Geopolitics

[shamans]

What part of "it's up to the Ukrainian government to continue fighting" do you not understand?

That's not what our conversation was based off of. What instigated it was Biden signing of another billion to Ukraine and how a possible resolution could help.

Regardless, this fight is not up to Ukraine. They can't fight for a week if not for US, and EU support. It's not their decision but lucky for them so far we have decided to fight.

 

[Zehner]

That's not what our conversation was based off of.

It was.

The wheat crises I hear is getting pretty bad and third world countries are also facing an energy crises with securing LNG deals because Europe is bidding on it instead raising the prices. Wonder how @Zehner will justify this now. All the war is is an extra euro or two for my trip to Lidl! Third world countries aren't human anyway so lets fight on.

And you want to buckle to the person who caused all this and is now willing to escalate the food crisis to blackmail the rest of the world to get away with his imperialistic actions. That's why I say you're only focused on the short term. The situation is how it is because Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Letting them get away with this is positive reinforcement. What do you think Putin will do in the future if he learns that food is the leverage in negotiations with EU and NATO? You don't make deals with terrorists.

Also, let's not forget that in the beginning you were just pissed that Biden sanctioned another billion dollar package for Ukraine, essentially burning tax money to accelerate inflation in your view. You didn't say anything about third world countries back then. Actually, your sudden concern for people suffering from food bottlenecks is only your third change of goalposts, the first one being that keyboard warriors like me shouldn't tell the people on the front what to do. Funnily enough, you're now even disputing their right to defend their country, claiming this choice isn't up to Ukraine.

 

[shamans]

It was.



And you want to buckle to the person who caused all this and is now willing to escalate the food crisis to blackmail the rest of the world to get away with his imperialistic actions. That's why I say you're only focused on the short term. The situation is how it is because Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Letting them get away with this is positive reinforcement. What do you think Putin will do in the future if he learns that food is the leverage in negotiations with EU and NATO? You don't make deals with terrorists.

Also, let's not forget that in the beginning you were just pissed that Biden sanctioned another billion dollar package for Ukraine, essentially burning tax money to accelerate inflation in your view. You didn't say anything about third world countries back then. Actually, your sudden concern for people suffering from food bottlenecks is only your third change of goalposts, the first one being that keyboard warriors like me shouldn't tell the people on the front what to do. Funnily enough, you're now even disputing their right to defend their country, claiming this choice isn't up to Ukraine.

Hold on now you're shifting the topic here completely. You and some others said the impact is not that bad. Just extra gas prices that I shouldn't be crying about. At least you can admit there is a cost to war. You are twisting it talking about a right to defend their country.

Also, you contradicted yourself. Was I pissed at Bidens aid or Ukraine defending themselves? Pick one. Western privilege in a nutshell. Europeans facing war is so important no one dare question the cost of it. Third world countries be damned!

 

[Carolina Red]

That's not what our conversation was based off of. What instigated it was Biden signing of another billion to Ukraine and how a possible resolution could help.

Regardless, this fight is not up to Ukraine. They can't fight for a week if not for US, and EU support. It's not their decision but lucky for them so far we have decided to fight.

So all of it. The answer to my question is all of it.

 

[Zehner]

Hold on now you're shifting the topic here completely. You and some others said the impact is not that bad. Just extra gas prices that I shouldn't be crying about. At least you can admit there is a cost to war. You are twisting it talking about a right to defend their country.

No I didn't. Why would I say such a thing? It's been one of the major topics regarding the war that Putin is holding third world parties to ransom. It's even been said by Scholz and other political leaders. What I said was that you want this war to end because of some America first thinking.

Europeans facing war is so important no one dare question the cost of it. Third world countries be damned!

You're a strange guy. On the one hand you want the war to end because of the drastic consequences for the whole world and on the other hand you dismiss that a war in Europe has severe consequences on the global economy.

Guess what will happen if Putin gets the Donbas? He'll be back in Ukraine a few years down the road and this whole mess starts all over, including exploding gas and food prices.

 

[berbatrick]

a small step towards joining the civilised world

 

[NotThatSoph]

So, for all that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" talks, here's a very non-exhaustive list of states we're either negotiating with or outright helping:

Israel in their campaign to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians away. Saudi Arabia in their terror campaign in Yemen, among other things they're up to. Turkey against the Kurds.

By all means, don't negotiate with Putin, but pretending that it's some general principle or rule to not negotiate with terrorists is so bizarre. It couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[shamans]

So, for all that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" talks, here's a very non-exhaustive list of states we're either negotiating with or outright helping:

Israel in their campaign to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians away. Saudi Arabia in their terror campaign in Yemen, among other things they're up to. Turkey against the Kurds.

By all means, don't negotiate with Putin, but pretending that it's some general principle or rule to not negotiate with terrorists is so bizarre. It couldn't be further from the truth.

Not to mention negotiating with the Taliban who although have less blood on their hands than the above were fought against for 21 years only to be negotiated with.

You'd be living in a real bubble to think otherwise.

 

[Gehrman]

I don't really buy the idea that without US backing Ukraine will cede Donbass. After Crimea and stuff before that as well you have one of the largest albeit poorest countries in Europe fighting for its existence. Ceding more of their country is just passing the buck until Putin makes another excuse to invade as if stating that Ukraine isn't a real country and has to be de nazified isn't mental enough.

 

[shamans]

I don't really buy the idea that without US backing Ukraine will cede Donbass. After Crimea and stuff before that as well you have one of the largest albeit poorest countries in Europe fighting for its existence. Ceding more of their country is just passing the buck until Putin makes another excuse to invade as if stating that Ukraine isn't a real country and has to be de nazified isn't mental enough.

It's not like they have a choice

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Anyone voting "no" shall be labelled as an agent of the Kremlin and thus a traitor.

 

[calodo2003]

For what reason would a US senator vote against this other than to be a cnut?

 

[NotThatSoph]

For what reason would a US senator vote against this other than to be a cnut?

For instance Finland has some quasi border disputes with Russia, which is not something NATO is traditionally fond of. These disputes are not formal policy, though. More broadly, admitting countries with such a volatile relationship with Russia heightens the risk of military conflict for NATO (and lessens it for Finland).

If NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance for its member countries, then allowing Finland (or Ukraine) to join doesn't make much sense. If it's supposed to be an anti-Russia organization, or an organization aiming for more military power on a global scale, then growing, and maybe especially growing toward Russia, makes a lot of sense.

People like Hawley and Paul are pretty isolationist, so they'll favour the defensive alliance approach.

 

[massi83]

For instance Finland has some quasi border disputes with Russia, which is not something NATO is traditionally fond of. These disputes are not formal policy, though. More broadly, admitting countries with such a volatile relationship with Russia heightens the risk of military conflict for NATO (and lessens it for Finland).

If NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance for its member countries, then allowing Finland (or Ukraine) to join doesn't make much sense. If it's supposed to be an anti-Russia organization, or an organization aiming for more military power on a global scale, then growing, and maybe especially growing toward Russia, makes a lot of sense.

People like Hawley and Paul are pretty isolationist, so they'll favour the defensive alliance approach.

 

[sport2793]

A senate vote to add Finland and Sweden to NATO will get 95+ votes so it doesn't matter what coup plotters like Hawley think. If Erdogan of all people is on board with this then no one serious (Hawley and Paul are clowns rather than serious people) is going to get in the way of it at this stage.

 

[the hea]

For instance Finland has some quasi border disputes with Russia,

I would very much like to know more about these border disputes you are talking about. I have lived my whole life in Finland and have never heard about any of them.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

I would very much like to know more about these boarder disputes you are talking about. I have lived my whole life in Finland and have never heard about any of them.

Probably this: the Karelian question.

 

[TwoSheds]

For instance Finland has some quasi border disputes with Russia, which is not something NATO is traditionally fond of. These disputes are not formal policy, though. More broadly, admitting countries with such a volatile relationship with Russia heightens the risk of military conflict for NATO (and lessens it for Finland).

If NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance for its member countries, then allowing Finland (or Ukraine) to join doesn't make much sense. If it's supposed to be an anti-Russia organization, or an organization aiming for more military power on a global scale, then growing, and maybe especially growing toward Russia, makes a lot of sense.

People like Hawley and Paul are pretty isolationist, so they'll favour the defensive alliance approach.

I can't quite get my head around how you're clearly very intelligent and yet you're so wrapped up in the "West is worse than Russia" narrative that you're grasping like this to blame the West antagonising Russia for Putin's folly.

If a country with similar values and fears are worried enough about a threat close to their border that they want to join and strengthen your alliance, why would the other NATO countries want to reject that? Nobody has forced Finland and Sweden to apply, they chose to do it because of the actions of Russia.

And people like Hawley and Paul are Russian stooges FYI. One day the money trail will no doubt be exposed.

 

[Gehrman]

I can't quite get my head around how you're clearly very intelligent and yet you're so wrapped up in the "West is worse than Russia" narrative that you're grasping like this to blame the West antagonising Russia for Putin's folly.

If a country with similar values and fears are worried enough about a threat close to their border that they want to join and strengthen your alliance, why would the other NATO countries want to reject that? Nobody has forced Finland and Sweden to apply, they chose to do it because of the actions of Russia.

And people like Hawley and Paul are Russian stooges FYI. One day the money trail will no doubt be exposed.

It's not been my impression that's he's wrapped up in the "West is worse than Russia" narrative unless I missed some posts of his. I think the point regards to Finland is that territory disputes could escalate in the future. I still think Finland should be admitted to Nato regardless.

 

[TwoSheds]

It's not been my impression that's he's wrapped up in the "West is worse than Russia" narrative unless I missed some posts of his. I think the point regards to Finland is that territory disputes could escalate in the future. I still think Finland should be admitted to Nato regardless.

You've missed literally every one of their other posts then. And many countries have minor border disputes of one kind or another, it doesn't need to lead to a nuclear war.

 

[Gehrman]

You've missed literally every one of their other posts then. And many countries have minor border disputes of one kind or another, it doesn't need to lead to a nuclear war.

Their or his?

 

[TwoSheds]

Their or his?

I don't know, hence "their". It's not a rude way to address someone in case you're wondering.

 

[Gehrman]

I don't know, hence "their". It's not a rude way to address someone in case you're wondering.

It's not rude, I was wondering whether you refering to several posters or a singular poster that is all.

 

[the hea]

Probably this: the Karelian question.

There are no disputes with Russia over Karelia, Petsamo or the Salla area because Finland has no interest in those areas. There is no economic value in having them as they consist only of forrests and old run down villages and towns that would take massive investments to get up to Finnish standard. No people of Finnish herritage live there anymore as those who where not evacuated after the Winter war where all deported by the Russians and replaced by people from other parts of Russia. Claiming the areas back is not even something that is discussed here other then maybe as a joke sometimes.

 

[massi83]

I can't quite get my head around how you're clearly very intelligent and yet you're so wrapped up in the "West is worse than Russia" narrative that you're grasping like this to blame the West antagonising Russia for Putin's folly.

If a country with similar values and fears are worried enough about a threat close to their border that they want to join and strengthen your alliance, why would the other NATO countries want to reject that? Nobody has forced Finland and Sweden to apply, they chose to do it because of the actions of Russia.

And people like Hawley and Paul are Russian stooges FYI. One day the money trail will no doubt be exposed.

He isn't really "west is worse than Russia". He just views himself as beacon objectivity and bringer of the balance. I bet he tells the mirror every evening he is the best devil's advocate ever!

 

[NotThatSoph]

I can't quite get my head around how you're clearly very intelligent and yet you're so wrapped up in the "West is worse than Russia" narrative that you're grasping like this to blame the West antagonising Russia for Putin's folly.

If a country with similar values and fears are worried enough about a threat close to their border that they want to join and strengthen your alliance, why would the other NATO countries want to reject that? Nobody has forced Finland and Sweden to apply, they chose to do it because of the actions of Russia.

And people like Hawley and Paul are Russian stooges FYI. One day the money trail will no doubt be exposed.

The West is not worse than Russia, I'm not blaming the West for antagonizing Russia.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that a NATO with Finland in it has a higher risk of having to join a defensive war that a NATO without Finland. Sweden less so. (Edit: not a huge increase.)

If your goal is to have a defensive alliance to protect your own interests, and if these interests don't include weakening Russia or increasing your own military strength globally, then of course you wouldn't want Finland to join. It's great for Finland, probably, but if you don't care about Finland then so what?

It's somewhat analogous to a country with poor economic performance applying to the EU. It might be positive for the applying country to join, and it might make the EU slightly stronger as a block, but for specific countries any trade benefits are likely smaller than the transfer payments that will be needed, so if your own economic interest is the goal then you'd reject the application.

 

[Real Name]

This is Zelenskyy’s first real test. Attacking is much harder than defending. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Yeah I wonder too, apparently up to million troops will be involved armed with western weapons. It's good cause it takes of the burden of Donetsk region cause Russians will probably have to strengthen their positions in Kherson but on the other hand Ukrainians are spending their strength so to say in the coast thus weakening their positions in Donetsk.
In any case as I understand Russian troops in the southwest are not so strong as in the east so Ukraine probably wants to attack the weak point and of course liberate coastal territory cause of its importance for their economy.

 

[MadMike]

I hope this is a joke.

I’ll let you decide on that

 

[do.ob]

The West is not worse than Russia, I'm not blaming the West for antagonizing Russia.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that a NATO with Finland in it has a higher risk of having to join a defensive war that a NATO without Finland. Sweden less so. (Edit: not a huge increase.)

If your goal is to have a defensive alliance to protect your own interests, and if these interests don't include weakening Russia or increasing your own military strength globally, then of course you wouldn't want Finland to join. It's great for Finland, probably, but if you don't care about Finland then so what?

It's somewhat analogous to a country with poor economic performance applying to the EU. It might be positive for the applying country to join, and it might make the EU slightly stronger as a block, but for specific countries any trade benefits are likely smaller than the transfer payments that will be needed, so if your own economic interest is the goal then you'd reject the application.

You're witnessing right now what happens when the Russians attack a country with a somewhat loose connection to the West. And you're still unironically wondering why they would welcome Finland into NATO. Finland, who as a member would probably "drag" the entire European Union into a war anyway, if they were attacked.

 

[NotThatSoph]

You're witnessing right now what happens when the Russians attack a country with a somewhat loose connection to the West. And you're still unironically wondering why they would welcome Finland into NATO. Finland, who as a member would probably "drag" the entire European Union into a war anyway, if they were attacked.

Sure, that's a good point. If NATO policy will be that they'll spend a lot of resources to supply European countries if they're attacked by Russia, without getting directly involved themselves, then letting Finland join might make sense even from a purely selfish, isolationist perspective.

Politicians like Paul would probably prefer to leave NATO altogether.

 

[TwoSheds]

The West is not worse than Russia, I'm not blaming the West for antagonizing Russia.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that a NATO with Finland in it has a higher risk of having to join a defensive war that a NATO without Finland. Sweden less so. (Edit: not a huge increase.)

If your goal is to have a defensive alliance to protect your own interests, and if these interests don't include weakening Russia or increasing your own military strength globally, then of course you wouldn't want Finland to join. It's great for Finland, probably, but if you don't care about Finland then so what?

It's somewhat analogous to a country with poor economic performance applying to the EU. It might be positive for the applying country to join, and it might make the EU slightly stronger as a block, but for specific countries any trade benefits are likely smaller than the transfer payments that will be needed, so if your own economic interest is the goal then you'd reject the application.

Conversely a defensive alliance is also stronger and provides a greater deterrent if it has more troops and resources, that's why people make alliances...

 

[NotThatSoph]

Conversely a defensive alliance is also stronger and provides a greater deterrent if it has more troops and resources, that's why people make alliances...

It is, but NATO is already the most powerful military force by quite a margin and Finland will contribute very little. Finland joining won't act as a significant deterrence against any attacks other than against Finland itself.

 

[Cheimoon]

You're witnessing right now what happens when the Russians attack a country with a somewhat loose connection to the West. And you're still unironically wondering why they would welcome Finland into NATO. Finland, who as a member would probably "drag" the entire European Union into a war anyway, if they were attacked.

Does @NotThatSoph actually share those views? I thought she was just trying to explain the alternative view.

For that matter, it's true that existing NATO countries gain next to nothing by Finland's inclusion. It mostly increases risk - which is odd if NATO indeed exists purely to protect its member countries. But then of course that's not true. Whatever it once was, it is now a kind of military solidarity union for (most of) Europe and North America, and then Finland fits very well, since it's a kind of soul brother/sister of many current members.

For what it's worth, I'm personally not sure what to think of NATO, but whatever it is, I like that Finland is joining it (and Sweden as well).

He isn't really "west is worse than Russia". He just views himself as beacon objectivity and bringer of the balance. I bet he tells the mirror every evening he is the best devil's advocate ever!

She.

 

[do.ob]

Does @NotThatSoph actually share those views? I thought she was just trying to explain the alternative view.

For that matter, it's true that existing NATO countries gain next to nothing by Finland's inclusion. It mostly increases risk - which is odd if NATO indeed exists purely to protect its member countries. But then of course that's not true. Whatever it once was, it is now a kind of military solidarity union for (most of) Europe and North America, and then Finland fits very well, since it's a kind of soul brother/sister of many current members.

For what it's worth, I'm personally not sure what to think of NATO, but whatever it is, I like that Finland is joining it (and Sweden as well).

She.

I don't know what was opinion and what was just explanation, but I object to the logic of it. Finland is part of the EU. The EU has a mutual defense pact. Most of the EU are also NATO members. So by that mechanism a large part of NATO would already have had to involve themselves if the Finns were to get attacked and the rest would basically have to throw their weight behind them, since if they wouldn't support their allies against the main antagonist of NATO they may as well leave the pact right here and now.
What we're also seeing right now is that NATO is heavily involved in and impacted by a war Russia has started against a country that didn't have a strong connection to them. So this precedent tells us, too, that NATO would be on the hook for Finland regardless of whether they are a member or not.
So bottom line: if you're going to have support them (at great cost) either way, then you may as well invite them under your umbrella of nuclear deterrent, M.A.D. etc to keep them (and thereby yourself) safe(r).

 

[MadMike]

It is, but NATO is already the most powerful military force by quite a margin and Finland will contribute very little. Finland joining won't act as a significant deterrence against any attacks other than against Finland itself.

It's not just about how much extra force is being added to NATO, it's also about where. N.Macedonia joining NATO means little to NATO and a lot to N.Macedonia. They are not in an area when other NATO members are worried about being attacked , neither do they expect N.Macedonia to materially help them if by some crazy development it so happens.

However Finland is bordering Russia and is very close to the Baltics. They also have a small but highly competent and well equipped military. If Putin tomorrow decides it's a good idea to start fecking with Estonia or Latvia, then Finland has local force which can be of significant help. I'm sure the Baltic members of the alliance feel a lot safer for it.

PS. Bear in mind Trump wanted to pull the US out of NATO. NATO needs to be able to survive and protect its eastern flank even without the US, who are currently like 80%+ of the force of the alliance.

 

[the hea]

It is, but NATO is already the most powerful military force by quite a margin and Finland will contribute very little. Finland joining won't act as a significant deterrence against any attacks other than against Finland itself.

Finland would not just contribute a little, I would say we would and will contribute quite a lot, especially to the defence of the Baltic region. We have the biggest artillery in Europe, more main battle tanks then a country like Germany and a modern air force consisting of 60+ F18s soon to be replaced with F35s. We also have a long History of dealing with the Russians and will contribute with that experience and a lot of intelligence gathering from having a 1300km+ border with them. Our defence forces are already completely NATO compatible so we could start contributing with this from day 1.

Yesterday you where talking about some made up border disputes between Russia and Finland and now you make claims that the strongest military in northern Europe would have very little to contribute towards the defence of Europe.
I would suggest that you start doing some reading up about subjects before entering into discussions about them so you don't have to resort to baseless, or even made up clames.

 

[Cheimoon]

I don't know what was opinion and what was just explanation, but I object to the logic of it. Finland is part of the EU. The EU has a mutual defense pact. Most of the EU are also NATO members. So by that mechanism a large part of NATO would already have had to involve themselves if the Finns were to get attacked and the rest would basically have to throw their weight behind them, since if they wouldn't support their allies against the main antagonist of NATO they may as well leave the pact right here and now.
What we're also seeing right now is that NATO is heavily involved in and impacted by a war Russia has started against a country that didn't have a strong connection to them. So this precedent tells us, too, that NATO would be on the hook for Finland regardless of whether they are a member or not.
So bottom line: if you're going to have support them (at great cost) either way, then you may as well invite them under your umbrella of nuclear deterrent, M.A.D. etc to keep them (and thereby yourself) safe(r).

Yeah, you're right, the incomplete NATO/EU overlap is not very sensible. Others are also pointing out that Finland would be an important asset for NATO if the Baltic countries were ever attacked. So some pretty strong reasons outside solidarity, too.

 

[MTF]

Finland would not just contribute a little, I would say we would and will contribute quite a lot, especially to the defence of the Baltic region. We have the biggest artillery in Europe, more main battle tanks then a country like Germany and a modern air force consisting of 60+ F18s soon to be replaced with F35s. We also have a long History of dealing with the Russians and will contribute with that experience and a lot of intelligence gathering from having a 1300km+ border with them. Our defence forces are already completely NATO compatible so we could start contributing with this from day 1.

Yesterday you where talking about some made up border disputes between Russia and Finland and now you make claims that the strongest military in northern Europe would have very little to contribute towards the defence of Europe.
I would suggest that you start doing some reading up about subjects before entering into discussions about them so you don't have to resort to baseless, or even made up clames.

While any individual country in NATO pales in comparison to US numbers, what people don't realize is that every 10% that each country can add in the form of well-equipped, high readiness, interoperable units, it all adds up to the balance of a hypothetical conflict vs Russia. Those 3 fighter squadrons that Finland has are about a 10% increase on what the US Air Force has in terms of active duty fighter squadrons. Add that to what the UK, France, Poland, and everyone else can deploy and you see why the balance of forces looks ever more grim for Russia.

Plus every single unit added to NATO with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland will already be in the theatre, while the majority of US units that would join a hypothetical conflict in Europe still would have to be transported from North America.

 

[TwoSheds]

It is, but NATO is already the most powerful military force by quite a margin and Finland will contribute very little. Finland joining won't act as a significant deterrence against any attacks other than against Finland itself.

Which is less likely to result in friction or problems in the wider region which is less likely ultimately to result in problems for all involved. It's crazy to think that defending allies and trading partners is essentially aggression. It's just looking out for your mutual interests.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Finland would not just contribute a little, I would say we would and will contribute quite a lot, especially to the defence of the Baltic region. We have the biggest artillery in Europe, more main battle tanks then a country like Germany and a modern air force consisting of 60+ F18s soon to be replaced with F35s. We also have a long History of dealing with the Russians and will contribute with that experience and a lot of intelligence gathering from having a 1300km+ border with them. Our defence forces are already completely NATO compatible so we could start contributing with this from day 1.

Yesterday you where talking about some made up border disputes between Russia and Finland and now you make claims that the strongest military in northern Europe would have very little to contribute towards the defence of Europe.
I would suggest that you start doing some reading up about subjects before entering into discussions about them so you don't have to resort to baseless, or even made up clames.

Finland's defense budget is like half of Norway's, come on. Going by Wikipedia, because it's easy and accurate enough for this purpose, total defense spending for NATO countries is just above $1 000b. Finland joining would increase the budget by 0.3 %, and even if we exclude the US for some reason it's 1.2 %. Exclude Canada as well to make it only European countries and we reach 1.3 %.

You're still talking about that border thing, and I'm not going to argue with a Fin about it. It seems like you view it akin to something like Jämtland/Herjedalen, which isn't my impression at all, but ok, I'm wrong. I'm aware that it's not an official dispute and not something that is likely to be a source of conflict, I even said so. Happy to drop it.

However, if you want to say that there exists a scenario where a country, Russia or anyone else, is contemplating attacking a NATO country but decides against it because Finland joined ... then I'll just smile and nod and disagree.