The threat posed to them individually. Not the threat posed by Russia in general, as shown by Georgia, and the Crimea, and the eastern Ukrainian border unrest, and now the general Ukrainian invasion. The Ukraine is not and never has been a partner like that and to the extent NATO has served as a general shield against large-scale aggression historically, it's been primarily a matter of providing multilateral cover to one specific actor within NATO, one whose preeminent status mostly undermined the European aspiration to not be relegated to the kiddie table.
So. . . the EU's function is to enrich itself at the rest of the world's expense as a trade and economic bloc and the devil take any other issue? It would seem to me that combining and integrating their economic and political response (if not social) in foreign policy and security to effectively respond to and deter aggression from threatening states in the region (or even across the globe) would be part of what it means to be the sort of integrating/integrated power bloc the EU purports to be.—they should prioritize that forum for that issue instead of wasting energy on trying to make the EU fulfill functions it isn't suited to fulfill.
If Europe could step up when the US has already exhausted itself, wisely or unwisely, then NATO could effectively respond through them. Is/should NATO only be capable of anything when the US is the one providing the muscle for it? That would seem to kinda prove the complaints US conservatives have been making about NATO for the last 20 years.If NATO isn't able to effectively respond when an important partner is undermined for years, invaded, annexed, and then invaded again, when will it be?
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 02-24-2022 at 08:40 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I disagree. We guaranteed their security and independence, and after all of Trump's fuckery with them, we need to do this to ensure that our guarantees and treaties mean anything. We'll lose a lot more than Ukraine if we don't do whatever we can to keep our word and put a stop to Russian imperialism. Insert Taiwan mention here. Russia will not go to war with NATO, Putin will only take what he thinks he can get without a war with NATO. He's just trying to get us to back away while he advances, and all we have to do is not back away to stop him.
Have you been listening to that pinko soviet sympathizer Tucker Carlson?
Thank you, Ms. Palin.
I don't think it should be difficult for you to understand the relative positions of the US and Sweden vis a vis a confrontation with Russia. What Sweden might gain in collective security and firepower by being part of NATO might be of little comfort if they were facing Russian hybrid warfare on their doorstep. The US is largely insulated from such immediate and pressing security concerns.
I think a very good argument can be made in favor of Ukraine maintaining a 'friends but not members' status with NATO akin to the existing Partnership for Peace arrangement. I was not suggesting otherwise.
Perhaps I should clarify my position. My point was not that the general apathy of the West toward continued Russian encroachment on the sovereignty of its neighbors (Ukraine is hardly unique in this regard - just look at Georgia) is good or acceptable. I was just saying that it exists, and any fantasies people might have that this time is different seem to fly in the face of history and reality. I have yet to see a sanctions package that would even make Putin pause, and I doubt the West can stomach anything more stringent (economic, political, or military) given that the current outrage perpetrated by Putin is just a minor extension of the existing status quo. You're behaving as if we haven't already broken our word to Ukraine, and we haven't already failed to put a stop to Russian imperialism.
We (meaning the West as a whole) are frankly not willing to endure any substantial hardship in order to support Ukrainian territorial integrity or sovereignty. And now that you bring up Taiwan, I have my doubts the US would do much other than tut-tut if China pursued a similar policy on Taiwan.
What would I want to do, in a fantasy world where my opinion mattered and the West was really willing to confront authoritarian dictatorships encroaching on their democratic neighbors? Sure, I'd work to sever any economic dependency on the offender (somewhere between difficult and impossible in both the cases of Russia and China, but moves towards such independence would get attention). I'd respond to military provocation with a greatly enhanced force posture in the regions the offender is most concerned about - e.g. moving divisions of allied troops into Poland and the Baltics (or Japan and S. Korea) and scale up investment in defensive infrastructure. I'd reach out to their traditional partners with sweetened deals for increased political and economic ties and go on a charm offensive to disrupt their sphere of influence. And I'd make it clear that additional provocations would be met with further encroachment.
But all of these options are expensive and unpopular, and it's doubtful that a consensus could be reached among Western nations to pursue such a course. So, in the absence of such a consensus, I think we need to be clear-eyed about what's actually going to happen.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
We have been failing, and we've already screwed Ukraine pretty bad, but it wasn't too late to fix past mistakes until about 12ish hours ago. In other words, no significant disagreement then.
Well, if we're what-iffing, I was disappointed when Biden said we weren't going to deploy any troops in Ukraine. IMO, what we should have done (with Ukraine's permission) is station troops in as much of the country as we could. We couldn't have put anyone in the eastern regions (Donetsk & Luhansk), but we could have had people in most of the rest. They wouldn't even need to be at fighting strength - Russia wasn't going to fire a shot that might hit NATO troops, and our refusal to put boots in Ukraine was taken as permission for the full invasion. I don't think there was a way to prevent the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk without changing things from years ago or a NATO/Russia war, but the rest of Ukraine could have been protected.We (meaning the West as a whole) are frankly not willing to endure any substantial hardship in order to support Ukrainian territorial integrity or sovereignty. And now that you bring up Taiwan, I have my doubts the US would do much other than tut-tut if China pursued a similar policy on Taiwan.
What would I want to do, in a fantasy world where my opinion mattered and the West was really willing to confront authoritarian dictatorships encroaching on their democratic neighbors? Sure, I'd work to sever any economic dependency on the offender (somewhere between difficult and impossible in both the cases of Russia and China, but moves towards such independence would get attention). I'd respond to military provocation with a greatly enhanced force posture in the regions the offender is most concerned about - e.g. moving divisions of allied troops into Poland and the Baltics (or Japan and S. Korea) and scale up investment in defensive infrastructure. I'd reach out to their traditional partners with sweetened deals for increased political and economic ties and go on a charm offensive to disrupt their sphere of influence. And I'd make it clear that additional provocations would be met with further encroachment.
But all of these options are expensive and unpopular, and it's doubtful that a consensus could be reached among Western nations to pursue such a course. So, in the absence of such a consensus, I think we need to be clear-eyed about what's actually going to happen.
Now since that ship has sailed, what we need to do is exactly what you said - fortify Poland and the Baltics. Possibly Taiwan too just out of nervousness that China might be getting ideas.
Wait, by "we need to do this" do you mean go to war with Russia? We need to do that, to save Ukraine from Russia, or all the European dominos will fall to the Russian onslaught? Sure, maybe Russia wouldn't use nuclear weapons. But they might. They would likely do some kind of massive cyber assault, which would be super inconvenient.
But I hear you saying its worth risking the death of everyone to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine. For that matter, same with Taiwan. It is worth it to you if everyone in the world died to make sure Taiwan and Ukraine don't become commies/ oppressed slaves, etc? Okay, maybe Putin is bluffing. Probably he is bluffing. But what if he's not? Or maybe he is, but then Russia starts to lose and they freak out in desperation and nuke a city or two. And then dominos fall, and everyone dies. The stakes of this game don't go higher. What would be better -- all of Europe bows down to resurgent Russia and all of Asia bows down to resurgent China, or everyone in the world dies. Those are the two worst case scenarios, no?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Can we kick them out of the space station? Musk can get us there now so we don't need them anymore.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
The only way out is a coup in Moscow, and that shit's gonna be crazy. Aight I'm calling it—VladPut will leave this mortal coil within 5 years.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, the UK is 'freezing the assets' of people who already have so much money they couldn't spend it several life-times. That'll show 'em. They're gonna give up their dreams of empire because they can't sell the house they brought in London to slowly appreciate in value over decades because they had nothing better to do with some huge pile of liquidity they had hanging around.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Gotta hand it to the Russians though, their assessment of the weaknesses of the western democracies has been spot on so far. They've really got us figured out.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Not much we can do now. Perhaps being more aggressive about weening Europe of Russian natural gas, aggressively going after Russian dirty money in London and in the political systems in the UK and US the last time they started feeling expansionist might have given us a bit more leverage.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Think the most interesting aspect of the sanctions is the targeting of not only Putin's allies but also their families. I don't think all that big a share of powerful Russians are ideologues. Lot more pressure left to apply on these contingent allies.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Also, your response above is more indicative of why Ukraine should claim neutrality, more so than Sweden. Ukraine actually shares a border with Russia. If Swedes don't want to piss off Russia by joining NATO why should we expect Ukrainians to join NATO and piss Russia off?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
For those of you who want an update on NATO's relationship with Sweden in 2022—decades after the end of the Cold War—this is a good place to start:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52535.htm
Sweden is not "neutral" v-a-v Russia. Although Swedish discourse wrt Russia and NATO differs somewhat from that of Finland, there is no policy of "neutrality" wrt war or comparable crises involving eg. Russian aggression against states that Sweden is committed to support; instead, there is an official policy of solidarity, which includes military support. In several respects, NATO-Sweden relations are similar to—but deeper and more well-established than—NATO-Ukraine relations.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's one sided,
https://ecfr.eu/article/how-the-russ...curity-policy/
Sweden wants it both ways.So, at a time when Russia seems poised to invade Ukraine, why shouldn’t Sweden join NATO if it already cooperates with the alliance so closely? Opponents of Swedish accession to NATO argue that such a move could increase tensions in the Baltic region, that non-membership will provide Sweden with greater strategic flexibility in the long term, that NATO’s nuclear policy would undermine the country’s long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament, and that it would be unwise to join an alliance that offers security guarantees to Turkey.
“The boys can stay outside”, said Finnish president Tarja Halonen in 2002 when Swedish prime minister Göran Persson visited Helsinki. She was referring to their security policy advisers, who had to wait in the lounge while the two leaders agreed only to apply for NATO membership after consulting each other. There are good reasons for this “strongbox agreement”, which still seems to be in force. If one of the countries moved alone, this would put the other in a difficult position. So far, during the current crisis, both the Finnish and Swedish governments have made clear that they have no intention of applying for NATO membership.
But Finland and Sweden disagree on some security issues, such as defence cooperation within the EU. As Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto observes: “Finland is close to the French position and believes in more military cooperation within the EU.”
Former Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh advocated a more autonomous EU in security policy 20 years ago. But, in recent years, Sweden has opposed significant steps towards stronger European military capabilities. Last year, Sweden was one of several countries that objected to proposals for an EU rapid reaction force.Nonetheless, it is unlikely but not impossible that the populist Sweden Democrats will begin to call for NATO membership as part of a compromise with the centre-right. Were this to happen, there would suddenly be a parliamentary majority for accession to the alliance.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
There's a broad range of escalatory measures short of war Russia can accept that most NATO-members simply do not have the stomach for—not when it comes to a country that isn't a member. I don't think Putin will go to war with NATO either—because NATO currently seems extremely unwilling to put itself in a position where Putin can go to war with NATO. Putin will secure the Donbas and harrass the rest of Ukraine for years, and NATO will offer support carefully calculated to avoid escalation to the point of war.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When the EU has to sanction Anatoly Karpov
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/statu...33983551410179
Well shit, Russia has made its move.
As did Trump.
Twitter Link
Meanwhile, your hero Tucker Carlson is busy attacking Ukraine and NATO.
Hope is the denial of reality
Poland and the Baltic states appear to have triggered art. 4 to bring about an emergency consultation. Incursions of Russian troops from both north, south, and east, attacks on Ukrainian sites all over the country.
Last edited by Aimless; 02-24-2022 at 08:54 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Sounds like all the same sanctions as we used against Russia for their election interference. Isn't there a valve on the EU side of Nordstream 1 ???
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Lotta talk everywhere about measures that must be taken urgently, ranging from sanctions to specific military support. Missing from that conversation is info about whether or not those measures have already been planned, so that they're ready to be implemented now rather than in 3 weeks' time. Military measures already catastrophically delayed. Sanctions pressure must be increased tonight.
Interesting to see all the traitors in the US puffing up their chests and bringing out the big rhetorical guns. Feel like anyone who stood behind Trump as recently as last night should be treated as a goat-fucker whenever they comment on any aspect of this invasion.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Persuading Germany, Italy, Hungary and (lol) Cyprus to kick Russia out of SWIFT will be a major test for the Biden admin. No indication right now as to whether or not they have a path forward on that. The measure itself might not be time-sensitive wrt its economic effects, but it's politically crucial that they follow through, now that they've publicly endorsed it.
Meanwhile, videos of anti-war protests in Russia all over social media. Ukrainian authorities have announced that a Russian platoon surrendered, allegedly because they didn't want to fight this war—obv. impossible to verify the veracity of this claim.
Ukraine's legal action at the UN—trying to challenge Russia's claim to the USSR's position on the security council—is interesting. A threat to that unearned and frequently abused authority—however miniscule—may significantly up the stakes.
Last edited by Aimless; 02-24-2022 at 04:57 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In this case, I think it may have been less risky to send in forces under fighting strength. The idea is not to fight a war, so I think it might be better and more palatable to those who need to agree to it to avoid sending in enough forces to pose a credible threat. Their job would be to communicate our willingness to defend the country. But I was primarily thinking of logistical problems at the time I wrote the paragraph you're responding to - I'm not sure the timelines were generous enough to move in the forces needed to garrison the country, and I don't believe it was needed anyways. I do agree that we shouldn't be bluffing; the damage from getting a bluff called is too high, so we can't afford to bluff. In this hypothetical, now obsolete and infeasible plan, it'd be made clear that if the fighting starts, positions would be reinforced to fight alongside the Ukrainian forces if their positions are threatened, not abandoned.
Ultimately I don't think western nations were really willing to stick their necks out for Ukraine, and that's why Kiev is getting bombed right now.
This won't help Ukrainians feel any safer...
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/24/2...ation-invasion
At least the two cosmonauts are outnumbered...
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?