Finland or Sweden joining NATO would spark Russian response, Russia warns
tbsnews.net
tbsnews.net
We kicked the can down the road with Ukraine and look where that landed Ukraine. 2008 and 2014 we gave in and allowed Russia to do what they wanted. 2022 and Western countries are allowing it again. Its despicable. I don't want war. I don't want to go to war. But when someone approaches you and says "I own you" you either fight back or give in to being owned. Ukraine is facing that decision now, and they're fighting back. We should be doing more to help Ukraine. Other countries will face the same fate eventually if we don't put a stop to it now. Our responses since 2008 have failed in the long term. We need to do something different.
I don't claim to have the right answer. I don't want to send our troops off to die. I don't want to get nuked or have to nuke anyone. But I honestly feel sick to my stomach right now over this. I know this isn't the only atrocity to occur without sufficient response from the Western world... but it's the one that's hit home for me for some reason.
I think this lecture (2015) explains the situation very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Secondly the lecture doesn't explain why Russia is so concerned about having a NATO member on their border. The treaty is a defensive one, not offensive. I don't think the lecture does a good job to help westerners understand the way in which the east mistrusts the west.
The whole thing is really sad indeed. I believe any country should have the freedom to choose its security and financial alliance, but my point is that isn't how it works with geopolitics. Any major power would do the same if they were in Russia's position.
I have always been very sceptical of NATO membership, but the last month I changed opinion.
... That card's been played out, though, because it's only credible if you don't invade regardless.
Practically speaking, Russia wouldn't be able to do anything about this.
I suspect we will see a renewed interest in making NATO a stronger alliance after this dust settles.
Sweden has 24,000 on active duty. Finland has about 21,000. Large for the size of the countries. Both have a draft. Switzerland has 120,000 troops on active duty, a draft, and a large, regularly exercised reserve, for a country with only 8 million people. All are outside NATO and prepared for self-defense.
Of the big powers, the US has 1.3 million. Russia has about 1.4 million, and China has about 2 million.
I think active duty numbers can be misleading, since I believe many countries rely on military reserve forces, especially ones with smaller populations, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces#Militar...:
> At the completion of the service, the conscripts receive a reserve military rank of private, lance corporal, corporal, sergeant or second lieutenant, depending on their training and accomplishments.[24] After their military service, the conscripts are placed in reserve until the end of their 50th or 60th living year, depending on their military rank. During their time in reserve, the reservists are liable to participate in military refresher exercises for a total of 40, 75 or 100 days, depending on their military rank. In addition, all reservists are liable for activation in a situation where the military threat against Finland has seriously increased, in full or partial mobilization or in a large-scale disaster or a virulent epidemic. The males who do not belong to the reserve may only be activated in case of full mobilization, and those rank-and-file personnel who have fulfilled 50 years of age only with a specific parliamentary decision.[25]
By this measure, the US is 51st on the list with a value of 4.2, behind many European countries and NATO members, e.g. Greece is #7 with 13.3.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
What Russia has done is made the odds of NATO dragging you in to something (which hasn't really ever happened in a major way) look much smaller than the odds of them invading you (which is happening to a NATO nonmember today).
A number of NATO countries joined both Iraq wars, but not all. The only one where Article V was invoked and NATO was officially involved was Afghanistan.
Then, you'd say "nevermind, I'd rather spend it on my own armed forces," and you arrive back at NATO.
Similarly their use of International Criminal Court for non-americans followed by claims that the ICC should not be used as it is not-elected when America has been caught committing war crimes.
America has not done a whole lot to help its own reputation in these matters :-/
Of course? That's the entire point of it isn't it? NATO is primarily about "dragging the United States into European war" if you want to phrase it that way, though equally the point is that the threat of doing so prevents a European war involving alliance members in the first place. But the USA is at absolutely zero risk of direct invasion by Russia (or China for that matter). America is the only nation on the planet right now with any significant conventional power projection and logistics capability. NATO members all certainly kind of hope America would nonetheless come anyway.
Along with that is the risk that they'd be called on in turn, so that's a tradeoff but an obvious and straightforward one. When you sign up for insurance, you constantly must pay even if you never collect. Indeed most people very much hope never to need to collect. Hedging against black swan events costs money with by definition a low likelihood of return, but can be worth it anyway at a high enough cost (particularly since the insurers themselves have incentive to prevent rather then react).
By your logic, if Russia ever did invade Sweden, the "logical" thing to do would be to lay down arms immediately: after all, we all want to live a "peaceful life", right? Presumably the same would go for Russia making demands on the size of Sweden's military budget.
Yeah, right. Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq?
Regarding the rest of your arguments, whether you want to support joining NATO is your own business. I'm just looking at it from a game theory perspective. As far as I remember, so far there haven't been threats from Russia against Sweden. Now you want to join and there is a threat. You may be indignant and think other countries have no right to choose for you but the reality may be different, as the Ukrainans are finding out. Now they will have to forget about joining NATO AND will get occupied, when they could have just admitted that they can't beat Russia and agreed to not join NATO.
It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. :-) The Coalition invaded Iraq.
NATO, as such (not just NATO members operating outside of the alliance) conducted a couple different (all non-combat, training and capacity development) military missions in Iraq. IIRC one from 2004-2011ish and one starting around 2018, maybe something in between.
Multiple entities need to act with force in non economic ways that render collective bullying impossible.
Game theory says “gang up now instead of letting your strongest get picked off first and your collective force diminished “
The old “first they came for the xyz but I wasn’t an xyz so I didn’t say anything “ story.
Or surely Ukraine will not be the last victim.
Putin has apparently and obviously thrown all caution and concern for domestic approval etc to the wind. What is his rush? He’s moving quickly. Best to act now.
Nuclear war is a multifaceted weapon, hence the ‘M’ in MAD
it’s not automatic or known what the trigger threshold is for this, and engagement has indeed occurred between nuclear powers is recent times…
Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow. And when you have multiple countries now refusing to take Russia out of SWIFT, which is a relatively benign measure, compared to an all-out war, how confident are you that they will come in your defense in case of an actual war against a nuclear power?
Not anymore. It takes a little bit to organize independently run republics, but once things get rolling…
Also, there was this 1994 accord called the Budapest Memorandum…
Mr P bit off more than he can chew, this time.
There will be more NATO…
Just when we thought it was all getting rather irrelevant and dated…
Nothing like a “master strategist “ to galvanize the entire world against him suddenly when he had a substantial reserve of social capital in the leadup to this…
> > Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” > Yes, sure. But what you're betting on here is that when Sweden says "on three JUMP HIM!", the rest will follow
Which is precisely what NATO provides
Georgia (of which South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part), yes, pretty explicitly. Chechnya is a different and long-running conflict (the Chechen Wars, in terms of their initiation, predate the late 1990s NATO expansion.)
Georgia still wants to join NATO.
The above is Russian goal with or without talk about NATO. The debate about maybe joining NATO sometimes in future might have speed up Russian plans. But Russia objection to Ukraine in NATO is basically "it would made it harder to annex them".
IOW, it was attacked because it wasn't yet a NATO member. You seem to interpret that as "Better never try!", whereas a far more reasonable conclusion AFAICS is "Get it done ASAP!" Of all the countries Putler has so far invaded, exactly zero have so far been NATO members. Never trying to join NATO leaves a country indefinitely belonging to the high-risk group.
If the fricking NATO had got off its butt and accepted Ukraine ASAP after the last time it applied (2008 IIRC), then Ukraine -- including Crimea! -- could have been a member well before 2014. You really think they'd be where they are now if they were a NATO member?
Finland and Sweden should join now while Russia doesn't have the ability to invade (because their forces are busy in Ukraine).
Finland and Sweden should decide themselves what is best, but I only wish the best for both countries and after this I cannot bring myself to believe it couldn't happen again.
The only major benefit Finland has over Ukraine is geography.
Sweden I think is also not to unprepared.
Even Norway (who is a Nato member) seems to be somewhat better prepared than last time there was a dictator on the loose in Europe.
OTOH, Sweden or Finland could probably join more quickly and with less friction if they decided to seek membership, and I can easily see the result of this being pushing Sweden and/or Finland into NATO rather than keeping them out.
It's like me telling my next door neighbor they can't be friends with another neighbor. It's none of my business, and I'd be an asshole for demanding it.
It also places Russia in direct violation of their own agreements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
B) Ukraine isn't much closer to Moscow than Lithuania is (and hugely father away from Leningrad than Estonia is), so this seems irrelevant.
What your neighbours and their friends put on their lawns is none of your business. If it's a lot of stuff usable for defending against arsehole neighbours, maybe in stead of attacking them you should think about what kind of a neighbour you are.
It is not. Russia does not have any say in what alliances other nations choose to join -- apart from the "last argument of kings" of course, and what's scary to me is that there are so many people like you around that seem to have this Clausewitz idea of war being "politics by other means" even in the present day.
Your comment clearly makes excuses for Russia's actions, so no, in your case you are not keeping both of these thoughts in your head.
Would you be so quick to defend the United States in the same manner if they had expressed concerns about Mexico's foreign policies for the past ten years? Or an invasion of an alternate-reality Cuba with a democratically elected government tomorrow?
Anyway, this threat loses a lot of teeth when the reason Ukraine is getting destroyed at the moment is because they are not in NATO.
It is because they are not in NATO and also did not explicitly abandon the aspiration of joining. The threat is intended to get Finland and Sweden to explicitly disclaim any intent of joining NATO (and maybe make binding commitments), not just to get them to not apply.
OTOH, as you note, it also underscores the benefit of getting into NATO and under the umbrella while Russia’s military is committed to Ukraine.
Yes, and no. I think that acceding to Russia’s demands here could have forestalled an invasion for the time being, but would have led to increasing Russian demands to direct policy, backed by threat of force, with even less available outside assistance. Ultimately either invasion or becoming a Russian puppet state would be the end, unless something else altered Russia’s course.
The long game is empire, but close NATO association is an urgent obstacle to the long game.
When Georgia was about to join NATO, Putin seized it. Seems like they are trying the same now.
It's tough for me to empathise with this pathological fear of NATO Putin seems to have.
Russia occupied some parts of Georgia, similar to Ukraine prior to the current general invasion; Georgia remains a NATO partner and aspirant to membership, it hasn't yet been seized by Putin the way he is currently attempting in Ukraine.
The analogy here is, you live in a community and one of your neighbors just lost it completely and is shooting and shelling another neighbor. Not to raise the hostilities...you scream at him he wont be invited anymore for the Christmas party and you will complain about the noise to the gated community administration /s
We're at least at the buildup to it.
The Vietnam War involved at least double the number of involved countries and wasn’t considered a world war.
That was true of WWII, until it wasn't.
If a major power declares war on Russia on Monday, we're in World War III.
The German invasion of Poland tends to be counted as the "start" of ww2, but the militarisation of the Rhineland, annexation of Austria, and invasion of Czechoslovakia all came first on that front. The global reach was due to European colonies abroad (especially in Africa).
The Japanese invasion of China also predated the start of war in Europe, but the Pacific war doesn't count as starting until the attacks on Hawaii, Philipeenes, Malaya/Singapore, Hong Kong etc in 1941.
Perhaps the next move is Sweden+Finland joining Nato (because clearly not being part of Nato is risky). Either way, perhaps then Russia invades the Baltics (or maybe "Belarus" does for deniability?), triggering wars all along the border. Throw in China using the opportunity to attack Taiwan while America is busy elsewhere, North Korea rolling into South Korea, and various local civil wars (probably instigated by China) in South America to distract the US further, then throw a wildcard like Syria taking a pop at Israel, and it rapidly escalates into a World War.
Historians (if any survive) may lump Crimea, Ukraine, and even places like Georgia, as the "pre-war" battles, it's arguable when local wars get enough to be deemed to be a "World War".
It was all a big game of chicken to see if Russia was bluffing
It’s a damn shame what’s happening in Ukraine and I am certainly donating to relief efforts and rooting them on and feeling heartbroken watching the men go off to war but the idea we should put boots on the ground against Russia when our doctrine is still MAD seems nuts to me.
Sadly, getting nukes seems to be the way out of costs of doing anything bad. Pakistan has waged guerilla warfare against its neighbours and got money from US while harboring their enemy, but can't do anything about it, because nukes.
If the rule is "nuclear powers must never fight", then the _only_ possible endgame is one nuclear power threatening all the others until they give up their nuclear weapons. Given that the US has never pursued this strategy, it seems fair to guess they won't in the future.
It seems increasingly likely that Putin believes that no one will ever stand up to him. And even if the West doesn't, it's going to end very badly for Russia when China is the only major world power left to oppose him.
In this case though it is the right choice to make regardless since a Nato country can’t attack Russian forces without risking nuclear war.
Here is Putin with the might of Russia at his disposal, a very different challenge altogether.
As you, i fear that the leaders are not geared towards this kind of conflict at all.
I would consider calling Putins bluff by accepting Finland and Sweden as NATO members. But only if the two countries agrees.
If indeed there is interest, NATO should admit the two in a day or two.
And now there is a new challenge of a very different kind, one that won't go away as easily.
That challenge is what we fear that the leaders are unable to find a good response to.
Yeah, NATO can't involuntarily admit members anyway.
> If indeed there is interest, NATO should admit the two in a day or two.
NATO membership is an active issue in both, but not something on which a political decision has been made.
From correct time: https://youtu.be/JvxqTGrZxwQ?t=64
Partial quote as of time above:
"...The Kremlin objectives are not limited to Ukraine. Russia has demanded legal binding agreements to renounce further NATO enlargement. And remove troops and infrastructure from allies that joined after 1997..."
Yes, but NATO clearly stating that they wouldn't intervene in Ukraine probably made events more predictable. Reducing the risk of escalation, and miscalculation.
Leaving Ukraine to fight on its own wasn't nice. But it's probably best NATO doesn't bluff too much.
Sanctions is probably not a solution, but it's a signal -- well, really it's the only thing that can be done.
Then when Russia is trapped in a continuing guerilla war which is generating huge economic consequences and negative PR at home and abroad, wait for the regime change in Russia to happen spontaneously.
It's a risky strategy given nukes, but not entirely unimaginable as realpolitik.
It's worse than that. Some of them are pro-Russia simply because of their knee jerk reaction to be for whatever the president is against.
Blocking Russia's access to SWIFT would pretty much cut off that gas supply.
There was talk about the Refugee crisis once again showing division and lack of solidarity in the EU. Instead states have opened their borders completely.
If anything, the EU leadership I think looks like it’s showing a very uncharacteristic decisiveness and speed.
Similarly, assets belonging to Putin and his supporters will have been well hidden before this kicked off.
I agree though, the one positive light is the protests and people putting their lives on the line to come out against the invasion.
What would have shown some balls would have been turning off Nord Steam 1. Germans do own woolly sweaters to wear if it's cold in their homes, and Germany does have forests to use for firewood for at least one winter.
I am following the conflict very closely (due to having many friends and relatives on both sides). While there are some videos with what looks like Russian soldiers (some of whom look no older than 18-19, so they're definitely conscripts), I wouldn't say there have been very many of them, and what would you say in a similar situation? "Yes, I was happy to come along to free your country from the 'nazis'", and risk to be taken around the building and shot as you "attempted to escape"?
To be clear, I am 100% behind Ukraine.
I don't think it takes many to cause domestic issues. Generally captured American soldiers, who aren't conscripts, hold the line. There are noteworthy exceptions like John Walker Lindh which caused a lot of controversy domestically. It's worth noting that seeing lots of dead conscript soldiers coming home in coffins helped bring an end to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and there's a serious quagmire risk here for Russia.
> To be clear, I am 100% behind Ukraine.
Same.
If their families and friends get to see them, and if they're actually genuine. As for the first, it's doubtful, given the Russian state media censorship; as for the second, the Russians are of course going to claim that they're all fake, Ukrainian stooges pretending to be Russian soldiers.
And, unfortunately, maybe they -- or at least some of them -- are. Wouldn't you be tempted to try that, if you were forced to fight your war largely on social and mass media, like the Ukrainians are? I think I would. (What speaks against it is the risk of it backfiring, if it's found out. So maybe I wouldn't try it; I don't know.)
Russian economy maybe be ruined for next decade or longer and most likely Putin will be dead or retired by then but he would be looked in Russia as the guy who keep Russia relevant.
Putin is embarrassing US and NATO by destroying Ukraine while they watch helplessly. I have utmost sympathy for Ukraine but where were the angry people when US attacked Iraq?
There were massive protests. I was at one in San Francisco.
At some point other Russians in power will realize that Putin is the cause of their troubles, that's one of the better roads to an acceptable outcome here.
In many cases, calling for George W. Bush and much of the military and diplomatic leadership of the US to be punished for the crime of aggression (initially) and war crimes (based on the conduct of the illegal-from-the-start war).
It seems like things are going completely opposite of the way you describe them.
To address your other point, victory for Putin here is swift regime change in Ukraine, nothing else will serve.
He may have overreached and if he has he will bleed Russia dry within months and be overthrown. Let’s hope so as he is a despicable person and a tyrannical curse on his country.
"On February 15, millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history". There is a whole page on all the protest for that particular topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
But I agree with your skepticism, the world has unfortunately seen plenty of larger wars, mainly we've just had a short peaceful spell lately, and it's an unpleasant shock to stumble into another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/...
presumably they've committed that or more than that to this operation since the navies are involved and it's easier logistically to get to
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infographic-uk...
Afghanistan peak US troops: 102,000 (2011)
Gulf war peak US troops: 700,000 (1990-1991)
Iraq peak US troops: range from 168,000 - 192,000 (2007)
Vietnam peak US troops: 543,000 (1969)
Korea peak US troops: 320,000, unclear what year
edit: obviously, Russia's involvement in Ukraine over the last few days would be by far the biggest operation in Europe since WW2. Just not globally (by a long shot).
I was too young to really get the scale of the first gulf war. Just transporting 700,000 troops seems astounding, let alone keeping them equipped in enemy territory.
TLDR; they're fucking with our collective heads.
If NATO's response isn't "we do what we want, fuck off" they've lost the next war already.
I think the powers that be are the ones who are resisting intervening or even bearing their teeth ~ because in reality, they'd rather just go back to trading with or at least ignoring Russia.
So much so that they'd far sooner appear indecisive and capricious, avoid direct involvement, and have scope to return to the status quo (regardless of the blood being spilled) as quickly as possible, never mind what happens to Ukraine.
Well, at least if enough missiles and/or fighter jets are placed on its soil by NATO countries to effectively close the Baltic Sea in case of war.
Given how narrow Öresund is, I'm fairly sure conventional artillery (not to mention missiles...) could cover the entire strait from the coast of NATO member Denmark. I doubt Sweden would protest too loudly about this incursion on her territorial waters, if she lets the Russian navy do the same first... And even if she does, so what?
What Russia feared was some sort of non-NATO but friendly partnership deal that might see NATO weapons in Ukraine. Actual membership wasn't the issue.
Russia reaction is basically the reaction of anyone cornered, something Sun Tzu warned about, if someone is cornered they will fight back hard because they can't retreat, they can only go forward, through whoever is cornering them.
But:
>>> the amount of NATO weaponry in or near Ukraine.
This was specifically about this conflict.
Ukraine has been bulking up their army with help from various, especially NATO, countries since Russian invaded, conquered, and purportedly annexed a big part of their country in 2014 (and assisted with the occupation by anti-government forces of other parts) and they didn't have the capacity for meaningful, much less successful, resistance.
The Ukrainian military buildup was a situation of Russia’s own making.
From memory, in total, western airforces had to block Russian fighters entering their sovereign territory 240 times in 2021. French fighters were sent several times to stop Russian fighters in the English Channel, e.g. 2000 km from their base.
Then you can add Russia submarines nosing around, spy vessels desguised as fishing vessels going close to points of military interests (for example, when one of the 6 French nuclear submarines dive from its base nearby Brest on the Atlantic Ocean, tens of French fishing vessels are invited to circle around to mask the submarine noise. Every time, there are Russian fish vessels popping up that very day.
In the last decade, Russia has been testing our detection capacities, speed of reaction, going as far as receiving summation fires from Western fighters.
Russia has been in an aggressive attitude for at leat the past decade. That must stop.
I think Sweden should join NATO. Finland is a more complicated case, since they already have a specific agreement with Russia and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo.
What, do you mean the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948[1]? That ended in 1992, and "[w]hen in January 1992 the new Treaty of Friendship was complemented by the exchange of notes terminating the 1948 treaty, the last remnant of restrictions on an independent Finnish foreign policy were formally removed."[2]
> and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo.
I doubt it.[3] The Finns have been vulnerable to Russia before, and know how to hold a grudge. A majority[4] is for membership now.
On Friday the fifth of March (I think it was), the Eduskunta -- the Finnish Parliament -- debated NATO membership. And not one, but two Citizens' Initiatives that have each gathered enough signatures to make (further?) parliamentary discussion mandatory.
___
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20181125193537/https://www.forei...
[3]: Source: Personal experience; lived here for 27 years now.
If you're "cornered" because your neighbours feel a need to defend themselves from your aggression, the problem isn't with them but with you.
IMO, because this is how all of Putin's propaganda has framed it. NATO is some big bully ("Nazi") that keeps "aggressing" by letting sovereign countries liberalize and freely associate with the West. The shameless destruction of Ukraine is right in line with the authoritarian autocrats's imperative - turn the place into a burnt out shithole so it can be better ruled over, and so that reactionary survival values become relevant again.
The fate of Ukraine is (regrettably) solely in the hands of the Ukrainians at this point, but Russia's crass action is also an attack on the ethos of our Western society - cooperation, openness, democracy, and the rule of law - however flawed they end up being. I would say that Putin's chest thumping at other countries is just intended to make the western world feel relieved when only Ukraine gets conquered, but I feel that's coming from the same optimistic-rational place as the idea that there wasn't going to be a full scale invasion in the first place.
Yes and no: It's true for now, but it will turn out to have been optimistic when he takes the next one[1].
Wonder how long the West is going to go on falling for it? Until he dies of natural causes, at far too high an age[2], or well beyond -- when an equally Stalinesque / Hitleresque successor is firmly ensconced and keeps on doing it?
___
[1]: And the next, and the next, and...
[2]: That is, anything above about fifty.
Demands by Russia were disingenuous, because they would never have been honored. And I doubt honoring them wouldn't have stopped anything.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that Russia thought that Ukraine was anywhere near joining NATO.
Or the more likely explanation is that this threat makes it less likely NATO would accept them.
Attacking NATO will mean his removal from power, most likely by someone within his own ranks.
If Sweden or Finland wants in, then NATO should comply as fast as possible.
However, if I was quite sure nobody would sent troops to Ukraine, Sweden sounds very close to my French ears. Finland is more difficult to defend but the Southern part of Sweden, the most inhabited, is close enough to project troops rapidly.
The USA would also be able to send fighters and bombers from the Thule airbase to bomb troups on the northern part of Sweden, as well as English airforce from Scotland. Other smaller airforces from Norway, Belgium, etc will help avoiding air superiority to Russia.
The USA, the UK and France would deploy their fleet with their aircraft carriers.
Furthermore, my feeling is that France and the UK would send troops to Sweden.
Germany would provide at least transport and material support as it did in previous cases (first war against Iraq, current anti-djihadist operations in Sahel). Germany avoid sending troops abroad but discreetly enables France and the USA for example with support.
The public opinions of at least those three countries would be strong against Russia now that Putin's intentions have been revealed.
Southern countries of EU would react too, at minimum by blocking access to the Atlantic through the Mediterranean sea, as well as support of all kinds.
I don't feel being culturally close to Ukraine. Attacking Sweden is just a direct attack to the West. I feel closer to Sweden than to the Baltic states.
Not that I don't support Ukraine 100% against Russia. I don't know if France is secretly sending large amounts of weapons to Ukraine. I wish we were but I doubt it - Macron always sides with big corporate's interests and French are the first investors in Russia. Germany also tends to put business first towards Russia.
But Sweden is different. It's the West. Finland has its own strategy towards Russia. If Sweden ask.for help, I don't see western countries react as they do these days with Ukraine (eg ineffective economic sanctions). I think it would have been the same before Ukraine's invasion but because of it, my opinion is that we would send troops. Even I would enlist (boy, I'd need training just to get in shape and learn to shoot - so I'd probably be put somewhere at the supply chain or driving some truck.
Ok.
> However, if I was quite sure nobody would sent troops to Ukraine, Sweden sounds very close to my French ears.
It isn't.
Poland is.
> Finland is more difficult to defend but the Southern part of Sweden, the most inhabited, is close enough to project troops rapidly.
Yes, through Kaliningrad, but Sweden is amongst friends on all sides and Kaliningrad is an enclave that is relatively vulnerable and if it is used as an offensive base then it will be fair game. There is another, much longer and more vulnerable route through the strait between Finland and Estonia, I don't see that one working or working for long if Sweden and Finland would come under attack by Russia. Besides the obvious problems for Russia to operate on multiple fronts. The Northern route is vulnerable and extremely long, there is hardly any infrastructure there.
> The USA would also be able to send fighters and bombers from the Thule airbase to bomb troups on the northern part of Sweden, as well as English airforce from Scotland. Other smaller airforces from Norway, Belgium, etc will help avoiding air superiority to Russia.
This all depends on what Russia intends to do, which nobody really knows. I see only very few realistic options: they are bluffing, or they are utterly deranged. Assuming the latter, all bets are off, Putin might skip all of the preliminaries and drop a nuke on Stockholm, knowing that there is no way they are going to hold territory there to begin with. This would be an escalation the likes of which defies rational thought.
I have family in Latvia, Poland and Romania, and know people from both Russia and Ukraine. This whole conflict is extremely stressful, I've seen it coming for years and have already acted on that and it pisses me off that we have not done more to deal with Russia when the time was right.
As for Finland and their defense: Finland is armed to teeth, has a very capable military and the Soviets have never really left Finland after World War II, which is the Finnish way of reminding the Soviets that if they invade they run a good chance of becoming a permanent fixture on Finnish soil.
They didn't win but they made it pretty costly, and Finland never forgot that lesson.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
NATO is trans continental.
Nobody would bound by a public alliance to help them.
We don't know if secret agreements exists? But I guess such agreements would be easier to not honor.
And just because NATO isn't required to intervene, that's not the same as they wouldn't.
In theory it's a bit like Ukraine, except Finland and Sweden are less corrupt, more wealthy, etc.
I guess some topics aren’t great to discuss on HN.
If you don't even believe that the EU would defend its own territory, well, you are just simply insane.
The Netherlands had a full battalion protecting a Bosnian enclave and let 7000 men be killed in front of their eyes. The Dutch government was not willing to order an air strike to protect their own troops.
Unless it's NATO, I guarantee you, nothing will be done. They are not even willing to cut gas import from Russia....
Finland is unique as it has historically been both Swedish and Russian territory, and borders both, but it is still nowhere near as ambiguous as Ukraine. There will be no breakaway provinces in Finland like Donetsk and Luhansk, there was no mass movement of Russian nationals to Finland during Soviet times as there was throughout the Soviet union. There is very little footing for Russian sentiment in Finland, and Finnish culture is at its core defined by the atrocities committed in the Civil War following the fall of the Tzar, and later the Winter War and Continuation Wars with the Soviet Union. Wars with Russia is part of Finnish DNA. It is just a completely different situation to what goes on in the former east bloc.
Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
>7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
http://euromil.org/france-invoked-mutual-defence-clause-for-...
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/defence-security...
It's like a European version of 1860 in the US.
As an American, I'd be (emotionally, but not rationally) glad to just put an end to 100 years of Russian aggression, mostly because I'm a child of the cold war and do not want to go back to that existence. But this lies on Russia's neighbors first. EU countries need to lead the way here.
"[Russia] has long history of imperialism and anti-democratic actions. Any sane country knows that only safe way is to have reasonable buffer zone against such well known aggressor."
Russia borders with nato at multiple places. It should leave those places and create buffer. After all, Russia ia the more aggressive one.
Poland joined in 1999, and generally speaking all of the eastern European nations that joined were after 1997.
A while back, our company hired a difficult to cope with person. There was some social awkwardness. And some performance issues. It's a good sized disciplinary group, but his assigned tasks were most similar to mine. Guess who became the "buffer zone"? Me. It was the worst. When things finally spilled over, there was a larger meeting where issues were finally recognized. I expressed my bitter sweet gladness thusly: "I can't tell you guys how wonderful it feels to no longer have this be my burden and my burden alone. It is such a relief. On the flip side though, why the F** didn't this meeting happen 2 years ago?!?!? I could have laid this all out for you then, but I guess it wasn't bothering you yet, was it?"
I've seen this behavior in church youth groups I've worked with over the years. There's an odd-hard-to-cope with person. The group pushes back against maladaptive behavior. The troubled youth connects with one of the normal kids. And then that kid gets asked to be the problem child's "buddy". And the rest of the group abandons the buddy to suffer it alone.
I volunteered at our state penitentiary for a couple of years. It was interesting experience. On the outside, I would hear "tough on crime" and "three strikes and you're out" and "those people". On the inside... it was complicated, and a different story. A couple of truly evil people, mostly surrounded by people who grew up in crappy situations, were in the wrong place at the right time, and a whole lot of iffy mental health. Same thing. As long as it was somebody else's problem, the "rest of society" could have a happy existence.
Maybe I'm seeing too many similarities where I shouldn't, but I find the whole notion of a "buffer zone" a poli-sci euphemism for "somebody else should have a shitty life so we don't have to".
Buffer zone in this context means Russia doesn't want US missiles and nuclear bombers with a 5 minute flight time to Moscow.
So you think it's OK for Russia to invade the (NATO member) Baltic countries, then?
The Serbians I have talked to regarding the war with Ukraine seem to be very neutral, beginning any discussion with a criticism of NATO rather than a criticism of Russia for invading a neighbor.
The historical narrative that has been told people of my age for much of their formative years is the above. Basically, Russia has been a thorn in Western World's side since the communist revolution, with leaders like Stalin and followers. Prior to that, despite some really bad czars, the rest of the world doesn't care too much.
So people like me, are sort of conditioned to have negative feelings about Russia on the world stage. That's the "emotional" part of it.
The rational part of me is able see that there's a lot of interesting dynamics. That Russian people are just as much people as I am too. That my own country has a history for the last 100 years that when seen from the outside is also none too proud of a story to tell.
Edit: really don’t want to sound ignorant here, just that while growing up and traveling around Central Europe there was a strong belief that we‘re all in the same boat and I even remember maps showing all countries (except Switzerland) in shades of „blue“ but … I never looked more deeply into that - until now
https://www.mappr.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/image-1.jpeg
Being part of NATO make it automatic. But Sweden would just have to ask for help.
At first news of invasion, the USA, the UK, France (e.g. 3 nuclear powers) and most other EU countries will start prepare, awaiting for the Sweden to call.
Fighters would be up in the air, patrolling along Sweden territory, ready to act immediately.
Anyway, that won't happen soon. The Ukraine war is far from over ; it's likely to turn into a guerilla with money and weapons provided by the West. Ukrainians will come and be trained to guerilla warfare by the Eu countries and Russia will bleed.
As large as the Russian army is, it can't control a rebellious country of 50M people. Some Ukrainians will join the Russians for sure, and most of the population will turn a blind eye, enabling the guerilla. The more the Russians react by punishing civilians trough indiscriminate shootings or mailings, the more recruits will join the guerrilla.
This is going to be bloody for both sides. Ukrainians have tasted enough democracy and freedom for long enough to go back to an authoritian regime like Putin's or a dictatorship like Belarus.
This could cause Putin to turn into an overt dictator in its own country. It will work for a while. And then he'll fall. That will be painful for all the peoples concerned: Ukraine, Belarus, Russia.
Article 5 was invoked once, for September 11th. I don't have too much problem with that in principle (although worth noting that other NATO countries don't invoke it when foreign terrorists attacked their cities).
The only country I don't think would respond to an Article 5 invocation from a Russian invasion would be Turkey.
I think that you misunderstood their relationship. It is less 'billionaires backing him' and more 'billionares who are obedient to him, so they do not end with poisoned briefs'.
And if he is not sane, then it would be equally insane for the west to keep giving into his demands, given that we cannot then expect him to stop making them at any foreseeable point.
No one "wants" WW3, much like no one "wanted" WW2 or WW1. But history has proven time and time again that simply backing away doesn't _necessarily_ reduce the chances that the war will occur.
I am very, very curious how this is causing western intelligence agencies to update their analyses of Putin's psyche.
Given that the CIA predicted this back in 2008 I would image there would be no change to their assessment.
So, exactly like now, then.
> So even without weapons they’ll be safe.
Yeah, because the ongoing war is such a shining example of how safe it is to be a defenseless neighbour to Russia.
Not being in NATO didn't save Ukraine. Letting Putin have Finland in order to avoid all-out war should not be an option for us.
To me, this feels a lot like Donetsk was Sudetenland, and the rest of Ukraine is the rest of Czechoslovakia. We need to not let Finland be Poland, where we declare war but just ineffectively do nothing. What we should be doing now is gearing up to defend the entire front, and helping Finland prepare as strongly as possible. Don't believe that it's going to be "peace in our time" after Ukraine. It won't be.
Then someone might respond: but Putin is clearly insane and could start a nuclear war over such an act. Well, in that case what move can you even make? I mean if the opponent is clinically insane then every move you make could trigger a nuclear war.
A super fast process would be perhaps a year, even if the NATO end of that process would be one minute.
You’d almost wish there was a temporary membership that could be used e.g for 2 years while the politics is sorted, without delaying the security guarantee. If we vote no, we leave again. But imagine the amount of Russian meddling in a Swedish or Finnish NATO referendum…
there is a global agenda behind all this tragic story
This clearly calls for an economic sanction against <some random guy that brushed elbows with Putin once>.
And now China is getting in the mood for some exercises. Around Taiwan. Gotta get fit for that hot summer that is coming. But that is nothing that some demonstration on the street, little bit of sanctions here and there can't avert, right?
WW2 also started like that. Someone took some land, others didn't do jack shit about it. Then it escalated and everyone was at it. But without nukes as they were yet to be invented, shortly after.
The only option, better done now than later is to ready, arm and prepare all our nuclear warheads, point them at Moscow, and then send our forces into Ukraine, repelling the Russians. If Russia fires a nuke, we let it all go.
I'm prepared to head to the army recruiter today if we do this, the right thing. In that event, I hope the rest of my countrymen choose to join me. I wish Russia could've been integrated with the west long ago, and I think the only other way to prevent this conflict was to station NATO troops in Ukraine. The ship has sailed on both fronts. The only options are to fight now, or fight later.
God bless the heroes of Ukraine. I hope we, myself included, are there soon.
NATO is _already_ in a tough spot, many countries will fail the 2% spending on defense requirement (though I'm sure Russia is making them reconsider). We can't just be throwing NATO's guarantees around to countries who didn't make it into the alliance yet.
NATO is an alliance, and a defensive alliance at that. The line is literally drawn at Poland and Romania right now. We are debating if that line should include Finland and Sweden.
-------
There are several requirements to join NATO:
1. The country must want to be part of NATO (and neither Finland nor Sweden wanted to join until recently).
2. The entire rest of NATO must accept them.
3. A few other things, but #1 and #2 are probably the most important. If we get those two things figured out, everything else is cake.
----
That being said: support to Ukraine economically and militarily (military aid) is still on the table and looks like its happening. Ukraine will fight its own war, but they can use our weapons while doing so.
That was enough for France when it helped USA during the 1700s Revolutionary war, and the USA certainly remembers France's help in those troubling times. The "Arsenal of Democracy" approach. We likely will offer that to Finland / Sweden if they get attacked by Russia before they join NATO as well.
But getting our blood directly involved in other people's wars is still a very difficult prospect. USA shouldn't overcommit, nor should NATO.
Going tit for tat on details of NATO and hand-wringing as I take it you are doing, is a point we are far beyond now. It's something I'd expect from a bureaucrat. Vladimir Putin is an evil man, that must be recognized and his soldiers have to be met on the battlefield today. They have to be repelled, and Putin brought to his knees, or we're going to be in a much larger mess down the road.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
USA is 100% employing the old "Arsenal of Democracy" strategy. We're shipping huge amounts of weapons over to Ukraine. Just last January, we sent something like $200-million in weapons (largely Javelin missiles, which are clearly blowing up Russian tanks in pretty good numbers). That's January alone.
There's different steps and different grades to the aid we can give to other countries. We shouldn't reach for the most extreme action immediately, we need to choose the right level of "Grayness", the right level of aid for each situation.
Ukraine is in luck: Poland is an immediate neighbor to the west and Poland is a NATO ally. That means we actually have a physical ability to bring in those weapon supplies, and a logical basis to base our operations out of.
-------
> This is Hitler in Czechoslovakia.
If we put this on WW2 terms: USA only started sending military equipment to UK after France fell. For us to already be openly arming a nominally neutral party like Ukraine is already a steep escalation in terms of historical terms.
USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.
The "Arsenal of Democracy" speech by Roosevelt wasn't until December 1940, months AFTER the fall of France.
It does sound like we both want success for Ukraine here. I just don't believe that anything but full-on measures will be enough. I think it's wishful thinking. Putin is clearly the bully at school that you either punched in the nose, or you didn't. If you didn't, you're likely still getting bullied to this day. They prey on weakness. The west is weak, and this is our moment to put our money where our mouth is on defending freedom.
>USA originally did nothing as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Austra, Poland, and even France.
That's the problem. We already learned what happens next.
No. You missed the lesson.
USA is largely a peaceful nation that's many thousands of miles away from this conflict. It takes an incredible amount of evil before the US people are roused into action.
The US people in 1939 or 1940 weren't ignorant. Even as Hitler rose and took over large swaths of Europe, the US citizen was not roused into action. It still took significant amounts of political pressure / propaganda to get people to agree with the Arsenal of Democracy approach after the fall of France.
-------
EDIT: Those troubles are still with us today. We are still a nation very far away and seen as outsiders to the countries we visit. No one wants the USA to half-ass a war, that's how you get Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam.
Rousing the people to action is an incredibly important part of sending troops. If the people don't support the actions, the troops fight with less morale and less justice in their hearts.
The NATO process holds power. I do believe that if a NATO ally is attacked, the US people will rise up and truly move to defend our allies. You can't trigger that prematurely or artificially.
Fair enough. Which is why the world stood with you after 9/11. And this is a far larger event.
In 1939, the nation was weary of being involved with European wars, having just finished one 20 years prior. My family fought in both of them. My grandfather (RIP) had scars up and down his body from German gunfire. My great grandfather, who was a grandchild of Germany himself, fought in the French trenches before him. I'm a descendent of the people of 1939 USA, we did learn and we changed. I'm the product.
Further, I think I am taking the lesson correctly. It's not about the "wisdom of the masses" (which I do not believe in) as you suggest, but rather doing the right thing as soon as possible. We made a mistake in 1939, I believe the people of the US today are a proud and noble people, unafraid of self-sacrifice and doing the right thing for humanity and world peace.
Hitler nearly won. I've never seen a more worthy time to commit our lives to a cause than today, at least in the course of my life.
This is a once in a lifetime calling of our conscience that we have to answer. We'll be answering it anyway, on less favorable terms later on.
- NATO could ensure a supply train for material coming from Poland and Romania: all Ukrainian forces need to do is hold a corridor from Poland/Romania to Lviv.
- NATO could share intelligence and strategic advice to aid the Ukrainian forces’ ability to respond (I believe this is already happening)
- if the war bogs down while Russian troops hold onto say a large area east of Kyiv, then NATO could use the “impregnable state border” to provide troop training and re-supply from inside the Polish border, or in an area just over the border in Ukraine.
- NATO could train Ukrainian pilots in Poland, and allow Ukrainian planes to be based out of a NATO air field (and could even supply those pilots with NATO planes, missiles, fuel, etc), similar to how Germany allowed the US to use bases on German soil to launch attacks on Iraq.
The last option seems unlikely (it’s probably close enough to joining in the fight with your own personnel that Putin would respond accordingly). But it is still something that could be done, would help Ukraine wage war, and wouldn’t technically involve NATO troops fighting within Ukraine.
I agree with your assessment, and have changed my mind. I believe what the article suggests. That President Biden has actually handled this situation perfectly thus far, is the most correct analysis. Allowing Putin to turn this into the US vs Russia is the worst case scenario. He'd love that. Today? He's getting absolutely pummeled. I won't be surprised if the Russian people don't end up hanging him.
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/how-the-we...
Just to make clear: I'm definitely not in favor of the current invasion.
Yes, that's what that's called.
"whatabout" doesn't justify anything else. But I'll play.
In both cases, there was a broad coalition. Troops didn't start an invasion without clear demands. Russia lied about their demands, said their troop deployment was for exercises. Until recently they maintained they weren't going to invade.
Say what you want about Iraq and Afghanistan, but the intention of the coalition forces was clear.
It's also worth noting that:
(1) Afghanistan was self-defense, perhaps an overreaction (that can be debated).
(2) An American president actually admitted that Iraq was a mistake. Did it take 6 years for Obama to get elected.
To be clear I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan wars were completely justified (or good ideas). But there was plenty of diplomacy around it (all diplomatic attempts by Russia in Ukraine have been disingenuous). Russia didn't threaten the coalition forces with sanctions prior to the invasion.
> There's a lot of comments about how outrageous the lack of a harsher response (in particular the lack of military action) from the west/NATO/USA is.
There would probably be more outrage, if there was an intervention :D
I'm certainly not arguing that it would wise for NATO to intervene.
Also so what if they admitted it was a mistake in iraq? If putin admits ukraine was a mistake in 5 years is everything okay and we can just not be allowed to bring that event up again? The complete destabilization that war caused isn't just something you can dismiss because they said oopsie (not even apologizing). Calling the american diplomacy efforts in 2003 not disingenuous is just completely flat out wrong. It was probably even more dishonest than what putin has been doing, with fake leaks to the media and moving goalposts to assure an invasion will inevitably happen. Bush wanted the iraq war and to topple saddam no matter what concession he was willing to make
Again, no need to even compare the events and I get you don't fully approve of the wars but the justification for the 2 wars is swinging way way too far into american apologism.
Aha, so Bin Laden and Al Qaeda weren't hiding in Afghanistan?
(1) according to Russia (Russian perspective) I'm pretty sure the US (or for that matter Ukraine) is harboring terrorists as well. Now, I'm not fully knowledgeable about all the details in Afghanistan, and sure, the Talibans doesn't seem to be optimal (but neither does the Ukrainian leadership/political situation - it's one of the most corrupt country in Europe?), but aren't there a lot of similarities? What are the significant differences that justified killing (directly or indirectly) many tens of thousands and messing up a country for 20 years, that still makes it valid to have outrage for the current situation? I'm genuinely curious!
(2) I think the other comment put it best. Bush and co lied about the situation (there being WMDs). And is it OK now if Putin regrets his invasion 2028?
PS You do have a good point about there probably being more outrage if there was an intervention!
We are more enlightened than we were 20 years ago. Just to mention one. (Also lots of people weren't in favor of Iraq of Afghanistan)
More importantly even if the US did overreact or oversell the justification for it's wars. The US didn't act alone, nor were they anywhere near as dishonest as Russia have been.
It appears to me that Russia purposefully made diplomatic solutions impossible.
> (2) I think the other comment put it best. Bush and co lied about the situation (there being WMDs). And is it OK now if Putin regrets his invasion 2028?
He had 8 years to regret the invasion he made in 2014, right?
But no -- it's not okay now.. but if in 8 years Putin comes out says it was wrong, I'll give him more credibility afterwards.