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.

I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. — Christoffer

Åland islands is a de-militarized zone. It's a really interesting question when Finland would send forces there.

The only Finnish forces there are the local police and the border guard. And Russia has an consulate there, which is described as more of a forward intelligence gathering post. At the height of the Cold War it had 140 personnel. That's a huge consulate workforce for Islands with a population of 30 000. And Russian helicopters do have the ability fly directly from Russia to the Islands. The military history is interesting, and a great example of two countries accepting a third party international solution. The decision on the Åland Islands is one of the few things the League of Nations succeeded in solving.

Until then, I gladly joining NATO as well as ssu. If war hits our borders, this time, you will not be alone, this time we will fight side by side against the fucker. But hopefully some random, unknown security guard close to Putin realize what is happening to the world and just ends him. — Christoffer

Well, if it's just Gotland and not Åland, I hope we do the same for you and come to help!

The unfortunate fact is that after few months, assuming the war takes so long, war in Ukraine will be "the new normal". After all, we just experienced a world wide pandemic. How scary would that have sounded before? Now it's not so scary anymore.

Basically the Finnish Parliament has now to discuss the subject of NATO membership, the cat is out of the bag. What the Prime minister has acknowledged is that the parties are seriously debating the question. Until now basically both Sweden and Finland have trained as they would be in NATO, have had these agreements with NATO, are "enhanced partners" and Sweden has a long history of covert cooperation with the US, yet the neutrality fig-leaf has been OK for Russia.

Now both of our countries are sending arms to Ukraine, Russia's new enemy. Historical first for us, historical second (after sending weapons to us) for you. Yet not something that a "non-aligned/neutral" country would do. And because EU is also arming Ukraine, this actually isn't illogical as we are part of the EU. Even the Swiss have taken measures against Russia. Things are changing.

Above all, the decision actually ought to be done together, at the same time.

Of course, there is what Russia has said now and Putin basically in 2016:

“It is obvious that the admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO, which is primarily (…) a military bloc, would have serious military and political consequences that would require retaliatory steps by our country,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a weekly press briefing in Moscow, quoted by Russian news agencies.

Worthy to listen one view about Putin's objectives and his money. But what is true is that war is what has made Putin. His first Presidential campaign was basically a war. War's have improved his popularity, and they have gone quite well for him. Up until now, when he didn't do the necessary groundwork...



Not seeing many Russians proudly wearing ribbon of St. George, which I remember many Russians proudly wearing when Crimea was annexed to Russia in 2014.

Read the publication of the paper that were supposed to be released when Russia won the war in Ukraine. It's clear what Putin promised Lukashenko. — Christoffer

I'd be a bit sceptical about a hypothetical "victory article" published by one side. Things that are reported by several different sources that don't rely on the same source usually can be trusted and the real details surface only later. Things that are true usually leave a large trail behind them.

No. Why?

I guess I'd follow what is said in the Finnish constitution.

(But really, I think that is unlikely. At least now. Yet if Sweden and Finland would ask NATO membership, I guess Americans would have a heated debate.)

Since ssu and @Christoffer seem so keen on ascribing to me positions I don't hold, I thought I'd make a post here to easily refer to.

I think the recent invasion of Ukraine was caused mostly by Putin's autocratic desire for a Russian empire.

I think that's also the least interesting and least important cause.

It's the least interesting because no one should be surprised by it, he's been saying as much for years.

It's the least important because none of us have any influence at all in Russia. The Russians themselves are doing a sterling job of opposing the war from their end.

Our concern is the extent to which our actions, mistakes, and systematic policies have lead to this. How, faced with a despotic leader intent on empire building, we did absolutely fuck all about it, but rather just made the situation worse by warmongering and sabre-rattling.

Our concern is the institutions which benefit from war, regime change, post-war reconstruction and a broken economy on its knees seeking loans to which we can attach punitive terms. — Isaac

Thank you for that, Isaac.

For you, the least interesting thing is what Putin's motives and objectives are and what he does. What you focus is what the West does, because likely you live in a country that either is an ally of the US or is the US. I get it.

Well, For me and @Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. Our countries are in a severe diplomatic crisis. Not at war like Ukraine, but still in a crisis. We haven't been part of that West you refer to. My country is the only country on Russia's Western border that a) isn't a NATO member and b) doesn't have Russian troops in it. And @Christoffer's country has a small patch of water between Russia. Both aren't in NATO, so both know how hostile Russia can be even when we don't pose a threat, that "springboard" to it. Just being a "potential" one creates the same tension. Also I can see the consequences of this crisis in my puny life too.

Just to give one example, I just spent my children's school holidays last week next to the Russian border as our summerplace is only 10km from the border. We went up to the border to a small shopping center that was intended to serve Russian tourists. There naturally weren't any tourists, as the ruble has collapsed. Nor are there the vast amounts of Russian trucks that few years ago crossed the border coming and going and made huge lines on the border (because Russian border control is, let's say, bureaucratic). Now it was all as silent as it was when there was the Soviet Union. Even then there was the odd Soviet truck crossing the border. Now nothing. You literally can see what the term "sanctions" really mean in reality. Now the government is advising people to avoid any kind of travelling to Russia.

Now in our countries likely the discussion of joining NATO will start at earnest. Especially Finns have tried to push it away and thought that all is well with the eastern neighbor relations. But we've been just fooling ourselves. So this crisis isn't over and hopefully you understand that just what Vlad decides to do or how he react does matter here.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions. — FreeEmotion

Interesting historical fact: Stalin asked the US to bomb Finland during WW2. The United States rejected this as the two countries were not at war. In fact, the US never declared war to Finland during WW2. Only on June 30th 1944 the US broke off diplomatic relations with Finland when President Ryti, in order to get more assistance from Germany, signed personally an alliance with Germany and issued promises that Finland wouldn't seek a separate peace with Russia. Which naturally it did immediately and which it got after a month in September 1944. Then Finns started fighting their old brothers-in-arms. A Dolchstoss and proud of it!

There's a saying in Dutch : where two people are fighting, two are to blame. — Benkei

And how much do you blame the Dutch of the fighting that they took part from May 10th to May 14th 1940?

Belarus appears to have entered the war yesterday based on imint. This is pure desperation. Belarus just had a year of mass uprisings against the Russian backed regime. - On another note, I guess I was behind. Belorussians are already sabotaging railways and transport for the Russians, with some groups forming.

More mass arrests Sunday, unclear about Monday. They are clamping down on information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That Belarus would join the war I find hard to believe (as you do also).

This would be the craziest thing ever. So a country, that has had no hostile intentions against Ukraine, no animosity, has had not long ago major popular demonstrations against the ruling regime, would then go an participate in a war that their President has until now said that they aren't part of. Wouldn't make sense. I'd wait for real confirmation on this.

But if it is so, Belarus is crumbling.

Words from 2014 from Adrian Basora, words that still apply.

Extremely well:

Putin’s Motives and Russian Grand Strategy

Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine strategy is driven by three goals: survival, empire and legacy.

First and foremost, Putin sees the fate of Ukraine as an existential issue both for himself and for the authoritarian regime that he and his inner circle have gradually rebuilt over the past fifteen years. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was a deep shock to Putin because of the echoes it created in Russia and because Ukraine seemed to be on the brink of becoming a major source of longer-term “democratic diffusion” right on Russia’s long southwestern border. Fortunately for Putin, however, the luster of this revolution quickly wore off once its leaders gained office and failed to live up to their reformist promises. From the start there was infighting between Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko; reforms were postponed; the Ukrainian economy spiraled downward and corruption remained rampant.

By the time Yushchenko’s presidency ended in 2010, many voters had come to see Viktor Yanukovych as a preferable alternative. Yanukovich also reportedly benefited from substantial financial and “political technology” support from Moscow. For Putin, Yanukovych was a promising alternative to the western-oriented “Orange” leaders, since he seemed likely to maintain strong trade and financial ties with Russia, show proper deference towards Moscow and, above all, keep Ukraine out of NATO. But it turned out that too many Ukrainians were unwilling to follow the Putin/Yanukovich script.

When Yanukovich fled Kiev on February 21, it must have seemed to the Kremlin that a second wave of the Orange Revolution had taken control of Ukraine. Putin no doubt trembled with fury – but also with fear.

Putin’s second driving motive for going all out to reassert as much dominance as possible in Ukraine combines his goals of restoring a Russian empire and of burnishing his personal legacy. It is abundantly clear that Putin seeks to restore Russia to its former imperial glory, and in so doing to secure for himself a place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders of all time. In a 2005 speech, Putin famously stated that “the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”

Now we are seeing the next act in this tragedy playing out...

Surely even you can see that trying to claim him as an expert when he agrees with you and delusional when he doesn't is utterly absurd. — Isaac

But he isn't delusional!!! I'm not sure where you see the illogicality here.

He clearly states how Russia thinks. What is so hard to understand that Russia see's the West as a threat AND has territorial aspirations on the territory of it's neighbors?

Cannot those happen at the same time? Mearsheimer understands this and that is why he wanted Ukraine to retain a nuclear deterrence. Putin has shown quite well these both sides in his words and actions. Haven't you ever heard about Novorossiya? No?

Besides, don't sideline all those third nations starting from Ukraine. Yes, I understand, you want to talk about the US. However, they aren't the only actor important in the story. And if I say that this war is Putin's fault, it doesn't mean that the US or NATO has done everything right.

What is false to think that all this is happening because of the US wants to enlarge NATO and nothing else. Either you genuinely think that Russia would have left Ukraine alone if NATO wouldn't have made any moves to the East or then don't care an iota on what Russia does with its neighbors. Well, if the second is true, why post on this thread? If the first is true, then that is absolute horseshit! You can just look at the meddling of Russia in other ex-Soviet states that nobody is talking about joining NATO and just what Putin has said for years about "the artificial" Ukraine.

The former Soviet countries have had the urge to join NATO because of Russia's imperial aspirations. What is so wrong to opt for EU / NATO / The West than to be under the control of an authoritarian imperialist like Putin?

Both and write correctly what it looks like when people are obsessed about the actions of the US and see everything happening in the World because of it. Although the US is important, not everything revolves around it's decisions and actions.