi's the first time ever was. — boethius

?

Tomorrow both the Swedish Prime Minister and the Swedish Defense minister are coming here to Finland. Lot's of diplomatic activity.

Prime Minister Andersson and Minister for Defence Hultqvist will meet President of the Republic of Finland Sauli Niinistö, Prime Minister Sanna Marin and Minister of Defence Antti Kaikkonen. The topics of their joint discussion will include Russia’s warfare in Ukraine, the changed security situation in Europe and cooperation between Finland and Sweden.

I think that what we have anticipated might happen soon. Rarely are visits of leaders done in a timetable of less than 24 hours.

For Zelensky to demand a no-fly zone isn't fruitful. It really won't happen and everybody ought to know it.

We had lots of Russian fighter jets breaking our borders before, but this time it's different. — Christoffer

True. On the other hand, for example during the Korean War, Soviet fighters were engaging in air combat with USAF fighters routinely. Few Soviet pilots even become fighters aces against the Americans. Both sides just kept silent about it during the Cold War. And Russia had already then nuclear weapons two. And also during the Cuban crisis, Soviet air defense troops shot down an U-2 plane in Cuba (and of course the incident of Gary Powers and KAL 007). So these incidents happen, but they don't automatically escalate things, but do increase the tensions.



It seems that Aftonbladet is reporting that polls are showing (or at least one) that now also majority of Swedes are for NATO. And now our defense minister is going to Washington next monday for several days to meet Lloy Austin. Same topics to be discussed as the President now with Biden.

If they had done this with us as NATO members, the response towards Russia would have been extremely severe. — Christoffer

Well, uh, NATO reactions to air space violations...

A news article from last January in Estonia:

(News ERR.ee, 31st Jan 2022) A Russian Air Force plane Sukhoi Su-27 entered Estonian airspace without permission on Saturday. The incursion lasted less than one minute.

The violation occurred over island of Vaindloo in the Gulf of Finland. A flight plan had not been filed and the plane's transponder was turned off. Additionally, the aircraft did not have two-way radio communication with the Estonian air traffic service.

On Monday, the Russian ambassador to Estonia was summoned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and handed a note.This was the first violation of Estonia's airspace this year. Last year, Russia carried out five incursions of Estonia's air space.

Of course, there's a wide range in the seriousness of air space violations. A cargo (recon) plane violating the airspace for a moment or strategic nuclear bombers making fake attack runs... and everything between.

But that's just speculation, no one knows what they're talking about and I think that's the deal. I think Finland and Sweden need to join at the same time and fast so that Russia won't have any time to react to such news. Like, "oh, and now Sweden and Finland are part of NATO." — Christoffer

Yes. I think it has to go like that.

It will be more of a multilateral declaration. I think even the US and NATO have learned that by now.

Notice that when the Finnish President is meeting with Biden, the both of our foreign ministers have a meeting with NATO.

NATO press release:

An extraordinary meeting of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs will take place at the NATO Headquarters on Friday 04 March. The meeting will be in person and will be chaired by the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Finland and Sweden, as well as the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign And Security Policy, will take part.

But it really puts those Russian fighters near Gotland into context. As at the same time at the western side of Gotland both Finland and Sweden were having military exercises, 4 military aircraft just happened to get a bit lost?



All coincidence? We'll see... but that is basically how it would have to happen.

I'm assuming the hard sanctions are meant to get Russia to a negotiating table, but if that doesn't happen, will those sanctions potentially cause a global depression? — frank

In my view a global recession has been on the works for a long time. But now, if you want to have one reason for such complex phenomenon as a global depression in such a complex multipolar World, I guess this is it.

Btw as I said to @Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. When I look at my country's actions when in crisis, that would be similar to our turns when facing the possibility of boxed into a corner.

Then we'll see how angry Vladimir is at us. Perhaps I ought go and fill fuel family's cars tonight as a fuel shortage might hit soon.

There are all sorts of fake news being spread including by the victims of course. — Olivier5

But then there is the actual war that is bloody. And too much video materiel which isn't fake. If this war continues on with similar intensity as now, this will be a very bloody war. If so much destruction in one week, how much then in two. Or three. Or in a month or two. Or a year.

Photos from the battle of Kharkiv:



start looking eerily similar to photos from the battles of Kharkov:





The case of a million refugees might also be correct. That's a large portion of 44 million.

They're not against it as long as they are the ones doing the killing. — baker

No. There are pacifists in this World. I'm not one of them, but anyway.

Simply to put it, one doesn't have to choose sides. When one actor does something wrong, it should be condemned. If it does something right, that should be acknowledged.

For many that is far too hard to do. If they condemn one side, they have to condemn everything it does. As if their prior condemnation is meaningless if they acknowledge that something has been done right.

I think it's so also. Even on the interview t hat a former prime minister that I referred on page 55 thought this. And Putin has made similar statements earlier. At least she made it quite dramatic.

That's what I'm talking about. So many people simply refuse to look at the matter from Russia's perspective. — baker

Like, uh, many here refuse to look at matters in Central America and the Caribbean from the US perspective??? :roll:

I think many do refuse to look at that perspective and call imperialism imperialism. When the perpetrator is the US.

Suddenly with Russia they "understand". Or they don't care. It's not their problem, or something.

there is just their own perspective, which is The Truth, and all else is wrong. — baker

Well, some people are against war and killing innocent people. Are they wrong?

You can understand the perspective, but you don't have to agree with it.

*sigh*

Why is the notion of "protecing your own country" so hard to understand when it is applied to Russia? — baker

Simple answer: Because it's constantly changing it's borders! It has problems to know just where it's country ends. Just look at Ukraine now and what Putin is saying about the country.

Russia's defense of it's country has been for others Russia's invasions and imperialism. Is that hard to understand?

Russians, thinking theirs a "great country" would require parity with the U.S. if Russia were to become part of NATO, something the U.S. would never allow. — Joseph Zbigniewski

This is a very, very important point! Because Russia didn't have parity. It's economy is small.

Here you would have needed "larger than life" politicians on both side for this to work. On the US side there should have been someone that understood that there were no Americans tanks on the Red Square when Soviet Union collapse: the US didn't win the Cold War. The Soviet experiment just utterly failed and collapsed by itself. The Cold War was only part of it. Hence US should have understood that Russia can bounce back, as Russia usually does, and has to be dealt with silk gloves, special treatment. The Americans just saw a failing state, nothing else.

Hence in Russia, there wasn't such truly wholesome soul searching as had happened in (West) Germany and Japan after WW2. How everything before had absolutely and horribly failed. Nothing like that happened in Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed because the biggest member, the Russian Federation under Boris Yeltsin, was against the whole union after the Putsch.

(For our country's leadership this was a total "WTF-happened?" -moment. The Finns sent their foreign minister to Moscow to end the Cold War era agreements with the Soviet Union, only to return when there was nobody in Moscow on the Soviet side. So they had to sign new agreements with Russia and unilaterally terminate some parts of the peace treaty like the article that no weapons could be bought from Germany and other stuff like that.)

Also Russian politicians would have had to understand that the Empire was truly over. That once countries opt for Independence, they are away. It's really a divorce. The end. A hard, bitter issue for Russia to swallow and then find try a new place in the World afterwards. The only way to climb to parity would have been for Russia to create an economy comparable to German or Japan, which actually could have been possible. At least theoretically. But in order to do that in Russia, people like Sergei Brin ought to have stayed in Russia and not moving to the US to establish Google. Not to give the economy to the looting oligarchs. As from the Chinese example we should understand: It's the economy, stupid!

That the U.S. currently enjoys de facto suzerainty within NATO is evidenced by the fact that neither France nor Germany wanted to allow either Georgia or Ukraine to become NATO members for fear of provoking Russia, but George W. Bush — Joseph Zbigniewski

Well, those were the words of one President, words that perhaps a Republican President like Trump could have forgotten. Just look at how long Turkey has had EU membership talks....for many decades now! Is Turkey going to be an EU member? No.

The basic fact is that Putin doesn't understand NATO. The "No Action Talk Only" club is actually similar to EU in that actually the European members want it like that. The European countries want to keep the US in Europe. This is what many don't understand. US liked the idea of European integration, but so did also the Europeans! Hence NATO worked were CENTO and SEATO failed. Yet NATO members can either join or abstain from any mission the US wants them to join. Let's just remember how utterly dissappointed the Dubya Bush administration was at "old" Europe. Or how first Obama tried to get the Europeans to spend more in defense and then Trump wanted the same. Nope, didn't happen.

It only happened now thanks to Putin! How Vladimir Putin could finally transform Germany is one of the huge dramatic events that are happening just now.

First it was cultural figures, students and scientists in Russia who opposed the war.

Now you start having grumblings from the corporations too:

Russian energy giant Lukoil calls for immediate end of Ukraine war

MOSCOW, Russia — Russian oil giant Lukoil on Thursday called for an immediate halt to fighting in Ukraine, one of the first major domestic firms to speak out against Moscow’s invasion of its pro-Western neighbor.

The board “expresses its concern over the ongoing tragic events in Ukraine and its deepest sympathy to all those affected by this tragedy,” the company said in a statement.

“We stand for the immediate cessation of the armed conflict and fully support its resolution through the negotiation process and through diplomatic means,” its note added.

Enlarging the war in Ukraine to an all-out war was the beginning of the end of Putin. The Russian military wasn't so efficient as he thought, likely because the operation to annex Crimea in 2014 went so well. How long it will take, nobody knows...

. Do you forget that Russia has been twice rebuffed upon expressing a desire to join NATO? (Molotov's proposal that the USSR join NATO in 1954, and Putin's expression of interest in the early years of this millenium). The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy, and was determined to have no rivals within the "alliance". — Joseph Zbigniewski

Russia isn't a superpower, not with Ukraine at least, and then this idea about US never wanting Russia in NATO simply is against the historical facts how things went. NATO membership was a possibility, but nobody had interest in it.

As I replied to @Manuel of the same issue, here it is again:

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

And that's actually how close it was. Or how far it was, as you would have needed larger than life politicians to sell that membership both to Russians and Americans. But you see, Americans thought they won the Cold War and didn't need Russia. And Russia can go always back into remembering Napoleon and Hitler.

I'm really not making it up when I say people were truly thinking of Russian partnership in NATO. Russia was in the partnership-for-peace program. It was the time of "new threats" for NATO when people laughed about thinking of article 5. Now Putin has molded NATO back to it's original form. If pre-2008 NATO didn't care anything about issues like defending the Baltic states from a hypothetical attack from Russia, now they sure do and also train for it.

I just want to highlight that this is the third time I correctly predicted the future. — Benkei

?

And we need to have lower defcons to push buttons to launch nukes? — Benkei

Actually yes.

Well, if there would be a surprise attack that somehow would exceed so absurdly well to wipe out all the bombers and missile silos (or mobile launhers when it come to Russia), I guess then the ICBM submarines would launch their retaliatory attack when they would notice that their home country isn't anymore.

If the deterrence is failing, then you do need lower defcons. History shows that. The US has gone to Defcon two a few times. Last time it was during 9/11. Nobody of course was threatening them with nukes, but what else could they do to show that "they defend".

You see nobody just out of the blue launches some nukes. Above all, they are far more for the show. Because nobody, I mean nobody, is intending to use them as just very powerful explosives.

Even that "escalate to de-escalate" is also for political purposes. Then likely low-yield weapons or nuclear tests are used.

It's just that our politicians are very afraid of that choice because of Sweden's long tradition of "neutrality" (questionable during WWII, but whatever) — Christoffer

Actually, that has totally passed. Sometime long periods can come finally to a halt even in the history of Sweden. For both of our countries, being non-aligned or neutral isn't an option. Because our countries simply aren't neutral anymore, starting from being EU members, which as an union has clearly taken the side of one and not the other.

Think of it, your country and mine are totally are both arming the country that Russia is fighting. We already have had NATO exercises. It's a done deal. Now just think of that from the Cold War perspective. You think Sweden would be neutral during the Cold War if it had held exercises with NATO back then, with B-52's simulating in helping to mine Swedish coastal waters? Or when Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan (yes, it was an attack), that Thorbjörn Fälldin (then the current Prime Minister) would have responded by sending weaponry starting with anti-tank weapons to the mujaheddin?

It's over.

For us know, our countries security policy, which didn't even change so much when the Soviet Union collapsed, is changing now at a breathtaking speed.

What I'm anticipating is that the Finnish leaders are basically trying to get a bilateral defence agreement with the US.

Tomorrow.

You see, the topic of the meeting is "the effects of the war on the European security order, and bilateral cooperation between Finland and the United States." Now what do you think that bilateral cooperation would be now with Finland and the US? To fund environmentally friendly co-ops projects? Bilateral cooperation in Climate Change? I don't see how. So what bilateral there is for the US to do with an EU member like Finland. But let's see how it goes.

This is the time when little, total expendable countries like ours, have to be extremely quick in their reactions or they end up like Ukraine is now in the worst case. We truly are (again) living historical times, my friend.

* * *
Just to make my point, here is a discussion of the situation with an ex-Prime Minister of Finland. Interesting interview, he predicts (correctly) the change in NATO membership polls, but notice when at (2:02) the interviewer asks about Finnish being militarily neutral his response. That is telling:



There's three options for both of us:

1) join NATO / have a modified defence treaty (bilateral/trilateral...)
2) Finlandize and try to wiggle then under Putin's sphere of influence
3) war.

As Putin has his troops in Ukraine, it's a good time to move. Of course I might be wrong, but what is sure the drama won't stop now.

the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces. — ssu

Publicly. We have no clue really. — Benkei

I'd say it's unlikely.

Think about it. Let's assume Biden would have gone to lower (meaning higher) defcon level. If Putin would notice that, you think he wouldn't say it? Nuclear weapons are basically used for communication.

It's ironic that this happens at the same time as I was writing in here about reasons to join NATO for Sweden and Finland as an act of defense against Russian aggression. Maybe people could understand why nations want to join NATO now instead of pushing the bullshit narrative of the US forcing such things upon us. If these fighter jets had breeched our airspace while we were part of NATO, that would have been a serious matter for Russia that they can't just talk themselves out of. — Christoffer

Our President Niinistö going to Washington tomorrow to meet Biden.

President of the Republic of Finland Sauli Niinistö will make a working visit to the United States and meet President of the United States Joseph R. Biden in Washington D.C. on Friday, 4 March 2022.

At the meeting, to be held in the White House, the Presidents will discuss Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the effects of the war on the European security order, and bilateral cooperation between Finland and the United States.

In addition to meeting President Biden, President Niinistö’s programme includes meetings with several political actors. The tight travel schedule will cover approximately one day.

For the first time (like there in Sweden), polls say that more Finns are for NATO membership than against. Still many that haven't decided. Russia invading Ukraine finally changed the mood here dramatically.

Did you notice what the US ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield spoke in the UN yesterday?

And now, it appears Russia is preparing to increase the brutality of its campaign against Ukraine. * We all have seen the 40-mile-long lethal convoy charging toward Kyiv. President Putin continues to escalate – putting Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert, threatening to invade Finland and Sweden. At every step of the war, Russia has betrayed the United Nations. Russia’s actions go against everything this body stands for.

:brow:

I haven't heard that from the Russians. That I would put in the "hyping fear" category. At least now, for the time being. The only thing the Russians have consistently said is that there will definately be strong repercussions and they don't rule out a military response. Now, an invasion on the scale of military responses is quite heavy. And basically their focus in on Ukraine.

Usually Russia doesn't have so many aircraft, and combat aircraft, breaching Swedish airspace. Yet the timing now is telling:

STOCKHOLM, March 2 (Reuters) - Four Russian fighter jets briefly entered Swedish territory over the Baltic Sea on Wednesday, the Swedish Armed Forces said, sparking a swift condemnation from Sweden's defence minister.

Two Russian SU27 and two SU24 fighter jets briefly entered Swedish airspace east of the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Armed Forces said in a statement, adding that Swedish JAS 39 Gripen jets were sent to document the violation.

Meanwhile, Russians hold their line...

MOSCOW, March 3 (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday he believed some foreign leaders were preparing for war against Russia and that Moscow would press on with its military operation in Ukraine until "the end".

Lavrov also said Russia had no thoughts of nuclear war.

Offering no evidence to back up his remarks in an interview with state television, a week after Russian invaded Ukraine, he also accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, an ethnic Jew, of presiding over "a society where Nazism is flourishing".

As far as I've read, they matched Russia's nuclear threat level. — Manuel

Really? What is your source for this? I think it would be frontline news.

And contrary to what New York Times reported:

When Vladimir V. Putin declared Sunday that he was putting his nuclear forces into “special combat readiness” — a heightened alert status reminiscent of some of the most dangerous moments of the Cold War — President Biden and his aides had a choice.

They could match the move and put American forces on Defcon 3 — known to moviegoers as that moment when the Air Force rolls out bombers, and nuclear silos and submarines are put on high alert. Or the president could largely ignore it, sending out aides to portray Mr. Putin as once again manufacturing a menace, threatening Armageddon for a war he started without provocation.

For now, at least, Mr. Biden chose to de-escalate.

Sadly, President Biden didn't personally inform me of his atomic intentions — Bitter Crank

I think that raising the DEFCON level wouldn't and couldn't be done secretly. It simply would have such effects that in our time (and in the US) could hardly be kept secret. Besides, with nukes everything is public posturing. Although I'm very well aware of the scare that Able Archer '83 caused the Soviets.

With Russia, the levels are the following:

1. CONSTANT
2. ELEVATED
3. MILITARY DANGER
4. FULL

Now Putin is at 2. Or something like that.

The US Defcon system:

Unsure if this is a PR move or not, but it's smart. It shows some glimmer of non-aggression. — Manuel

I think that when Putin raised the readiness level of his nuclear forces, the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces.

because of your Finnish-ness, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic... :chin: — Changeling

That's sarcastic.

Some would argue this is needed: a pause and reflection. I'm looking for silver linings... — Changeling

Ah yes!

Economic depression: time when wealth inequality decreases! When poor get poorer, but the rich also lose a lot.

Same thing happens during wars.

Silver linings, you know...

With fossil fuel energy prices increasing in countries such as the UK, could this crisis catalyse the 'green economy'? — Changeling

What well over 100 dollar oil price does is that it stops the economy like a handbrake.

So we're not actually in disagreement then. — Benkei

If we just have the patience to read thoroughly each others comments and genuinely try to understand the others points, we usually do that.

I'm still in favour of NATO and Ukraine at this point but not because I agree with what NATO, and particularly the US, has done but because the alternative is even worse. — Benkei

I think this is quite universal and only a few would disagree with this. And this is also my point of putting things into perspective.

Incidentally this is effectively the same shit that the EU does to countries today, who come under its ambit. — StreetlightX

Same shit different outcomes?

And notice how those ex-Soviet countries in the EU (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have performed against their former Soviet counterparts:

Note the position of Ukraine.

Scroll back through the thread. In what way have those blaming the US/NATO/Europe attempted to make the conversation only about that? — Isaac

And just when have I denied that NATO expansion isn't one reason for Putin to attack?

All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. You cannot explain it just by that. If you get that, fine, let's move on.

Putin would have tried to control, subjugate and annex Ukraine even without any NATO enlargement. It would have been just far more easier then. And without any NATO, any EU, Russia would talk to many countries on a bilateral basis like they did to us during the Cold War.

But I'm still not seeing any link to this passionate dismantling of any and all attempts to talk about the role the US, Europe and NATO have played in bringing this crisis about. After all, that narrative requires that Putin is an empire building madman. — Isaac

Those who have built empires have not been madmen. Some perhaps have been, but not all.

What counts is that one is against the idea of imperialism, that the larger and stronger has the right to force the weaker and to annex territory, to subjugate and perhaps to assimilate them. And not have a fixation on just one actor that has imperialist tendencies.

If you want to talk about US agenda and how it has extended it's network of alliances, including NATO, then fine. But then that talk isn't about the war in Ukraine in general.

It would be like explaining WW2 by talking only about the war crimes that the Western allies did. The terror bombing of Germany like Dresden, the fire bombing of Japanese cities like Tokyo, the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the actions of Moroccan goumiers in Italy, all the incidents were POWs were shot by various Western allied units.

And then not only leaving it with that, but accusing anyone daring to even refer that "Wait a minute, this discussion is about WW2. The Axis side did warcrimes too, like starting with the Holocaust." that they portray the Western allies as knights in shining armor. Because nobody is denying those actions above.

At least Grozny seems reasonably stable (at the moment), as far as I know anyway.
I guess the Russian empire took over now-Chechnya in the 1800s after having kicked other invaders out, like the then-Persians. — jorndoe

Here Putin showed both his ruthlessness and his intelligence in Chechnya.

First he fought a really genocidal campaign against the Chechens. Even the Russian official statistics on Chechen deaths are horrifying. Then he put a son of a former rebel leader in charge, something similar that Russian had done in the 19th Century. It would be like the US would have installed a Taleban leader as President of Afghanistan and then started (as Putin did in Chechnya) building large beautiful Mosques all around Afghanistan. Actually something from the British playbook with the second Boer War. Let's remember that all of the first prime ministers of South Africa were Boer rebel commanders and Churchill's close friend, prime minister Jan Smuts, had been his interrogator when Churchill was a prisoner of war of the Boers. That's the way you really win insurgencies: put the insurgent leaders themselves to run the state after showing that your other option will be genocidal.



Now what plans Putin had or has now for Ukraine, I don't know. But sure is sloppy. Hope he won't use nuclear weapons.

You should take a more holistic approach. What circumstances gave rise to someone like Hitler getting into power? Let's stop with the single cause fallacies. — Benkei

So if it's the harsh terms Treaty of Versailles, the internal problems of Weimar Germany, and other historical reason for fascism and national socialism to emerge, just what all of that has it to do with your country, which had been neutral during WW1? What have the Dutch to do with the rise of Hitler?

Yes, we naturally ought to be critical of what we do, that is a fundamental part of what democracies are, yet this doesn't mean that we take the viewpoint of "bothsideism" in every case. We really have to look at whose fault things are.

Hence I find it hard to see justifications of the invasion of the Netherlands by Germany in 1940 in the prior actions of the Dutch government. Of course there were reasons for Hitler to invade your country: just like Norway and Denmark, because his opponents might invade them. That isn't a justification and especially it doesn't make it "also" the fault of Norway, Denmark or the Netherlands. The invader is the invader, it's absurd to talk about pre-emptive invasions of sovereign countries.

And this is what I perhaps disagree with you. We have to put things at a scale and to a real perspective.

So earlier before the war had escalated (25 days ago), you wrote:

Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate. — Benkei

This is wrong. Russia's internal politics do matter.

Putin had made quite clear for a long time that when it came to Ukraine, he had a lot of other objectives than just to keep NATO out. Yes, he obviously had that as one of the reasons too. But NATO enlargement was just one reason among the many: Starting from the obvious annexation of Crimea which showed the total disregard to agreements Russia had made about the sovereignty of his neighbors (and international law). Also the Ukrainian revolutions were an obvious threat for his authoritarian regime. This is obvious from the assistance that Russia has given now to two countries in it's sphere of influence were popular demonstrations have been put down by force. All the utter bullshit of Ukraine being an artificial country, of Novorossiya, does also matter.

All these other reasons simply cannot be taken out of the picture in order to argue that NATO is at fault here, that if it wouldn't be for NATO, Putin would have been peaceful and respected the sovereignty of the former Soviet countries. He simply wouldn't have acted so, even if it's now a hypothetical. And as I discussed with @Isaac, yes, NATO made errors. Starting from thinking that Russia wouldn't return and that the times had changed since the Cold War and that if they in NATO saw themselves as being different from the Cold War version of the organization, leaders in the Kremlin wouldn't view them like that, but as the old NATO. Yet that's just one side of the issue.

For an authoritarian imperialist like Putin, what better way to regain the collapsed empire than with the justification that NATO made him do it. And with people in the West agreeing with him that yes, they are really the ones to be blamed here. That's not self criticism, that would make our democracies behave better.