Sweden to Apply for NATO Membership
svt.se
svt.se
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Something along the lines of please do English articles unless you absolutely can't?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/14/europe/sweden-finland-nato-ne...
https://www.deepl.com/translator works best for me.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=sv&tl=en&text=https%3A%2F%2...
Another article on the matter. I was in the same boat as you, friend.
1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine;
2. Failed to capture Kyiv;
3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass;
4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership;
5. Suffered huge casulaties;
6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project);
7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the last 20 years when previous to this, there wasn't a lot as much fervour for NATO;
8. Prompted Finland and Sweden to join NATO when previously they were happy being neutral;
9. Russia is now subject to broad sanctions where previously Europe was looking to increase gas dependence on Russia (eg Nord Stream 2).
So Putin has quite literally achieved nothing. A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade.
The question now is what is Putin's state of mind? Is he aware of the true position (as in, is he getting accurate assessments and intelligence or just "yes men")? Does he still think he can "win"? What does "winning" even look like now? A rational person would be looking for a face-saving exit (think "mission accomplished"). I thought that might be occupying the Donbass and negotiating for some autonomy for the region but even that is starting to look out of reach.
My concern is that someone cornered like this after making such a huge gamble at terrible cost is capable of doing something even more awful.
Even if Russians, by some miracle, manage to pry Putin out of power, what then? Will anyone trust any of their leadership?
The level of sanctions on Russia is AFAIK unprecedented on a global scale, it's only been months and regular people are already feeling the effects. And if the sanctions go on for a few years, they'll be at Soviet Russia levels of living.
The only way that could happen is with some Germany post-WW2 level consequences and reckoning. All high level military, intelligence, civilian administration get one way tickets to The Hague for trial, with mandatory permanent exile for those not guilty of crimes. Full demilitarisation. Heavy economic sanctions for the rebuilding of Ukraine, and then Russia itself with loans
The Ruble is the world's top growing currency this year. The analysts seem to believe that it won't stay on top but that's certainly a positive note for Russia.
It is no fluke. You can't pin it on one "madman". It's as if the majority Russian people in Russia genuinely think they should control the land and people that is Ukraine. It's not all people. There are anti-war protests, millions of people have left Russia, and there are dissidents.
To somehow recover from this, it would require some deep reflection on what Russia really is, and what is its role in humanity. I'm afraid it will take some drastic events before people are able to question themselves to that level. It would begin with the philosophers and poets.
I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this since 2008 (when Bush opened the door to Ukraine joining NATO).
Why do I find this more believable? Because it's exactly what imperial powers do. It's exactly what the United States has done. The US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. The US for 200 years (ie the Monroe Doctrine) has considered the Americas the sole province of the US and any foreign military to be a threat.
China does this too. Mongolia is a buffer to Russia. North Korea is a buffer to South Korea (and the significant US military presence there).
For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).
Russian state TV is awash with pundits who are asserting the Russian empire should be re-created in Ukraine and the Baltics, and that Ukrainians are subhuman. There’s plenty of reason to believe Putin wants his empire.
A lot of people don't realize how much smaller the 21st century great power militaries are in pure manpower terms than the Cold War era, even for the US [2].
Additionally history is a huge factor here. Ukraine came under Soviet control as a consequence of the Russian Empire and this type of imperialism that had been rampant in human history up to this point largely died with World War Two and the onset of the nuclear age. European powers lost their remaining colonies (mostly) in the years following WWII.
The US has quite famously lost every war they've been in since 1945.
Ukraine as part of the USSR was really a vestige of a bygone era combined with a totalitarian government and a way stronger military than, say, exists now in Russia.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces
[2]: https://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1...
Ukraine was not even close to joining NATO, despite all declarations (moreover, Russia firmly prevented it by orchestrating the War in Donbas). With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that? It was never about NATO. Look at the origins of the Russian-Ukrainian War (it wasn't just 2013, the cracks started as early as 2004). Moscow always had a distorted view of the Ukrainian history and its sovereignty as an independent nation (despite signing treaties and agreements recognizing it).
> For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).
This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion, thinking that if the Ukrainian government gets decapitated, the majority of the Ukrainian population would not resist and cooperate. Kremlin massively miscalculated because they started believing their own propaganda and their intelligence would feed the dictator with the information he wanted to hear rather than reality.
My suspicion is you're viewing the US as a benign hegemony. The problem with this thinking is it makes it harder to see things from the other side, namely that another foreign power might reasonably perceive "benign" actions as hotile.
This is especially true of NATO, which was founded on the idea of screwing the USSR (quite literally). Well the USSR doesn't exist anymore yet NATO persists. Russia has to view that as aggressive especially with continued expansion. The standard response here is that NATO is a defensive alliance, which is complete BS (eg Libya, Kosovo, basing nuclear weapons capable of hitting Moscow in Turkey).
> Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"?
Because there are advantages to being neutral. You can't get roped into a war you didn't consent to. The great powers that border you tend to be happier with your neutrality than picking sides. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland are all countries in Europe who have policies of neutrality. A neutral state between great powers is by definition a buffer state.
And like I said, the US does exactly the same thing. Do you think the US would idly sit by if Mexico and Canada decided to join a military alliance with China and allow China to build forward operating bases along the US border? There's absolutely no shot.
So why if the US would never allow Chinese military bases on its border should the US be surprised that Russia would have the exact same objection?
> Why do you think somebody should have a right to constrain their sovereignty?
Because joining NATO requires mutual consent. No country has a right to join if NATO declines and NATO does have a right to decline. Germany in particular has indicated they had no intention of allowing Ukraine to join NATO for pretty much exactly the reasons we're seeing now.
> With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that?
That's my point: this has been a massive miscalculation by Putin. But not all borders are created equal. Geography matters. A border with Ukraine is of more strategic threat than a border with Finland just because most of Ukraine is flat.
> This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion
My sense is they trid to decapitate Ukraine's leadership and pave the way for a pro-Russian regime. This was a massive miscalculation. TListen to anyone who knows anything about the military and you'll find estimates that Russia would probably need over 400,000 soldiers to occupy Ukraine. They don't have that. They couldn't afford it if they did.
You talk about technicalities, but you ignore the key point here: these countries saw NATO membership being vital for their national security.
> My suspicion is you're viewing the US as a benign hegemony. The problem with this thinking is it makes it harder to see things from the other side, namely that another foreign power might reasonably perceive "benign" actions as hotile.
Perhaps it isn't, but it is benign for those countries who want to join (or joined) NATO. So, what is wrong with that?
> This is especially true of NATO, which was founded on the idea of screwing the USSR (quite literally). Well the USSR doesn't exist anymore yet NATO persists. Russia has to view that as aggressive especially with continued expansion.
If Russia would not be a dictatorship which threatens its neighbours, if it wouldn't demonstrate aggressive and coercive behaviour, then perhaps there would be no need for NATO. However, Russia did everything it possibly can to ruin its relationship with most neighbours and gave them every reason to join the military alliance. Now they blame NATO for it?
> Because there are advantages to being neutral. You can't get roped into a war you didn't consent to.
This is just absolutely not true. Baltic States were neutral before the World War II. They were invaded and occupied by Soviet Russia (and briefly by Nazi Germany). Neutrality does not guarantee sovereignty. Moreover, smaller countries which are close to large countries might simply not have numbers to resist a large aggressive neighbour. In such case, military alliances are their only option.
> Because joining NATO requires mutual consent.
Huh? I am talking about a third country. Why should a third country, especially a potential aggressor, have a right to veto the membership? It is a matter of NATO and the applicant country.
> That's my point: this has been a massive miscalculation by Putin. But not all borders are created equal. Geography matters. A border with Ukraine is of more strategic threat than a border with Finland just because most of Ukraine is flat.
Saint Petersburg will be about 100 km from the NATO border. Yet Ukraine is nearly 500 km away from Moscow. It just doesn't add up.
> My sense is they trid to decapitate Ukraine's leadership and pave the way for a pro-Russian regime. This was a massive miscalculation.
We are in agreement on this. Militarily they just didn't even have the right numbers (let alone other spectacular failures), yet Russians still opened wide fronts and went after the capital Kyiv.
This was a real eye-opener for me, and reminds me of a (probably Dutch) expression: A fox loses its hair but not its tricks.
Finland had managed to be both part of Russian Empire, Sweden and hell a lot of other adventures in that huge period. That's like all the way back to Kievan Rus.
If he achieved "nothing" that would infact be preferable for Russia to the state they are in now. What he did is an equivalent of the manager of your team pulling a couple of all nighters over the weekend to do a "hero-refactor" on your codebase for "improvements" and then deploying it into production only for everyone to discover that the "improved" code has massive performance regressions, worse user experience and is harder to maintain... worse it can't be rolled back easily and the process of rolling it back will be slow and annoying, that is if the manager who made those changes even admits that it should be rolled back in the first place.
There is indeed a risk of Kremlin using the tactical nuclear weapons. The United States needs to have a very robust strategy for such possibility. However, such use cannot be left without a response. Most likely it would be a military response. No response would set a catastrophic precedent, as it would invite the use of nuclear weapons in pretty much any conflict which involves a nuclear power. Just think about South China Sea, Kashmir conflict, etc. It would also lead to an era of nuclear proliferation, as weaker states would see no other option than to obtain nukes.
I think even the nutcases in Kremlin (or at least the Russian Armed Forces) understand that there would be an unprecedented response.
The conservative estimate was that the ruble would plunge about 30% as a result of the war. It's now bizarrely higher than its been in 5 years.
I dont remember anybody foreseeing that. Zero. Not one analyst. Ive only heard retrospective justifications for why it happened which any idiot can come up with.
I definitely cant believe Russia is coming out of this unscathed but economic predictions are a crapshoot at the best of times and these are very much uncharted territories.
This indicator shot up in the exact opposite direction all western commentators said it would.
Id be interested in economic commentary by anybody who predicted this or even said it was a possibility but Im profoundly disinterested in economic commentary from people who were completely blindsided by it and are now scrambling to offer posthoc rationalizations. These are not thinkers they are sheep.
Im also really skeptical of the position that its an irrelevant economic indicator only when it goes in the opposite direction you expect it to. Everybody was saying the exact opposite when the ruble was plunging.
The other side: The ruble is up. This is indeed strange, and no one really foresaw this result. Explanations range from Putin has chosen to prop it up at the expense of other indicators to gaz trades are still high, and availability on foreign markets of rubles has dropped sharply.
Your side: Putin has shown economic muscle that no one expected he would have. There are definitely eggs on the face of the western analysts.
I don't see how both points are incompatible.
1. Control over the value 2. Control over inflation 3. Free trade
Russia has chosen to just go for one of the trifecta, and have lost all trade and has skyrocketing inflation - but manages to keep the ruble trading high for propaganda purposes as it's seen as the "quick way to measure" an economy.
So, inflation is a bit higher than in the west but it is not runaway for us or them...yet.
It appears more as if this is due to the balance of payments. Imports are down due to sanctions while exports of gas/oil by value are up. Hence higher ruble.
It makes sense (in retrospect; I am certainly not an analyst who predicted this beforehand).
Right now, it is more or less impossible for any Russian to a) use the dollar to buy anything from outside Russia, and b) travel outside Russia to buy anything in the first place. That greatly reduces the demand for exchanging rubles for dollars, whether via official or unofficial means.
Consider Argentina, a country that for years has had its own serious economic issues. A huge skew between the official and black-market exchange rate for hard currency, such as in Argentina (the "dolar azul"), exists because a) there are capital controls but b) it's still possible to use those dollars/Euro/Swiss franc/whatever. Argentineans are free to use the US dollar to buy things, both inside and outside Argentina. This doesn't apply to Russians.
You wrote elsewhere:
>Im also really skeptical of the position that its an irrelevant economic indicator only when it goes in the opposite direction you expect it to. Everybody was saying the exact opposite when the ruble was plunging.
Agreed. It seems like Western analysts were completely wrong on both Russia's military strength versus Ukraine's, and the impact of Western sanctions on the Russian economy.
[1] - https://www.economist.com/europe/it-will-be-hard-for-ukraine...
But this theory has a few problems.
1. The cost of wrecking Ukraine has been really high.
2. Ukraine was earning a significant amount of money (ie billions) from carrying Russian natural gas to Western Europe through pipelines. Russia has since built other pipelines to avoid this problem but I believe they were still 1-2 years away from completely bypassing Ukraine;
3. Arguably Russiaa can do more damage outside or Ukraine than in it. Russia has been stirring up trouble and supplying separatists in the Donbass since at least 2014. In some ways annexing the Donbass would solve a problem for Ukraine as they'd no longer have this divisive element within their borders. It's arguably more of a problem for Ukraine for the Donbass to be part of Ukraine and this required no further intervention from Russia and certainly no invasion.
Europe is finally, for real (albeit slowly and painfully), moving away from the Rusian fossil fuels this time. It will take some time, but it's a tectonic shift.
Those are positive, not normative analyses. The real question is what do we do about it. And I can't help but think that if it is more or less inevitable that he will use nukes before losing the war, and the only reason he hasn't used them yet is because of situational timing, then the approach that stands out to me is that we're in a better position to attack him now than we would be when he thinks the timing is right to blow up the world.
It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? If they folded, Russia could have taken all of Ukraine, and the only price would be the sanctions. Putin could easily have thought that it would be worth the price.
The question was, what were the odds of Ukraine folding? Putin may have thought they were 90%, which would make it a worthwhile gamble. I'm not sure anyone in the West regarded the current situation as the most likely outcome, either.
So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that "a lot of this was forseeable". The sanctions were (though perhaps not to this level). NATO solidarity and Finland and Sweden joining were somewhat forseeable. I'm not sure that the rest were.
It doesn't matter if Ukraine folded. Why? Because what happens next?
If Russia installs a puppet regime and leaves, how long does that puppet regime last?
If Russia stays and maintains a military occupation, it faces the prospect of a decades-long counter-insurgency from a geographically large country with 44 million potential insurgents who are really unified by their hatred of Russians. Post-WW2 insurgencies have had an incredibly high chance of success against even far more numerous and technologically superior occupying forces. It's a bad bet.
* Is there any evidence that what you say is true? I find it hard to believe most news sources these days, and most nation states often boost their own bravado through press conferences.
* If it is true, then I'm glad that US representatives haven't wasted taxpayer money by sending military aid when it's obviously not needed. I lean libertarian like many others on this forum, so I resonate a lot with similar commentary here.
This appears to just be about Sweden and Finland’s support for the Kurds, some of who are in Iraq and some in Turkey. Turkey doesn’t want them forming a new and potentially hostile nation on its border, and doesn’t want any support for that from within NATO.
Unfortunately for the Kurds they’re probably about to get thrown under the bus, since Finland and Sweden are now more concerned about the much larger, aggressive, unstable, nuclear-armed rogue state on their own border.
So, Turkey and Russia might not exactly be friends. Erdogan and Putin is another topic.
Also, be wary of what Erdogan and his people say. He's about as trustworthy as Putin, and when he calls those organizations "Terrorists" or that Sweden and Finland support them, then that's actually quite far from the truth and he wants something much less palatable.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-meet-turkey-critic...
"The problem is that these two countries are openly supporting and engaging with PKK and YPG. These are terrorist organisations that have been attacking our troops every day," Mevlut Cavusoglu said as he arrived in Berlin for a meeting with his NATO counterparts.
"Therefore it is unacceptable and outrageous that our friends and allies are supporting this terrorist organisation," he said. "These are the issues that we need to talk about with our NATO allies as well as these countries" Sweden and Finland, he added.
The reality is a lot more complicated, but Erdogan would very much like you to simplify "organized Kurds = Terrorists"...
On the other hand, if the PKK is able to fundraise in Sweden and Finland like the IRA used to be able to in the US, then it seems logical for Turkey to use whatever leverage they have to decrease that activity, similar to GB.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/03/22/i...
As a total outsider I see the situation as somewhat related to the Palestinian struggle: The more you are struggling for basic survival in the face of aggression, oppression and poverty, the less energy and motivation there is to curb the excesses of extremists in the own ranks.
You probably it is not the same, but for many, many people it is.
Also, your example missed the point where the Good friday agreement was drafted with US backing and help. This actually did more for the peace than decreasing fundraisers. Maybe Turkey should learn from this example?
I’m ask out of moderate ignorance in that I read the claims of Turkey and that of Sweden and Finland without a mechanism for deducing truth beyond various actors’ assertions.
While it would be optimal if Turkey did wage “Good Friday” peace to the extent that it is possible, it doesn’t seem likely since their position in the triad is that of GB, not the US. The non-NATO Nordics are more similar to the role of the US.
I don't have a solution either. I'll let professional negotiators find one :)
Also the Kurds are forming a state in parts of Syria and Iraq, where the "original" state is not able to restore order, especially against islamic militants. On top of that, the Turkish security forces have a long history of prosecuting Kurdish civilians. This makes the whole label of "terrorism" extremely murky and what Erdogan wants of NATO is much less nice than support against terrorists: He wants support and acquiescence in his war against Kurdish forces, including outside Turkey.
Not really. It does if one does this after they’re invaded, to evade mutual defence commitments. But acknowledging that there are no longer shared values and providing an off ramp is perfectly fine. Strengthening, even, as it shows heightened resolve to take the commitment seriously.
Most treaties have termination clauses. The North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 13 provides for voluntary exit [1]. (One could argue Ankara’s SS-4 purchase constitutes an Article 8 violation, though this would be petry.)
Treaties are about mutual understanding. If Americans and Czechs would find it unseemly to fight for Turkey’s defence in case of invasion, it does more harm to pretend they’re under collective defence than to amend the treaty to make it extremely clear whom one can invade without getting nuked and whom one cannot.
All this said, I think Turkey should remain a NATO member. They have shown themselves by arming Ukraine and denouncing Putin. They are a founding member. And their position remains strategically critical.
[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
Okay?
> no idea what an "SS-4" is
Sorry, pre coffee. S-400.
This has been covered in the American refusal to sell Ankara F-35s and ensuing sanctioning of it under CAATSA [1].
In short, no detection system is perfect. And no modern military system is sold without servicing. Letting Russia service an air defence system with the privilege of painting NATO jets, arms and missile defences is a breach of trust. It could be considered, again, pettily, though good luck to those who claims the law is often anything but, “an international engagement in conflict with” Turkey’s NATO obligations.
[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12628
Ejection is a serious thing. Even its deliberation will have the effect you describe.
But anyone pretending NATO is immortal or immutable or above political alignment is naïve. If a member behaves radically differently from the others, will it be politically feasible to send one’s soldiers to their aid in a time of need? If the answer to that question isn’t predictably an unambiguous yes, the treaty should be modified. Leaving Russia to guess whether Estonia is a Britain member or a Hungary member undermines the alliance's deterrence.
These treaties were forged by our parents and grandparents. They’re stronger as living documents than relics.
Another option is if a member state were to commit genocide. In that case the alliance might dissolve and the other members might instead band together and attack that member. Hypothetically speaking.
Turkey brings a military ~30x the size of Sweden, they are actively involved in being a buffer for conflicts in the Middle East, and they have an advanced military manufacturing capability that they have used to supply Ukraine and others with military drones.
They also have substantial more recent conflict experience and partnerships with affiliates throughout MENA.
Even if NATO was about Russia, Turkey is a much more important buffer to Russian ambitions than Sweden is.
I'm not a particular fan of Turkey, but the only reason we would rather have Sweden over Turkey is due to "soft" cultural, christian, western centrism (calling things racism is taboo on HN so I will refrain).
Numbers speak by themselves: 2000 troops in the South, 40000 troops in the occupied North.
Another point of context to you: Russia's narrative for the invasion of Ukraine is copied word by word from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.
Super disingenuous considering that Greece was the initial country to invade and that multiple UN-brokered solutions to the problem have been supported by the Turkish side only to have been voted down by Greek cypriots. [0]
Apparently, the Turks included the recognition of the occupied (by them) North Cyprus as one of the terms for agreeing to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
> calling things racism is taboo on HN so I will refrain
In this case it's because it's just wrong. Sweden is by and large a peaceful, democratic, liberal democracy that has free markets and cooperates with NATO member states on a variety of areas. In other words, the interests and values are very closely aligned. The reason we would have Turkey "out" here is because of a misalignment of values - i.e. Turkey is (or would in this case) diverge from the shared interests of the majority of NATO members. I mean, to point this out from the start there's absolutely no reason for Turkey to object over Sweden joining NATO in the first place. The very act of that objection is a divergence from the rest of the group's shared values.
But this is also mostly a nothing-burger because Turkey's public messaging is different from its private messaging. Erdogan will get an internationally inconsequential bone for domestic audiences and will happily vote Sweden (and Finland) in to NATO.
NATO wouldn't do this without having all the members already in agreement with expansion. That's how things work at this level.
This is disingenuous. The YPG question is not "no reason" for Turkey. (I disagree about the reason, but it is still an actual concern for the Turkish government).
> if they don't really cooperate with you.
Turkey absolutely cooperated extensively with the US & NATO. Militarily, much more so than Sweden does.
I don't view that as a valid reason to object to Sweden joining NATO. Maybe Turkey does, and maybe they won't be in NATO over it by the end of the year? There's 0 chance that Sweden and Finland don't join NATO, regardless of what Turkey publically claims.
> Turkey absolutely cooperated extensively with the US & NATO. Militarily, much more so than Sweden does.
Sure, and that cooperation is expected to continue. Ongoing partnerships have to like, keep going on right? Voting "no" to block Sweden and/or Finland from joining NATO would stop the ongoing partnership and end many elements of cooperation. Frankly, while Turkey is helpful militarily and strategically, the US can do anything in the world it needs to do with or without Turkey. But the one thing the US (and NATO) can't afford is serious dissension in the ranks, and that won't be tolerated regardless of the cost.
It's similar to me with the Taiwan thing. For some crazy reason people think that the US wouldn't go to war with China to defend Taiwan. For a while, people such as myself even were concerned about the Baltic states - then the US and UK moved thousands of troops there. These alliances and commitments are a big deal, especially when genuine strategic interests are at stake amongst nation states.
Well if it prevents them from cooperating with someone else it might still be worth it.
Not only, but for the most part....It's about Russia.
> Turkey brings a military ~30x the size of Sweden
On the other hand Sweden and Finland at 2% GDP has a similar defense budget to Turkey. Money does not a military make, but "30x the size" is only counting manpower and not much else. Modern fighter aircraft is around a factor 2x rather than 30x, for example.
> a buffer for conflicts in the Middle East > advanced military manufacturing capability > partnerships with affiliates throughout MENA
These are all very important.
> "soft" cultural, christian, western centrism (calling things racism is taboo on HN so I will refrain).
It's perhaps easier to look at democracy and press-freedom indices then, to see why Turkey isn't like the others. Perhaps that's what you meant? The problem is that undemocratic/authoritarian states tend to be stable, until they suddenly aren't. NATO is supposed to be a partnership of democracies (It's a prerequisite for applying!) so it's safe to say that being not-a-democracy isn't popular once in the alliance either.
So sure, NATO is a defense mechanism for what some would call western (that is: secular, liberal, ...) democracy. That indeed does touch on culture and religion, but only superficially. Turkey has long been the champion of secularism in the area, and obviosuly everyone in NATO (and elsewhere) hopes that will remain the case, hence one is reluctant to push Turkey away too.
Exactly. With all the faults of current Turkish government, they are a mile ahead of everyone else in Middle East. The problem is the comparison: they were going forward with EU membership - their government just was way more sane in the past... And there's decent chance that Erdogan will be voted out in 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_T...
This isn’t irrelevant to what we are seeing now. He needs some good news/external foes/strongman aura these days.
Turkey is the 2nd most powerful military in NATO after USA. It has access to all modern weapons, manufacturing abilities and above all, centuries of experience in fighting, winning and losing WARS.
Turkey's location is very very important for all kind of military operations and trade via Black Sea.
You, I think, know very little about Turkey's politics to make a claim like that.
PKK & YPG has long been a perceived thorn in Turkey's side and they have largely felt like the rest of NATO has ignored this problem if not actively antagonized them on it.
To them, it's akin to as if the rest of NATO was funding cartels in Mexico.
Turkey controls the Dardanelles Strait.
Turkey would have zero reason to be pro-west in any way without NATO. They've basically been the one fairly stable Muslim-majority, non-oil dictatorship in the Middle East for decades now and it's much better to keep them as a lukewarm ally than have them be an outright enemy.
Vietnam is in a similar position. They're not exactly friends with the US, but the fact they have more motivation to be anti-China than anti-US is a good reason to not antagonize them. They're a strong antagonist against the US's enemies more than they are a full-on ally of the US, and that's a perfectly fine partnership to have.
This can be very dangerous for Europe. France and Germany also would like to have more diplomacy, just like Turkey. Those countries have to live next to Russia - and maintaining a diplomatic relationship with Russia is vital. And this despite the fact that current Russian leadership is basically criminal.
I don't think Sweden and Finland joining NATO is sending a good signal - or it's diplomatically wise. But let's see...
Ukraine should just give up its independence and land and ability to seek justice for the horrific war crimes?
Russia has the power to de-escalate by withdrawing. Ukraine has the power to de-escalate by ceasing to exist.
Theres a perfectly clear deescalation path and has been since before the war started. This war was many things but inevitable was never one of them.
Deescalation is the last thing NATO or the US wants though.
And Putin says the Minsk agreements no longer exist.
(Updated to fix autocorrect typo)
The way I see it the west either fights for empire or we fight for democracy.
If we fight for democracy then we respect votes we dont like whose results are independently verified by pollsters we trust. Particularly votes that breach the 90%+ threshold. That would match our principles.
In Ukraine neither Kyiv, the west nor Russia fights for democracy though. Everybody fights for power, territory and, ultimately, empire.
The gallup polls simply confirmed that the referendum that was run by Russian troops was more or less free and fair.
I believe this is a good litmus test of peoples belief in democracy as a matter of principle. Belief in democracy means commitment to voting especially when you dont like the result.
It appears a lot of people do not like democracy.
The referendum already happened. My original suggestion was "respect the result" - what 90% or crimeans also want according to gallup - a western pollster.
What you want is for their votes to be "corrected" to fall in line with strategic imperialist objectives. This is a position Putin would understand and respect.
>There can be no legitimate referendum while a territory is under invasion.
Actually I believe there can under three conditions:
* The population want the referendum.
* The referendum wouldnt have happened without invasion.
* No vote coercion happened as a result of the invasion.
All three conditions held for Crimea, as well as certain other places. These conditions held for Iraq also, for example.
Once again: if you want to anull the results of a referendum because you dont like the result where there is no uncertainty about a free and fair result then you can only pretend to respect democracy.
If "whatever they want" means independence and self determination then yes, either you believe they should have it or you give democracy the middle finger.
Theres no middle ground there.
Some people think ukraine should be run from Moscow and fuck what anybody in ukraine thinks. Some people think crimea should be run from Kyiv and fuck what anybody in Crimea thinks. They both hate democracy.
It’s also possible that, as Ukraine’s democracy matured, Crimea would have no longer wanted to leave.
Russia short-circuited that by force.
You cannot respect democracy and want crimea returned to Ukraine.
The two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
I mean, yeah. Thats how panama was born for example. Colombia was kinda mad about it at the time but of all the things the US gets shit for its not even in the top 10.
The US also tried to do something similar (and failed) to Kaliningrad. Only Russia objected.
Theres a pretty long history of the US doing this and nobody really minding.
>I'm sure there are some villages along the Russian border who would be happy to see their land turned into a U.S. military base in exchange for U.S. passports and big piles of money.
I wouldnt be so sure. Argentina tried the same thing with the falklanders and it didnt work. Likewise Trump with Greenland.
Villages also wouldnt survive if they were severed economically.
Crimea wasnt bought, anyway. It's just 90% ethnically Russian and objected vociferously to the maidan.
You framed your earlier comment as being about democracy without qualifications. I'm wondering how far you'd go with that. Is every border territory only a 50.1% vote away from changing countries? How often can these votes be held? Do they require international observation?
85% agreed with the result.
Russia didnt run that poll. We did. No troops were standing behind the answerers. It agreed entirely with the result of the referendum.
If we hypothesize coercion or fraud in crimea the poll would have disagreed with the results. It didnt.
Coming up with ever thinner pretexts for rejecting the result of this referendum is simply a rejection of democracy - that thing we are supposed to be fighting for.
I dont know if 50.0% deserves to be the threshold but whatever the threshold is Im damn sure it's below 90%.
>How often can these votes be held?
Not sure if theres a clear answer to that. If enough of the population wants a vote i guess there should be one.
If there is one and 90% arent voting for the status quo there clearly needed to be one.
>Do they require international observation?
Ideally. I'd love to see international observers in all elections. Would be great if e.g. Venezuelan election observers got to monitor US elections.
If observers are absent and theres no evidence of fraud or coercion though thats not a good enough reason to reject a vote, especially when the result isnt close.
In crimea i find the "international observers" argument especially disingenuous though. The two sides were "referendum without western observers" (Russia) and "no referendum at all, ever" (Kyiv/West).
Ive heard hundreds if not thousands of people reject the idea that the crimean referendum was valid because of a lack of western observers. Not a single one of them rejected kyiv's position that there shouldnt be a referendum at all.
The normal legality is that a state is governed by a national constitution that requires some supermajority to make major changes. Participating in a government formed by that constitution implies consent to it. If Ukrainian Crimea wanted to leave Ukraine then they could have looked for national support according to both regular and constitutional law. If they couldn't get the national votes then that's all there is to it. Democracy in action.
There are areas in the U.S. that heavily favor one party or the other, including rural border counties that went for Trump well over 80% in 2020. If one of these counties voted to secede after Biden won, that vote would simply have been illegal under laws they themselves had previously consented to. If prior to the secession vote some other country had sent passports and then troops to seize government buildings and "secure fair elections" or whatever, that would have been both ridiculous and hostile.
> Ideally. I'd love to see international observers in all elections. Would be great if e.g. Venezuelan election observers got to monitor US elections.
Venezuelans or most anyone else are free to come into the U.S. and observe voting stations from the outside like any other private person who isn't actively casting a vote, and conduct whatever exit polls they can convince people to take.
What kind of de-escalation is possible when it's Russia attacking the Ukrainian territory? Also it's not like RF can be trusted to stick to agreements, so what's the point in talks?
Yeah, I wonder about that. Suppose Russia nuked some allied target. Is the USA willing to escalate to global nuclear war over that? Something tells me they won't come to anyone's aid.
If the Russians had succeeded with Ukraine, Lithuania or Poland would be next. Or Finland, or Sweden, or any other neighbour Russia deems weak enough to conquer with direct military force. You get my point.
Russian territorial expansion is a recurring pattern, and no amount of western self-humiliation via "de-escalation" was going to end it.
It had to end somewhere. As a Ukrainian who had to spend several weeks in evacuation in Lviv this spring, I'm glad it ended in Ukraine. (At least the new US Lend-Lease Act gives us hope that the wave of Russian territorial expansion will end in Ukraine.) Otherwise we'd have mass executions of civilians, as we had in Bucha, all over the 40 million country. A new Holocaust. For Ukrainians, as a nation, US Lend-Lease Act, military equipment aid from UK and other western nations who participated in Ramstein defence conference is the real salvation. And the day the Russian invaders are expelled would become a second Independence Day, as in the history of Kuwait and Iraq.
"But how would they do that? There's no process.. etc."
They can just take a vote and then that's that. Likely Turkey will get some appeasement concessions, but there's no serious risk here.
At the same time, I don’t think they would say no anyway
To your point, they won't say no anyway. All the speculation is, I think, just circus.
No. If the Turks actually said "no," they wouldn't be making demands:
https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finlan...:
> Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Sunday outlined demands for Finland and Sweden which seek membership in NATO in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
> Speaking with Turkish reporters after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin, he said that Sweden and Finland must stop supporting terrorists in their countries, provide clear security guarantees and lift export bans on Turkey.
I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements.
At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.
Because Russia is still the scarier enemy. If the rest of NATO approves, what is Turkey going to do? Leave NATO and accept eventual invasion?
Turkey has NATO's second-largest army, for one thing.
Which is BTW similar to what's happening to EU: they realized that some states have too much power in the admission process, so they want to "speed up" the process. Probably they will go for a "3/4" of the members have to say YES. That kind of stuff. Same old, same old.
This makes it sound like Sweden does something that other NATO members don't. That's not the case. Sweden supports the SDC in syria, which supports the YPG, which is connected to the PKK. And this is controversial in several of the countries that do this, including the US.
While it's true that it's Sweden applying for membership and not anyone else, the logical thing for Turkey to do here is to try to pressure the whole alliance to adopt some policy change (such as a terror clasification for YPG, and/or no more aid to SDC and connected groups).
Because the accession process provides Turkey an opportunity to apply leverage against Sweden and Finland to change their behavior. Simply refusing to allow it would gain Turkey nothing and harm them indirectly by weakening (or failing to strengthen) an alliance that Turkey depends on for its own security.
...because neither country is supporting Erdoğan's enemies? The dictator is just posturing for his own people, he'll never actually dare to vote against every other country in NATO.
I very much doubt that these announcements are the _start_ of negotiations.
More likely, the public phase makes the beginning of the end of negotiations for Sweden (and Finland) to join NATO. It would be a co-ordinated, done deal or close to it, before they break cover and announce it to the world, and to Russia specifically.
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Indeed, from later in the article:
> While mass killing is not necessary for genocide to have been committed, it has been present in almost all recognized genocides.
I guess, citation needed, mass graves simplify arguing in favor of "intend to destroy". Otherwise its often not easy to prove intend.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-embassy-accuses-russia-of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortificat...
And in Ukraine we see that this strategy does not work when your neighbor is murderous.
Putin is obsessed with reunification and anything that doesn't give him that, he isn't interested in. He'd roll tanks right up to the Berlin wall if he thought he could.
Russia thought it could force the issue, and has had its ass handed back to them .
Well, if my neighbor had nukes pointed at my house, I might at least care what they thought.
So yes, lets' burn the city down, why should I live in hell and fear - it's better that no one lives, including the asshole neighbour.
It's very easy to ask others to be meek, why don't you offer yourself to Russians to walk them over you? I mean, Russia would be very happy to have Alaska, perhaps you should offer it to them so they don't destroy the world.
> ... doubt there is a single person in america willing to accept ...
Thankfully there are several european nations with independent nuclear capability willing to stand up for Ukraine.
I'm brazilian. We don't have nuclear weapons. We barely even have a space program. If USA wanted to take the Amazon, I doubt there's anything we could do about it and I seriously doubt anyone else would intervene in our favor.
> Thankfully there are several european nations with independent nuclear capability willing to stand up for Ukraine.
Yeah. So are they really going to risk getting nuked out of existence over Ukraine? I suppose we'll find out.
The mere existence of nuclear weapons means that our future is in jeopardy. That bell can’t be unrung. But it doesn’t mean we have to allow the fear of that hypothetical future to prevent us from standing up to genocide.
https://fortune.com/2022/04/30/sweden-says-russian-plane-vio...
>Only Finland and Norway!
There is bridge/tunnel to Denmark too. I guess you could call it land connection.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/WWII_in_...
i.e. if the USA invades sovereign nations then it makes sense to be in good terms with them.
But if you look at the history it's fascinating. The U.S. launched an invasion to try to overthrow the Cuban government during the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. Then it moved nuclear missiles up to the USSR's border in Turkey (the U.S. was also considering nuclear first strikes against the USSR around this time[1]). Then Cuba asked for the USSR to station nuclear missiles to deter an invasion, the USSR complied, which triggered the crisis. The world was brought to the brink of nuclear war as the U.S. blockaded the country and prepared for an invasion if its demands weren't met.
This isn't to defend the current invasion, just to see how these kinds of actions can be celebrated in a country to the extent that most of the citizens don't even have the slightest idea that they could be anything but a heroic defense of homeland. Sometimes it's only when a mirror is held up to us that we're really able to look at things from another angle.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-fi...
Not really, there were still missiles in Italy and maybe Germany? It made little real difference to European security.
> Zelensky, Johnson and Biden get isolated by Europeans, and countries like Italy (I hope) chose to get out of NATO
Russia invading Ukraine, showing that European peace and security aren't as guaranteed and certain as most people thought is only bringing NATO and more specifically European NATO members together. Italy isn't on the frontlines, but is also impacted by Putin's idiocy. Why would it abandon one of it's two security guarantees (EU being the other one) now? Before the invasion, EU countries moving to a NATO independent military cooperation and defense pact would have made great sense ( and certain EU leaders were pushing for it), but now? No way.
Where did you get this impression? In my US public school we learned all about the Bay of Pigs. If anything, my takeaway was that Kruschev saved us all by publicly backing down to his own political detriment, whereas Kennedy was only willing to make his concessions in secret.
the best strategist of Russia ever.
In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
Wut? North Korea is the vassalist vassal that ever vassaled. Russia might be getting there.
No. China and NK was created with the backing of the soviet union. They were vassals of the soviet union until they decided not to be. Both china and north korea have been independent actors for a while now. Even before the soviet union collapsed.
> China wants a buffer between it and South Korea.
Why would china want a buffer between it and south korea? You mean between china and the US?
> If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK.
SK is a vassal of the US. You don't "rejoin" a vassal state. It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it.
LOL. IIRC, about all North Korea has for it (militarily) is MAD with South Korea (thousands of bunkered artillery pieces aimed as Seoul and nukes).
Russia's got a far better military than North Korea, and it's getting torn up in Ukraine. North Korea, in anything resembling its current state, is never going to "liberate" South Korea.
Who's preventing it from rejoining South Korea? I can infer that China wants it as a buffer to South Korea; but how can China disallow it from joining South Korea?
They have influence but they dont control it.
China has huge influence on NK as their largest economic partner.
That's one of your many misunderstandings. The presence of troops does not imply an occupation. If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
70 years "presence" of troops does.
> If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
That's a nice way of saying vassalage.
If it was china occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. If it was russia occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. Somehow, when we do it, it's an "alliance".
I agree with this view unfortunately. I find it a very harsh view. It's too harsh for my taste and I have the strongest wish that I didn't view things this way. With that said, the evidence is too strong in my opinion.
The evidence that supports it is that Ukraine was invaded by Russia, because they didn't have nuclear weapons. Ukraine used to have them and they were not invaded then. This means that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. It also means that promises are not made forever (since Russia promised not to invade Ukraine if they'd give back their nuclear weapons). More importantly, you don't know how long such a promise lasts.
Based on how Russia treated Ukraine we can state:
* Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. It doesn't matter what treaties and promises are in place. Nuclear weapons will fail as a deterrent if there's a proper defense against it. Currently, there is no proper defense against it. It will be unknown when there will be or if there ever will be.
* Promises and treaties show an intention. That intention may not be acted upon at any given point in time.
We know that North Korea has nuclear weapons. This means that North Korea has a deterrent against any other country including China. Moreover, North Korea has made this deterrent more potent by showcasing it is willing to starve its own population. This means they care less about having nuclear weapons targeted at them than the other way around. To see why this strategy is effective one could read up on the mentality Swiss pikemen in the 15th century [1].
If China invades North Korea, then they better have a way to defend against nuclear weapons. If they don't, then I estimate that they they risk about 50 million to 100 million people directly dying to being severely injured [2], not to mention the nuclear fallout would cause second order effects.
[1] In short: because they were willing to go on suicidal charges against other pikemen of other nations, they became the most feared pikemen to fight against. Fighting against a Swiss unit would mean certain death for both groups of pikemen.
[2] North Korea has about 40 to 50 nuclear weapons (source: a quick Google search). China has 290749208 people in the 40 biggest cities (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_pop...). I took a rough 15% to 30% of that.
Neither of those countries are remotely anything that could be called a US vassal. If anything, they are some of the most reflexively anti-American countries in South America.
No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
Leaders
• Head Queen Elizabeth II
• Secretary-General The Baroness Scotland of Asthal
• Chair-in-Office Boris Johnson
> Member states have no legal obligations to one another
I would say that being a member of the UN is more problematic to sovereignty.
India is a _republic_ with a president as its head of state. Maybe look into the history of India post-WW2. The Commonwealth of Nations is a _loose_ grouping of independent nations. Not all of which actually had/have any historical association with the United Kingdom.
> No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations
In that case no truly independent nation should be a part of the United Nations. The UN has more "power" over its members than the Commonwealth.
You are making yourself look very foolish.
It's the successor of the british commonwealth which is the successor of the british empire. It's pretty much the british commonwealth renamed to the commonwealth because nehru apparently thought it would be too humiliating. The head of the commonwealth is the queen. The leaders of it are the leaders of britain. It is headquartered in london. It's official language is english.
> In that case no truly independent nation should be a part of the United Nations.
Did the UN invade and colonize india for 200 years?
The question is why india would even join the commonwealth? Why are they still in it? No independent nation would ever be part of it. Especially a nation of india's size, history, culture, etc shouldn't be in a "club" led by its former colonial master. Can you imagine china or russia being part of the commonwealth with the british queen as the head?
The former regions in the British Empire which are now republics, such as India and those in Africa, are not in the Commonwealth realm.
Look a map of the british empire and see which it resembles - commonwealth realm or the commonwealth? The commonwealth was originally called the british commonwealth and was the successor of the british empire. It was actually an nehru I believe who asked the named be changed from british commonwealth to commonwealth as a face-saving gesture.
Commonwealth realm are the british descendent nations - canada, australia, etc. Commonwealth is the british empire - descendents nations + colonized nations like india.
Rushed, decided behind closed doors, by a small clique of elites, without any semblance of democratic mandate, unconstitutional, no real public debate, no referendum, all in an atmosphere of McCarthy-like media frenzy. Any nuance is instantly brushed aside as Putin's propaganda
The polls put the support at ~52% in Sweden and ~61% in Finland. That means 48% and 39% of the people are neutral or against. This mass of people have no representation in mass media, and no major political party to back them. This void will be filled, probably by some outlier parties, possibly extremists. It's a recipe for a disaster
The most recent poll I've seen for Finland also has an even higher percentage of support for joining NATO now than your poll.
If you don't move quick, you won't move. This is the purpose of representative democracy - to allow trusted leaders to make decisions like this on your behalf.
In most representative democracies, treaties have to be approved after the fact but they certainly do not need to be pre-approved before being negotiated. This is not more undemocratic than a spur-of-the-moment referendum.
But, if we look at Brexit and how much Russia (apparently) corrupted that vote, I can’t say I’m shocked that either country would choose not to subject themselves to such a process.
In a non-democracy, the dictator decides whatever they what.
These are democracies, and so people elected their representatives, and the representatives decided to join NATO. I lived in Sweden for many years, and it seems like the general population indeed supports it. No law says you have to go a referendum, and it's definitely not against the constitution. The fact it was a quick decision is a actually great IMHO - people often see democracies as slow to respond, and here you have two countries moving a democratic process relatively quickly.
I am not making a comment that either is good or bad, just it seems that what “democracy” means tends to be pretty damned subjective.
It might also be that both sets do not overlap much. Nerds have always had strange opinions about what democracy is.
I understand your point about fracturing politics on issues like this (we're still paying for "Brexit"), and that 10-20% is a fair chunk of voters, but even then, you've got to be really against it to throw your lot in with an extreme single-policy party. A minority of the minority will be disillusioned or angry about it.
Given that the vast balance of opinion wants to join, joining takes months and can be reversed, and both countries have general elections within the next 12 months, I think democracy will be just fine.
Here's the latest poll news from 2022-05-09. "Yes" at 76%. https://yle.fi/news/3-12437506
And additional interesting bits, both the president have backed joining, and Sweden is joining NATO too: "A possible Swedish application for Nato membership would raise backing in Finland to 83 percent.
A clear position by the Finnish president and the government backing membership raise support by around the same margin, to 82 percent."
Meaning the support to join is overwhelmingly in majority.