Current Events > Sweden and Finland agree to apply for NATO membership at the same time.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gobstoppers12 posted...

But you don't think they're a threat? Even though they have also recently invaded another European nation on a whim and killed thousands while displacing millions and causing tens of millions in property damage?

What exactly would make them a threat to you, in your eyes?

I wouldn't really say it was on a whim. Ukraine has been at war with Russia backed separatists since 2014. Before then, the country had a Russian puppet as president. Additionally, Russian gas is piped through Ukraine. There are a lot more circumstances than just a whim.

I'd be more prone to thinking they were a threat if we were of similar geopolitical value to them. Even more, Sweden is already in various defense alliances that Ukraine isn't, which would make the cost of aggression a lot higher, for a lot less gain.

scar the 1 posted...

I wouldn't really say it was on a whim

Guess I should have said "because they wanted to for extremely selfish, stupid, and vain reasons"

Oh look, Neville fucking Chamberlain started posting here.

Jeez, what happened here while I was asleep?

Bat178 posted...

Jeez, what happened here while I was asleep?

people making things up instead of engaging with the actual words I say, and getting mad. the usual

scar the 1 posted...

I don't think Russia is a threat to us

Okay, now I'm convinced you're just shit-posting.

teep_ posted...

OK, that makes sense. Though given Joel's previous statements and general politics, I'm loath to give him the benefit of the doubt

there's no doubt. most of the people in this topic, whether intentionally or not, interpreted my words incorrectly. scar did not

they're really Putin the warmongers in their place

looks like Russian expansionism is Finnished

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I think it's possible but very, very unlikely

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Similar to Joel I hold it as very unlikely. And I think this in part explains why Putin invaded Ukraine. Even discounting NATO, an EU membership would similarly lessen the influence he could exert over them. If he were to act against EU members, I'd expect other tactics than military invasion. But you can never 100% know, of course. I do think that many NATO proponents are overblowing the immediate, military threat that Russia poses to Sweden by quite a lot.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Are there any credible indications of this?

By the way, may I just return to this topic and remind us all that Moldova is neutral. In fact, its neutrality is written in its constition. That by all accounts should ensure it is safe from a Russian invas
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3472495-decision-to-invade-moldova-already-approved-by-kremlin-the-times.html

Oh...

Thompson posted...

By the way, may I just return to this topic and remind us all that Moldova is neutral. In fact, its neutrality is written in its constition. That by all accounts should ensure it is safe from a Russian invas
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3472495-decision-to-invade-moldova-already-approved-by-kremlin-the-times.html

Oh...

Not sure what point you're trying to make here?

scar the 1 posted...

Not sure what point you're trying to make here?

Being neutral = Russia won't invade you.

Thompson posted...

Being neutral = Russia won't invade you.

Who said that?

scar the 1 posted...

Who said that?

Russia, I think.

scar the 1 posted...

Again, Putin is obviously interested in controlling his sphere of influence

He doesn't get to decide that. The voters of Ukraine do.

BTH_Phoenix posted...

He doesn't get to decide that. The voters of Ukraine do.

I agree. But from a realist perspective, the big guns decide. Much like how the US and China control various parts of the world not thanks to democracy but rather thanks to actual military and economic muscle, so do Russia. There's no morality involved in that analysis. Although we're seeing that Russia's military muscle isn't as much as one might have thought, they still have nukes and a lot of guns.

But again. I agree with you. That's not something that should be up to Putin.

If Russia were going to nuke Finland, it would have been after they embarrassed them in the Olympic hockey final.

scar the 1 posted...

I agree. But from a realist perspective, the big guns decide. Much like how the US and China control various parts of the world not thanks to democracy but rather thanks to actual military and economic muscle, so do Russia. There's no morality involved in that analysis. Although we're seeing that Russia's military muscle isn't as much as one might have thought, they still have nukes and a lot of guns.

But again. I agree with you. That's not something that should be up to Putin.

the difference is the US has bases in various parts of the world because those countries allow us to. we don't just move in and be like "yeah this is our territory now, deal with it".

thronedfire2 posted...

the difference is the US has bases in various parts of the world because those countries allow us to. we don't just move in and be like "yeah this is our territory now, deal with it".

this is a lie

thronedfire2 posted...

the difference is the US has bases in various parts of the world because those countries allow us to. we don't just move in and be like "yeah this is our territory now, deal with it".

That's not entirely accurate, nor does it describe all of the things that the US military do in various parts of the world.

Our PMs are like besties.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/6/AANvmLAADMam.jpg

BalanceLost posted...

Our PMs are like besties.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/6/AANvmLAADMam.jpg

"We noticed you from across the bar and thought you seem like a fun guy. Can we buy you a drink?"

averagejoel posted...

there's no doubt. most of the people in this topic, whether intentionally or not, interpreted my words incorrectly. scar did not

To be clear, since Scar didn't want to speak for you - do you still believe Russia was "provoked"? I'm using the word you used...

scar the 1 posted...

Kissinger agrees with s leading realist academic, John Mearsheimer, in that US foreign policy is (at least partly) responsible for the situation in Ukraine, which is along the same lines that Joel was arguing. It isn't a pro-Putin point of view, it's a geopolitical analysis of the situation. Putin regards the former Soviet states as Russia's "sphere of influence", and NATO as anti Russia. And for that in particular, it's hard to blame him. NATO is anti Russia. After the Soviet Union fell, the US even promised that they wouldn't expand NATO further eastward, but they did. For a long time this was just a hearsay thing, but the minutes of the meeting where it happened have been declassified. IIRC Yeltsin was promised this by US officials. Of course, when the US then keeps expanding the alliance that was formed to oppose Russia (then Soviet), it shouldn't be hard to understand that it can be seen as a threat. Now, of course, I don't think that this is the whole story. I think it's naive to argue that Russia being threatened is the only aspect of this. Again, Putin is obviously interested in controlling his sphere of influence, and there's more to that than feeling threatened by a NATO military presence. EU membership as well as just Ukraine being more interested in cooperating with the west than with Russia is a serious economic concern for him. Naturally that plays into this as well.

About if Putin was provoked? I think that term depends on your point of view. I agree that framing it like that makes it sound like he has less agency than he did. I can't speak for Joel's intent there. I think there's been escalating tensions for a long time from both sides, which I suppose you could say includes provocations. But there's this tendency among a lot of people to view any sort of attempt at nuance as being a shill for Putin. On top of that, people are predisposed to dismiss Joel in particular as a tankie. Which, fine, go ahead, but in this topic he's been arguing along pretty typical realist lines rather than tankie lines.
A tankie, by contrast, would view the US as the only imperialist threat in the world and wholeheartedly embrace Russian efforts to "stick it to the man".

@scar_the_1
Sorry, coming back to this days later-
A) While Kissinger and Mearsheimer's analysis makes sense, my initial point in highlighting the disconnect was that many others *didn't* arrive at that same analysis (it is perfectly reasonable for Russia to feel threatened). As with many things, this is a matter of percentages, while US foreign policy/NATO plays a role in everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it's a *major* factor in what's happening right now, given that other experts haven't allocated as much "weight" onto it.
B) Taking NATO out of the equation, is "Ukraine was a part of us" a reasonable reason (or part of the reason) for Russia to feel threatened?
C) To be clear, I didn't state Joel was being a "Putin shill" or a tankie
D) And still curious how you believe Gladius was stating Kissinger was a tankie?

Ruvan22 posted...

To be clear, since Scar didn't want to speak for you - do you still believe Russia was "provoked"? I'm using the word you used...

last time I gave my opinion on this matter I was modded for trolling, so I'm afraid I cannot answer that question at this time.

averagejoel posted...

last time I gave my opinion on this matter I was modded for trolling, so I'm afraid I cannot answer that question at this time.

You need to be again

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Irony posted...

You need to be again

I'm sorry that you feel that way

Ruvan22 posted...

Sorry, coming back to this days later-
A) While Kissinger and Mearsheimer's analysis makes sense, my initial point in highlighting the disconnect was that many others *didn't* arrive at that same analysis (it is perfectly reasonable for Russia to feel threatened). As with many things, this is a matter of percentages, while US foreign policy/NATO plays a role in everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it's a *major* factor in what's happening right now, given that other experts haven't allocated as much "weight" onto it.
B) Taking NATO out of the equation, is "Ukraine was a part of us" a reasonable reason (or part of the reason) for Russia to feel threatened?
C) To be clear, I didn't state Joel was being a "Putin shill" or a tankie
D) And still curious how you believe Gladius was stating Kissinger was a tankie?

That's fine, as long as we're being civil and you're not putting words in my mouth I'm happy to shoot the shit.
A) I've seen a lot of talking heads say things like "Putin is a madman" and "he wants to restore the Soviet union" etc. To me, these are more propaganda than analysis.
B) Not sure what you're asking here. Ukraine having been a part of the Soviet union or former Russia isn't really a threat. I think it's important to understand that his conservative, nationalist rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. There's more going on than a crazy nationalist Russian who's gone haywire. There are geopolitical goals here that I would say weigh a lot heavier than the myth of a greater Russia. But the rhetoric serves a purpose domestically, to try and "sell" the invasion to Russians.
C) Noted.
D) I don't *believe* he was. I was making the point that Joel's arguments weren't tankie talking points, but rather conventional wisdom from some pretty un-tankie experts. Gladius was accusing him of being a tankie for the things he were saying. Since he was arguing along the same lines as noted academics and a US war hawk, it's silly to label that as tankie.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I have literally already said it in this topic. my thoughts have not changed.

Russia is literally the best recruiter for nato ever lol

Did the 600 innocent people who were killed in a single airstrike by Russia do anything to provoke it?

https://apnews.com/article/Russia-ukraine-war-mariupol-theater-c321a196fbd568899841b506afcac7a1

Russia is using rape as a war tool fuck them anyone near russia should join nato

OmegaShinkai posted...

Did the 600 innocent people who were killed in a single airstrike by Russia do anything to provoke it?

https://apnews.com/article/Russia-ukraine-war-mariupol-theater-c321a196fbd568899841b506afcac7a1

This is a weird comment, considering innocent civilians always suffer from war, no matter if it's provoked or not. That's part of why war is evil.

OmegaShinkai posted...

Did the 600 innocent people who were killed in a single airstrike by Russia do anything to provoke it?

https://apnews.com/article/Russia-ukraine-war-mariupol-theater-c321a196fbd568899841b506afcac7a1

obviously not

The US isn't exactly an innocent country but the difference between East and West Germany after WW2 is a vivid example of how different the US and Russia treats other countries

Masao posted...

The US isn't exactly an innocent country but the difference between East and West Germany after WW2 is a vivid example of how different the US and Russia treats other countries

If anything it's a vivid example of how differently the US and the Soviet union treated allied states. At roughly the same time the US treated countries like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Korea very differently.

The Soviet Union/Russia have a history of invading neighboring states and then wonder why other neighboring states want to join a defensive pact with other countries.

OmegaShinkai posted...

Russia: "Ukraine is genociding Russians, Ukraine is all Nazis, Ukrainians don't have their own culture, Ukraine is actually Russia and doesn't have a right to exist, it's Lenin's mistake that they're even a country"

THiS is nAto'S FAulT

Russia: Ukraine didn't sink our ship. There was a fire. From a munitions explosion. Caused by a storm. Also it sank while being towed. This is an unforgivable act of war by the Ukrainians.