For someone who is not an American, you sure seem invested in threads pertaining to US domestic politics. :chin:

I think you're lying.

Why does Ukraine seek western integration? The US engineered it.

Why don't Europeans act according to their geopolitical interests? They're in thrall to the US.

Why did Russia invade Ukraine? The US forced them too. — Echarmion

That's right. There are plenty of western scholars who voice these ideas, and it fits neatly in the historic behavioral pattern we see from the United States.

Where I diverge from these scholars is that they believe this to be a result of US incompetence, whereas I believe there is no way the US would pursue and double down on these policies for as long as they did, if they weren't getting exactly what they wanted.

An American accusing me of Hollywood bias is quite rich, though. There's not a nation on earth that has wreaked as much destruction on the world as the United States. It doesn't deserve anyone's benefit of the doubt. The only proper way to view its actions is through a lens of utter cynicism, which comes natural to a realist anyway.

So how does this look? What's the war aim? Recapture Kaliningrad for Germany? — Echarmion

Who knows, whatever the US could lure the ignorant Europeans into accepting.

This theory is nothing short of amazing. — Echarmion

Thanks. :up:

I wouldn't expect someone who seems still to be stuck in "unprovoked invasion" territory to really get it, but still, thanks.

If the Americans had their way, sure.

They had hoped the Russians would more aggressively push Ukraine, which would have given NATO an opportunity to punish Russia via a guerilla war and which would have fueled Russophobia and the propaganda machines. (In a cruel twist of irony, it would be Israel that fell for such a trap in Gaza)

The Russians showed restraint though, giving NATO ample opportunity to back out of escalation and sit down for talks, which is why US warmongering is only finding limited success.

The situation is still dangerous, though. Economic decoupling, the spreading of war sentiment and a measure of militarization has been achieved, so there is fertile soil for another conflict down the line.

The US has proven it is willing to bomb its allies' infrastructure to further its agenda, so it's entirely thinkable the US may do something extreme to create the proverbial spark in the powder keg and thus we may be closer to the threshold for full-scale conflict between Europe and Russia than we think.

Like handing the US a war that according to you they desperately wanted? — Echarmion

The war in Ukraine is just the appetizer - not the actual goal. War between Europe and Russia is the American dream scenario here, and the conduct of Russia in this war so far clearly shows they are trying to avoid giving the suicidal Europeans enough reason to fall for Washington's warmongering.

Why would war be unavoidable? — Echarmion

Because NATO insisted on threatening what the Russians believed were their vital strategic interests.

Just wait until the US is gone, where is the problem? — Echarmion

Even when the US pivots, it doesn't mean the US 'is gone', and you're suggesting handing the US the biggest trump card it could hope for? Haha, what a 'sensible' strategy.

They spend 15 years trying to avoid it only to turn it into a virtual certainty by invading. — Echarmion

Because at that point they believed war to be unavoidable. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

NATO was clearly propping up Ukraine militarily with the intention of creating a fait accompli. Russia sought to stop them before that became a reality.

Why did Putin need Europe to be amenable to peace in the first place? — Echarmion

Because there's no way the US would have provoked this conflict unless the Europeans were willing participants. Putin probably banked on the Europeans pursuing a sensible strategy. They didn't.

Even if NATO "flipped" Ukraine, what does this matter to Russia if the US is going to pivot to Asia and this kills NATO? — Echarmion

As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe.

Which just seems to strengthen my argument that Russia made a bad move by choosing to continually escalate in Ukraine. — Echarmion

Of course not. The Russians believe NATO membership for Ukraine to be a threat to their vital strategic interests. They simply couldn't ignore it. That's what a red line means. They spent 15 years trying to avert this outcome.

You're constantly accusing Europe of ignoring the obvious signs on the wall yet Russia plays exactly to the US playbook and you have nothing to say about that? — Echarmion

This ties into the fact that Ukraine represents Russian key strategic interests, and therefore NATO seeking to flip NATO couldn't be ignored. But it's widely accepted that Putin expected Europe to be more amendable to peace, and thus miscalculated in that regard.

On the topic of the Europeans - their ability for geopolitics has simply atrophied since the end of the Cold War, and they are now basically Uncle Sam's poodles.

It's just interesting to see how you're strenuously avoiding to answer uncomfortable questions. — Echarmion

So far your questions have been little more than disingenuous, cheap attempts at "gotchas", which have achieved little other than betray your less-than-surface-level understanding of this conflict.

You earlier stated you agree with the principle of deterrence. Why is this not covered by deterrence? — Echarmion

Because deterrence is supposed to make war less likely, instead of provoke it.

Because to me it reads like you saying that NATO was bent on war this entire time. — Echarmion

Yep. That's something I've repeatedly argued in this thread: NATO, the US in particular, was purposefully seeking conflict in Ukraine from 2008 onward.

Ah yes, the classic kindergarten trick. — Echarmion

Just being selective with what I spend my time on.

If you think you're entitled to me regurgitating topics that have been covered here dozens of times, you are sadly mistaken.

The agreements contain no clause to this effect, so you're asking NATO to unilaterally de-escalate. — Echarmion

I'm not asking NATO anything.

NATO leaders admitted to signing a peace agreement not with the intention of maintaing peace, but with the intention to arm for war.

Your suggestion that Russia could withdraw support for the Donbas separatists and in turn NATO would agree to a neutral Ukraine is therefore laughable.

Great, I agree. So why was it impossible for Russia and NATO to cooperate in February 2022, and why would it have then been possible in April 2022 or now?

Edit: Or, in case you reject my framing of the question, if it was possible to cooperate in February 2022, why didn't Russia choose this path given the many advantages of cooperation with Europe. — Echarmion

This question has been answered a million times already. I'm not going to answer it again.

Assuming this is true, how is this "bad faith"? — Echarmion

You're asking me how it is bad faith to enter a peace agreement in order to double down on what caused the war in the first place?

Doesn't Mearsheimer argue that nations will not sit back and wait but instead aggressively seek advantages? — Echarmion

There's nothing within the realist framework that says cooperation cannot happen when it is rational to cooperate.

But also de-escalation is not even a serious argument because NATO will by default make unacceptable demands. — Echarmion

Again, you're just pulling this out of your ass. I never argued this.

I get the impression you are deliberately trying to waste my time with this nonsense. Let me know when you have something substantial to add to the discussion.

[...] entertaining the possibility that the russian leadership made a stupid or incompetent decision is "not serious". Why not? — Echarmion

You're both mischaracterizing your own position (you're arguing there was "no reason" to invade Ukraine - obviously not a serious argument) and mine (I never argued the Russian leadership was unable to make mistakes).

Cheap rhetorical tricks won't help you with being taken seriously here.

What kind of fait accompli could NATO create? — Echarmion

I already explained.

Russia of course also had the option to offer to abandon the Donbas separatists in exchange for a commitment to a neutral Ukraine with some kind of economic deal thrown in. — Echarmion

First-hand accounts from Merkel and Hollande tell us that NATO entered the Minsk Accords in bad faith, and used it to buy time to arm Ukraine. NATO was fully committed to flipping Ukraine.

The idea that if only the Russians stopped backing the separatists NATO would agree to Ukrainian neutrality is probably one of the most far-fetched things I've heard so far. I hesitate to say: not a serious argument.

[...] nothing had dramatically changed for Russia's position in Ukraine. — Echarmion

This is another version of the "no reason" comment. The Russians clearly believed and told us otherwise, and the idea that a great power goes to war for "no reason" is just not a serious argument.

It's quite easy to see from the Russian point of view what was changing in Ukraine: Ukraine was in the process of being trained and armed by NATO to a point where Russia's standing army would no longer be able to intervene. During the initial invasion Ukrainian forces outnumbered the Russians (est. 200,000+ vs. 100,000 - 190,000 respectively).

Coupled with NATO rhetoric of incorporating Ukraine, it was clear from their point of view they were expecting NATO to create a fait accompli.

Insisting that there was "no reason" and that Putin is some mad man is not a serious argument.

namely that the invasion of Ukraine defies traditional "geopolitical reason" — Echarmion

It doesn't. Ukraine and especially Crimea are of great geopolitical and historical importance to Russia and always have been. They've fought several wars over them.

No realist should have been surprised that the Russians after over a decade of warnings chose to use force to secure what they believed to be their vital strategic interests.

In fact, Mearsheimer predicted it almost ten years in advance.

So there's no way Russia would blow up the status quo by doing something as silly as launching a full ground invasion of it's neighbor. — Echarmion

Ukraine is more important to Russia than maintaining the status quo. That's exactly what they told us over the course of some fifteen years.

Striking such a sarcistic tone while losing sight of the most basic elements to this conflict is why I can't take you seriously.

You have to have deterrence to keep the peace.

Now creating that deterrence will simply get some people to think that your war-hungry. Well, I'm not. — ssu

Like I said: I agree completely with you on the need for deterrence.

When I say Europe must get its head out of its ass I mean, among other things, that it must spend a minimal amount on maintaining their militaries.

There's no reason Europe shouldn't have a credible deterrent against Russia considering Europe's vastly larger GDP. We actually outspend Russia on defense by something like tenfold.


But, in geopolitics there is something called the security dilemma - you might be aware of this.

In a nutshell, a nation building their military, even as deterrence, can be seen as a threat to neighboring nations.

This is why I emphasize the foolishness of combining the build up of a deterrent (presumably to avoid war) with economic decoupling, refusal of diplomatic talks and maximalist war rhetoric, etc.

It's a guarantee that in today's context Russia views a European military build-up as a threat, and it will actually bring war closer, instead of deterring it.


That is the fine line Europeans are completely missing, and the geopolitical amateurism I spoke of.


The solution is extremely simple: combine the creation of a deterrent with de-escalating rhetoric and with dialogue with Russia.


What I have just laid out is in fact so obvious that I can only conclude that whoever is making these decisions on the side of the West (predominantly the United States) is not pursuing long-term peace and stability. I have made that point several times before, with detailed explanations as to why.

First of all, the globalized World won't profit from something far more devastating than a trade war. — ssu

It would do a number on the world economy of course, but absolute power and wealth matter very little in geopolitics. What matters is relative power and wealth.

Any great power would happily see global GDP shrink by 10% if it meant they would ascend to a dominant position in the world.

And your forgetting that the US has nothing like NATO in Far East. Don't you remember how SEATO simply collapsed? What are the goddam allies of the US? How close are South Korea and Japan to make some joint effort here? What are US allies there in the Pacific? Australia, and the UK! Not much of an alliance that AUKUS.

This is the peril when you have only nation-to-nation defense agreements, but not a treaty organization with collective defense. What countries would (or could) assist the US, if China went for Taiwan? The Japanese? How much? The South Koreans? They have to deal with North Korea. Likely Japan could give a few destroyers and subs, but likely it would hold it's resources back. And in truth the US is lousy in creating new workable alliances, because it doesn't want to. — ssu

That all of these nations will join in a coalition against China is all but a certainty.

They may not have mutual defense agreements, but their geopolitical goals naturally align in that they all want to contain China. South-Korea, Japan, the entire Anglosphere (the 'Five-Eyes' alliance), perhaps some other nations like Indonesia - they are all nations that exist in the periphery of the world island and therefore share a main strategic challenge. These are far more natural allies to the US than for example Europe is.

Taiwan is essentially the tripwire. If China manages to achieve reunification, it has definitively superceded the US as the dominant global power and every country in the Pacific region realizes the far-reaching consequences of that for themselves.

Look, Putin has all the time wanted to portray Western Europe as a threat Russia. — ssu

Well, haven't the Europeans parroted US-fed rhetoric about wanting to cripple Russia, enact regime change, and break it apart in multiple republics, etc., while simultaneously refusing any dialogue and maintaing a no-compromise position of Ukraine joining NATO?

Honestly, what did the Europeans expect?

It's quite clear from Russia's actions that even after the invasion they had good faith the Europeans would come to their senses and sit down for talks.

Yet, we now know that the Europeans were acting in bad faith as far back as the Minsk Accords.

And I actually agree with the Russians on this. While Europe is on Uncle Sam's leash they're a danger to themselves and others.

A modus vivendi was easily achievable. Even as far forward as March/April 2022 there was still a sensible deal that could have been made. Knowingly or unknowingly, we did everything in our power to make it impossible. Though in the case of the US, it is quite clear they knew exactly what they were doing.

Actually it is guided. Biden was all in favour of the "pivot" to Asia and his administration full of the "pivot people", just like Obama's. But he cannot and couldn't. That's the power of Atlanticism.

For Superpower USA, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the jewel in it's crown. But if American want to let their hubris go rampant and think their stature in the World doesn't need NATO or any allies (except Israel), I think they are mistaken. If the US really leaves NATO, then Europe will have to reorganize itself. But it's not something where the US wins.

Believe it or not, but I don't think that especially those Americans wanting to "make America great again" don't want the country to be the bigger Canada. Yeah, isolationism sounds great at first, but then when other countries really don't give a fuck, then comes the anger back when people find that isolationism is not a cure-all, just as Brexit wasn't for the Brits.

The simple fact is that the West is stronger together. Something that some people hate. — ssu

The fundamental power struggle of our time is going to take place in the Pacific.

The US cannot maintain its dominant position in both the Pacific and Europe, hence the need to pivot. But the US establishment realizes the consequences for its position in Europe, which is why it is currently trying to "shape the battlefield" and mitigate the damage done to US interests when it is forced to pivot away from Europe.

Europe in terms of its economic, intellectual and human potential is way too big for US to maintain its artificial status as suzerain. which is why Europe will simply break free from the US orbit once the US is forced to divert its attention elsewhere. It will be good for Europe in the long-term, because we will be able to pursue an independent geopolitical strategy that actually benefits us.

What the US or Europe want is hardly a factor in this. These are geopolitical realities - forces of nature, almost - that they cannot ignore (though admittedly, Europe has been a king at ignoring geopolitical realities).

If the US fails to pivot, it loses the Pacific. Once China breaks out of the island chains, the US no longer holds the trump card of being able to cut off China's sea trade, and it will be curtains for the peripheral nations as two thirds of the world island will be united under a Sino-Russian alliance.

Let us take a moment to note that the person responsible for conducting the most well-documented genocide in recorded history, Benjamin Netanyahu, got some 50 standing ovations while delivering a speech in US Congress.

It's like watching a scene out of Maoist China.

I wonder how Americans reflect on this. Do you think this is normal? Do you expect the world to believe this is normal?

I think it's the final nail on the coffin of US credibility, if I'm totally honest.

When pressed on the specifics you invoke your interlocutors ignorance and run away. — Echarmion

Cute. You can accuse me of many things, but running away isn't one of them. If there is anyone who has laid out their arguments in painstaking detail it is me.

Your problem is laziness and entitlement.

the theory that Europe and Russia are natural allies. — Echarmion

what :lol:

(Besides, you ignore requests to account for whatever observations with your theory.) — jorndoe

Since you ignore requests to actually state your points clearly. :yawn:

When one side issues conditions (declarations/demands/ultimatums masquerading as proposals, which have to already be accepted) — conditions that go against international law and recognized land and borders, instead of demonstrating wanting to come to the talking table to negotiate — then there's no negotiation on the horizon, there's a "Yes" or "No" to those conditions. — jorndoe

This is normal for negotiations, actually, and it was no problem when negotiations took place in March/April 2022. When those threatened to succeed at producing peace, the West blocked it and made subsequent talks impossible. Zelensky even put it in Ukraine's constitution.

A naïve attitude towards Putin's regressive Russia is, well, not particularly smart, or is a particularly kind of blindness, or whatever. Not going to repeat all evidence already posted. — jorndoe

The only blind ones are you oompaloompas I keep wasting my time on. :lol:

If you haven't familiarized yourself with the basic structure of these people's theories then you're running a few years behind. How about you educate yourself instead of asking me to regurgitate for you what has already been said a million times over the course of this thread?

Sure. Let me know when that happens.

These people have been making accurate predictions about where this war would lead since Day 1.

Mearsheimer understood it as far back as 2015.

Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia. — Echarmion

Indeed, and there are plenty of western scholars who share that sentiment. Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, etc. - all Americans by the way.

In Europe, especially countries like Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States see the situation as the continuation of Cold War. Hence they usually are flabbergasted when (and especially after 2022) when some idiot starts talking about the present as totally different from the Cold War.

The idea of a fundamental change is nonsense. It was the nonsense when it was eagerly talked in the 1990's, when the membership of Russia in NATO was on the table. Then it was the "New Threats" and things like conscription were "ancient relics of a bygone era". Not anymore. If you wouldn't have ex-KGB officers at helm in Russia, yes, Russia could have been totally different.

What has changed is that Germany is unified and now has a bulwark of Poland between it and Russia. For Poland the situation is far more perilous than it was in the late 1990's (and thus it's vast rearmament program). — ssu

The most relevant difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is obviously its power.

Russia has a population of 144 million, and a GDP of 2.2 trillion.

It's tiny. Germany alone doubles Russia's GDP.

In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears.

This is why I keep emphasizing that Europe needs to get its head out of its ass.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. European and US interests are quite the same — ssu

War with the Russians is in European interests?

The fact that you're saying this is why I keep emphasizing you're war-hungry to the point of absurdity, and you don't even seem to notice it yourself.

That's why Europe simply needs to rearm. — ssu

Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war - which is of course exactly what Uncle Sam is trying to achieve in Eastern Europe.

Conducting geopolitics is a fine line, and Europeans are treading it in the most amateurish way possible. It's a lost art in Europe, and it's going to cost us a lot of lives in the near-future.

NATO countries don't want the US to go. — ssu

As though US geopolitical strategy is going to be guided in any way by what NATO countries want, as oppossed to what necessity dictates.

Russia has a very large armed forces and a nuclear deterrent, [...] — ssu

Russia did not have a large armed force prior to the invasion. Some 200,000 troops for a country as large as Russia is not "very large" - it's tiny.

It only started to expand its armed forces when the Ukraine war was well underway, when the West boycotted diplomatic negotiations and made further diplomacy impossible - even going so far as getting Zelensky to write down in the Ukrainian constitution that diplomatic negotiations could not take place.

So Europeans complaining about Russia's armed forces are either being deliberately misleading or utterly naive about the consequences of their own actions.

Also, Europe has a nuclear deterrent as well.

There's no other option. There's no option of "Let's be friends with Russia" that would have a better outcome for Finland: Russia would just increase it's efforts to dominate Finnish policy, if it would be let to do it. — ssu

You don't think the US dominates European politics? Or Ukraine? Hello?!

I'm not going to sit here and say Russia is better than the US in this regard, but again you're showcasing the fact you have no sense of balance in this matter.

You recognize you're neighboring a crocodile, but simultaneously fail to recognize you voluntarily jumped into bed with one.

I think in your naivety you think that if only Ukraine given up on everything and done as Russia wanted, everything would be fine. — ssu

Are you aware of this knee-jerk reaction you seem to have, where every attempt at diplomacy is caricatured as "giving up on everything and doing as Russia wants"?

"Diplomacy is capitulation" I hear you saying, like you're the minister of propaganda in a George Orwell novel.

Or you really think that Ukraine or Finland, Sweden, is similar to South-Vietnam or Pro-Western Afghan government? — ssu

Sure. All are countries that jumped into bed with a crocodile to protect themselves from the crocodile across the border. Predictably, they will get eaten.

What is? So far I've only seen inferences, which is mostly wishful thinking from GOPhers. The DNC would've had options during their convention to sideline Biden within the rules as well. — Benkei

Imagine Rutte saying something along the lines of "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" to get Yesilgöz to drop out of the seat of party leader. (Doesn't translate perfectly to Dutch politics, but I think you catch my meaning)

Basically unthinkable. It would be political suicide if something like that became public.

When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup. — fishfry

I had to go and look that up, but that's absolutely crazy. Mob level shit.

This shows how you really don't understand Europe. You think that US and Russia act and behave in Europe similarly, because they are Great Powers.

I assume that you come to this conclusion with thinking about how the US has treated let's say Guatemala (and how the US has acted in it's backyard). Well. in the long run the US policy towards Guatemala has been more like the United Fruit Company's policy towards the country. The US doesn't behave similarly towards France, Sweden or Finland (as Russia doesn't behave similarly towards Brazil and India as it does towards Georgia, Moldavia or Ukraine).

And the simply fact is that you simply don't seem to understand European integration and NATO at all. NATO isn't like Warsaw Pact, which primary function was seen in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO isn't just a puppet for the American President, which has been shown quite many times (for example from how much Trump despises the organization this should be evident). You insist Ukraine would have been invited to NATO, because American presidents wanted so, even if it was obvious that many NATO countries opposed this. Yet NATO could never give formally an outside member. And the de facto assurances didn't matter for Russia, because it has territorial interests in Ukraine. Just like EU hasn't officially stated that Turkey cannot be never an EU member, this is de facto real. It's an international defense pact that sovereign states have willingly put their defense into, just as EU countries are committed to European integration.

The simple fact is that even if for Yemenis or Palestinians and many Latin Americans, the US seems to be a ruthless Superpower, but that isn't the case for Sweden, Finland or East European countries. Just as Russia wouldn't never dare to do any hybrid attacks towards India and try to involve itself in Indian politics. I'm sure Russia behaves quite cordially towards it's BRICS partners. It doesn't act the same way in it's "near abroad" thanks to being and seeing itself something else than a nation-state, but a great power. This is something you have to understand, but you just ignore it. — ssu

What you're describing are US-European relations during the Cold War. During this time, Europe was a key US ally against the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that this relationship has been fundamentally changing since the end of the Cold War, and especially since China has emerged as the new threat to US power.

We are no longer a key ally to the United States, since we are nowhere near the Pacific and likely to stay on the sideline if large-scale conflict were to break out there. In fact, we will profit from a war in the Pacific, directly and indirectly. That now makes us a threat and a potential rival to the US.


Since the Ukraine war, it has become increasingly clear that US and European interests divert in a way that is dangerous for Europe. The US is using European naivety in this regard to have us hamstring ourselves.

Note for example, how the sanction packages and freezing and seizing of Russian assets barely scratched the Russian economy while it was done serious damage to ours, and has seriously tanked our international credibility as trading partners.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army.


We are now no longer "friends," but temporary assets to the US, and the US is already preparing the ground for when Europe finally slips its orbit.

Naive countries that do not realize they have gone from friend to temporary asset are in grave danger, and will likely end up in ruin like Vietnam, Ukraine, etc.

Especially Finland has been in the crosshairs of a conflict with the Soviet Union starting from the armstice in 1944. It was in the crosshairs and continued to be in the crosshairs especially after Putin has wanted to make Russia a Superpower again. Russia did it's hybrid attacks by organizing refugee flows into Northern Finland in 2015-2016. It has GRU sleeper cells in the country ready to do sabotage and to assassinate important people as the way of it's "deterrance" in Finland, if war breaks out. It has breached consistently Finnish aerospace with military aircraft, has jammed GPS signals and kept up belligerent rhetoric all this time prior to 2022, hence Finland has all the time been in it's crosshairs. What you are saying is simply ludicrous.

You simply don't understand that there wouldn't have been any end to this if Finland would have stayed neutral, likely the hybrid attacks would have continued even more to push Finland back into a weaker spot. There would be no "normal relations", there would be only Finlandization, where the Finnish President would get his international speeches from the FSB chief in the Russian embassy. That's the fucking "normal relations" that Putin wants. That we would talk the "lithurgy" as in the Soviet times.

And wtf stability are you talking about? Russia's military has always been multiple times larger than Finland's or Sweden's? Do you think annexing territory from Georgia and Ukraine is a way of Russia attempting "stability"?

It's simply imperialist revanchism, an attempt to fix what Putin sees as the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century (collapse of the Soviet Union). Nothing else. — ssu

There's no point in talking about the Soviet Union. Russia today has nowhere close to the power of the former Soviet Union. It's a completely different country.

But Finland has been working with NATO for a long time, and has been a member of the European Union almost since the start.

Obviously once tensions start rising as they did post-2008, Finland is going to be in the crosshairs. That's where it put itself when it aligned to a bloc that became hostile towards Russia.

This is not odd. Neutrality has a price, but so does joining a faction. This is simply the real world of great power politics. Believing that becoming a de facto US vassal is not going to bear a cost is similarly foolish.

The war ends when the two sides come to some conclusion, either a peace deal or a cold armstice (as with the Koreas). And it's the job of Ukraine and Russia in the end. — ssu

Ok, so what is your view of the US and UK blocking the peace deal the Ukrainians and Russians had struck in Istanbul?

The thing we've learned from history is that Russia has to be forced someway to a peace agreement: if continuing the war looks to be a better option, the Russia will continue the war. Plain and simple. — ssu

You are quite selective with the lessons you learn from history, I've noticed.

Do we learn nothing from Vietnam, the Middle-East, etc. when it comes to US involvement in fragile states?

Remember that the war isn't hurting Europe so much, so this can go on for years, even a decade. — ssu

This war has been a disaster for Europe. The German economy is on its ass. Funny that - "keeping the Germans down" is one of the primary reasons the US is in NATO.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Europe is not Ukraine, obviously.

You mean like electing a president with good relations to Russia who proceeded to declare an end to further NATO ambitions? Because that is what happened in 2010. — Echarmion

Dialogue can and should happen regardless of who is president. It costs nothing.

Obviously, presidents or politicians who have some rapport with the Russians are useful. But once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine, it's over.

So what should Ukraine have done to diffuse the tension? — Echarmion

Opening any kind of dialogue with the Russians would have been a sensible start.

This talks about Ukraine in the passive, i.e. their neutral status is altered by third parties. — Echarmion

When the former hegemon gets involved, I see little point in ascribing much agency to Ukraine. The United States has a track record of leading countries down the path of their own destruction. Ukraine is no exception.

I'm aware of the context, and still I cannot decipher what point you're trying to make.

Everybody even Ukraine would have been totally happy with Ukraine being neutral... assuming that Russia wouldn't have intension of annexing large parts of Ukraine into itself, as it has done. — ssu

The move to change Ukraine's neutral status predates Russian military actions by some 6 years at least. Worse still, the Americans were aware that this was seen as a red line by the entire Russian elite even before the Bucharest Summit of 2008 took place; they knew exactly what they were doing.

Just stop and think it yourself for a moment: why would Sweden with a leftist government want to shed it's over 200 year neutrality and Finland, that earlier enjoyed the fruits of having good relations with Soviet Union and later Russia, suddenly join NATO? You think it was an American plan? — ssu

I think what plays a large role is that, despite all the historical evidence, Europe seems chronically incapable to view the United States as a ruthless great power which follows realist logic. And I think US propaganda plays a large role in that.

It's understandable. They fell for the propaganda storm and made a spur of the moment decision.

So Finland and Sweden gave up their neutral status and put themselves in the crosshairs of a future conflict to 'protect' against a power that was trying to return to stability to begin with. The power who is trying to avoid a return to stability is the one they chose to jump in bed with.

Geopolitical ineptitude is a problem that plagues all of Europe, and this is another indication of it.

The majority of Putin's rhetoric is negative. Not all. — ssu

We haven't had any real dialogue with the Russians because we refused to talk to them.

We had good relations with Russia. Finlandization has a negative definition, which as a Finn I clearly understand. — ssu

Yes, so everything that looks like normal relations with Russia you will call 'Finlandization', just like you referred to 'Finlandization of Europe'. Normal relations are, apparently, seen as something negative by you.

Is everything that makes war with "the enemy" less likely undesirable?

But your stance is that if a country attacks another and starts annexing parts of that country (and actually has done this to two of it's neighbors), then other countries should continue to have perfectly normal relations with this country. — ssu

That's not my stance.

Again, your pro-war bias is starting to shine through when you can only caricature any opinion that doesn't call for total war.

US propaganda has got you right where it wants you: begging for a war that will lead to your own destruction. I've even noticed over the course of our conversations that you repeatedly invoke World War 2.

One thing that propaganda does, is it makes you emotionally attached. When people are emotionally attached, they can no longer think rationally.

You clearly have a problem with the idea that things can return to normal after this war, even though it would likely be the best scenario for all parties involved (except the US). Why?

Because you want to see Russia punished. And that's somewhat understandable. But, guess what - that isn't going to happen in the way you envision it, and the price for clinging to this fantasy is costing thousands of Ukrainian lives per week.

Further, this effect has been amplified by US propaganda spreading insane war goals like "taking back Crimea" and "breaking apart Russia" and nonsense like that. Maximalist wargoals make people more emotional, because if one fails to reach the maximalist goals it will feel like defeat, leading to anger. It's designed to make and keep you emotional, and to make peace impossible.

Emotional actors are easy to take advantage of. This was known and written down as far back as Sun Tzu (circa 500 BC).

I'm a great supporter of deterrence: with good deterrence, you can avoid blackmail and war. Without any deterrence, Great Powers will do as they want with you. — ssu

I actually agree with this, but this is arguing after the fact.

Was changing Ukraine's neutral status a part of that deterrence? No, clearly it was provocative, and we knew the Russians perceived it as such.

Deterrence is good, but intentionally seeking to flip neutral buffers to our side, refusing dialogue, militarizing and combining it with openly hostile rhetoric is not deterrence - it's warmongering. The US then sells this to Europe because they're naive enough to believe everything Uncle Sam tells them.

Geopolitics is a delicate art that Europe understands literally nothing about, which is extremely dangerous for Europeans themselves. We know what happens to naive geopolitical actors: South Vietnam, various parties in the Middle-East, Ukraine - they get taken advantage of.

Your the one talking about enlarging the war, not me. — ssu

Do explain.

Russia with it's large armed forces and with it's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is more than a match against any EU country vis-a-vis. And with the US out of the equation, the military balance is quite on the side of Russia even if you group up European countries. — ssu

That's why I said "if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses".

We caused that military build-up by refusing a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem and subsequently feeding Ukraine all the weapons we have.

So not only did we let our militaries atrophy over the course of decades, we also sold what's left of them to a lost battle in Ukraine, forcing the Russians to mobilize in the process.

And now we moan about 'the Russian threat'. Please. The Americans are laughing all the way to the bank about how we let ourselves get played.

If Russia was so threatening, why aren't we at least talking with them? Talking costs nothing.

We both know the answer: talking brings with it the risk of peace.

I would love to engage with your comment, but as is unfortunately somewhat of a pattern, you're relying on me to decipher them first.

The ICJ brought out a report on the legal status of the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, (once again) concluding it is illegal under international law, and thus confirming that Israel is a belligerent occupier to several million Palestinians.

Note that an illegal occupier cannot claim a right of legal self-defense against resistance from the people it occupies.

It once again condemns Israel's attempts to colonize the Palestinian territories via its settlement policies and:

Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property,
as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, [...]

As regards the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force, the Court notes that the
Security Council has declared on several occasions, in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and has determined that

“all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic
composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity”
(Security Council resolution 465 (1980))

In a nutshell, roughly half of Israel is not theirs.

Nothing we didn't already know, but since there are many people, including some on this forum, who are still in denial about the legality of Israel's actions, here it is.

In addition, jurisprudence like this functions as opinio iuris.

Russia has been quite consistent in attempting to annex Ukrainian territory irrelevant of NATO. As it was an "artificial" country. — ssu

They've stuck to their red line for over a decade. They told us exactly what the problem was, and they told us exactly what the consequences would be.

We chose to ignore them, and they stuck to their word.

Have you ever noticed what kind of dialogue that was? It was that Russia should have a say if a country could join or not NATO. — ssu

Ukraine's neutral status is the key to a stable Eastern Europe.

So yes, obviously Russia's position should be taken into account and not simply ignored if a stable Eastern Europe is the goal.


It's worrying how your rhetoric turns any dialogue with the Russians into something negative.

Just like the way you use the term 'Finlandization' to describe any kind of positive relations with the Russians.

It bears every hallmark of war propaganda, which is designed to make war the only outcome. The same trick was used in Ukraine to make it fling itself willingly into the abyss.

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be the beneficiary of such a war, or whether that will be some unnamed country across the pond.

That has nothing to do with it.

This is just the reality Ukraine has to deal with.

This is pure "what if" arguments, which are unprobable and now . — ssu

The point is, you're projecting aims and goals onto the Russians for which there is no basis.

Russian rhetoric and behavior has been surprisingly consistent over the course of more than a decade when it comes to this issue.

They bent over backwards to try to preserve peace in face of NATO expansion - that's how much they valued stable relations and trade ties with the West.

Ukraine was a bridge too far, and that too they tried to resolve diplomatically, even though they were consistently ignored by NATO. Even the Minsk accords were agreed upon by NATO in bad faith, showing that it's NATO and not Russia that has rejected diplomatic solutions.

After the war broke out, the Russians have been signaling for a diplomatic solution since day 1, which again was refused by the West.

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"?

They repeatedly give NATO chances for dialogue, and NATO repeatedly ignores them.

As long as you provide a decent argument I agree there's no point in restating what has already been said, but these depictions of Russia as "the big bad" are just baseless caricatures used to fearmonger by parties who want war, not peace.

↪Tzeentch, do you think the demilitarization deNazification irredentism stuff (pertaining just to Ukraine) was blather for the gallery? — jorndoe

No, they mean it.

NATO used militarization and fanatical anti-Russian elements in Ukraine to create a fait accompli with regards to its NATO membership. The Russians are looking for guarantees that that won't happen again.

Had the West not insisted on changing Ukraine's neutral status, Russia probably would have never invaded. It's worth noting that the Russians spent 6 years trying to open dialogue, before the US forced the issue in 2014.

With denazification and all that? — ssu

The point is to enter negotiations and make a deal that's acceptable for both sides. This already happened in March/April 2022, so it's clearly possible.

Trump makes absolutely shitty peace deals. — ssu

Well, a shitty peace deal is all the Ukrainians will be getting and they have the US and cronies to thank for it.

Only when Putin is dead and buried perhaps something like that can happen. — ssu

The most important factor in whether this can happen is whether the US pivots and stops fueling Russophobia in Europe.

Once the European leaders start thinking for themselves again, they will seek normalization too.

Russia wants Finlandization of all Europe. — ssu

Russia has a fraction of Europe's GDP and population. Russia is hardly a threat if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses. There's no basis for this type of fearmongering nonsense.

Europe doesn't profit from a US China war. Russia does. — ssu

Europe would profit immensely from a US-China war, because it would become a critical market for both the US and China if it stays on the sideline. Russia will do the same thing.

Furthermore, while the US and China beat each other to a pulp, Europe and Russia would remain intact and grow in relative power.

Why do you think the US is trying so hard to embroil Europe and Russia in a war with each other? It's trying to prevent either of them from becoming the laughing third.

It's easy to understand why the Russians are so keen on a diplomatic settlement when you understand this context.

The only people who don't seem to understand anything are the Europeans.

To be honest, I think a peace deal is easily within reach. The Kremlin has signaled that they want a diplomatic settlement since the start of the war.

The biggest obstacle is Ukraine itself, which got royally fucked by the US and cronies, and is now refusing to be forced into a shitty deal by the same people that encouraged it to fight on. I'd say that's somewhat understandable from the Ukrainian side, but it's a bitter pill they will eventually be forced to swallow.

The reason the royal fucking hasn't come full circle is because Ukraine probably holds some serious leverage over the Biden administration.

Once Trump enters office that will be off the table, and he will likely be free to force Ukraine to sign an uncomfortable peace deal with the Russians or withdraw support.

After that, the Russians will in all likelihood seek a return to the pre-2014 status quo, restoring economic ties with Europe. They have no reason to involve themselves into large-scale conflict with Europe when the US and China are on the cusp of war, and with Europe and Russia standing to profit greatly from that conflict.