TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Discussion Thread
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J There will be no direct conflict between NATO and Russia, that much is clear. The risk of escalation is far too high. So any NATO intervention in Ukraine will be along the same lines we're already seeing from member states through other channels. However, that doesn't mean Putin can throw everything he has at Ukraine with impunity. He has a lot of borders to protect.

After the past week or so, I'm not feeling very confident about any statements involving Putin and what he clearly will or won't do anymore. Everyone discounted the US intel saying Putin would invade Ukraine after the Olympics were over and that proved to be a 100% accurate forecast.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I understand your worries but I think the risk to Finland is relatively low at this stage...

I obviously very much respect your judgment, Jack, but I think it's difficult for British people to understand the fear of the Russian military that most of the rest of Europe has (especially those on the Eastern side). Besides the whole Great Game, the only real war that comes quickly to mind between Britain and Russia is Crimea. Britain is one of the only countries in Europe in which the Russian hordes were never rampaging about.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 1. It's already looking like occupying and holding Ukraine is going to be much harder than Russia perhaps anticipated, which means it could become a major drain on their military resources. I don't see them extending their front to another country. 2. Maybe I'm only reading biased western media, but I've read a lot of stuff about how the economic sanctions on Russia have hit them harder than, again, Putin might have anticipated. Whatever the outcome of the ground war in Ukraine, it's already looking like an extremely costly invasion for them, which also makes it less likely they'll be keen for a repeat.

It's really, really difficult to know what is actually going on in Ukraine and Russia (Ukraine's PsyOps and propaganda machine have been incredible), but it definitely seems that invading Ukraine and avoiding the sanctions has been much, much more difficult for Russia than anyone anticipated. Well done to all involved, in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J As always, history has the ability to make fools of us all, but the early signs are that this war is going to turn into a quagmire for Russia. It doesn't look like the start of an era of triumphant expansionism for them.

Agreed. Looks like Putin made a catastrophic mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 1. It's already looking like occupying and holding Ukraine is going to be much harder than Russia perhaps anticipated, which means it could become a major drain on their military resources. I don't see them extending their front to another country.

I've learnt to see Russia as an opportunist rather than a goal-oriented and rational actor, so to me there's simply no telling what they'll do next, unless there's an obvious weakness somewhere to be exploited. The whole Lenin's bayonet thing. It might be that Putin's generals oversold him the idea of Ukraine being an easy target – that the bayonet would hit something soft, so to speak. Maybe Ukraine will simply turn out to be a mistake for him, he'll retreat, and there'll be a small frozen conflict left in Ukraine.

However, there is an opportunity that's been waiting for him for two decades, and now that he's shown his appetite, I see big potential for the conflict to shift from Ukraine to the Baltic Sea area. Not necessarily soon, but in the coming few years.

I don't think they've publicly said anything about invading or not invading Finland and/or Sweden. It's unclear whether the "Don't believe anything until the Kremlin denies it" rule applies to lies by omission. I hope not.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 2. Maybe I'm only reading biased western media, but I've read a lot of stuff about how the economic sanctions on Russia have hit them harder than, again, Putin might have anticipated. Whatever the outcome of the ground war in Ukraine, it's already looking like an extremely costly invasion for them, which also makes it less likely they'll be keen for a repeat.

I think the sanctions really have hit the people and companies of Russia quite hard, and letting it affect his decisions regarding the war would make sense if he was acting rationally. It's just that they've learned to live with sanctions before (like they had any other choice), and somewhat pessimistically I believe the people will learn to live with the new ones too, and with minimal unrest.

I think he believes these few coming years to be his last chance to ensure he'll be a Russian hero in Russian history books. He's getting old and might even have an illness that has prompted him to do this. In my opinion the probability of him calling it a day after possibly accepting a defeat in Ukraine is close to zero. When desperation hits after a defeat in Ukraine, he's going to be even more unpredictable, I fear.

No one outside Kremlin really knows what's going on in there. No one even knows if it's Putin alone making these decisions or whether there's a bigger group of people behind him. If he's making all the decisions himself and he's delusional, there is no way to tell where this is going. The way I see it, logic and rationality have little to do with it. It chills me that some Finnish politicians are still repeating the mantra that there's no direct threat to Finland right now, and that there's no reason for Putin to invade Finland. The only reason this man needs is that he wants it. He's justifying the war to Russians in such absurd arguments that really anything goes, and time and time again we Westerners are somehow surprised by the things Russia does. I saw the first missile hit Ukraine on a live feed last week. Eight hours prior people still saw an attack unlikely, almost completely out of the question, and that the 150 000+ troops on Ukraine's borders were mere bravado.

Just to highlight the second biggest problem we have with Russia: does anyone know whether the majority of Russians approve of the war in Ukraine? I don't, and none of our politicians know. Any official figures coming out of Russia are and have always been outright lies. Their whole concept of truth in Russia is very unfamiliar to people outside Russia. The direct translation of 'pravda' is 'truth', but many Russia experts say that to Russians it doesn't mean the opposite of a falsehood, but rather "a pursuit of harmony".

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Everyone discounted the US intel saying Putin would invade Ukraine after the Olympics were over and that proved to be a 100% accurate forecast.

Not everyone. Marco Rubio's Twitter account has basically become a way to see into the future regarding this conflict. I'd even go so far as to speculate that the intel the US gave away earlier that "wasn't correct", initially was correct, and it did exactly what it was supposed to: took away a big enough part of the element of surprise, forcing Putin to delay.

Well.. Now there's a fire at Europe's largest nuclear power plant from Russian shelling. Someone wake me up.

Is tranceaddict equipped to withstand a global nuclear winter?

quote:

Originally posted by JEO I've learnt to see Russia as an opportunist rather than a goal-oriented and rational actor, so to me there's simply no telling what they'll do next, unless there's an obvious weakness somewhere to be exploited. The whole Lenin's bayonet thing. It might be that Putin's generals oversold him the idea of Ukraine being an easy target – that the bayonet would hit something soft, so to speak. Maybe Ukraine will simply turn out to be a mistake for him, he'll retreat, and there'll be a small frozen conflict left in Ukraine.

I'd be careful with statements like this. Just because we don't understand their rationality does not mean that it does not exist. And Putin is certainly goal oriented - but unfortunately we don't quite understand his goals.

quote:

Originally posted by JEO However, there is an opportunity that's been waiting for him for two decades, and now that he's shown his appetite, I see big potential for the conflict to shift from Ukraine to the Baltic Sea area. Not necessarily soon, but in the coming few years. I don't think they've publicly said anything about invading or not invading Finland and/or Sweden. It's unclear whether the "Don't believe anything until the Kremlin denies it" rule applies to lies by omission. I hope not.

If reports from Ukraine are remotely accurate, it seems unlikely Russia will be able to pivot to the Baltics anytime soon. The amount of materiel they are losing appears to be astounding. Their army is also, it appears, kinda shit?

quote:

Originally posted by JEO I think the sanctions really have hit the people and companies of Russia quite hard, and letting it affect his decisions regarding the war would make sense if he was acting rationally. It's just that they've learned to live with sanctions before (like they had any other choice), and somewhat pessimistically I believe the people will learn to live with the new ones too, and with minimal unrest.

I dunno about them living with these sanctions. I don't think the world has ever imposed sanctions this severe on anyone except North Korea, and they never have had access to the developed world and our products the way Russians have. We're cutting them off from everything they've gained the last 30 years. It's going to be pretty miserable there very soon. Not just no Nike/Adidas, but no Microsoft Azure, no Google Search, no Visa, no Mastercard, etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by JEO I think he believes these few coming years to be his last chance to ensure he'll be a Russian hero in Russian history books. He's getting old and might even have an illness that has prompted him to do this. In my opinion the probability of him calling it a day after possibly accepting a defeat in Ukraine is close to zero. When desperation hits after a defeat in Ukraine, he's going to be even more unpredictable, I fear.

He's never going to be a hero in the history books. He had an opportunity, in like 2000-2005 or whatever, but now he's just damaged the country, perhaps permanently.

quote:

Originally posted by JEO Not everyone. Marco Rubio's Twitter account has basically become a way to see into the future regarding this conflict. I'd even go so far as to speculate that the intel the US gave away earlier that "wasn't correct", initially was correct, and it did exactly what it was supposed to: took away a big enough part of the element of surprise, forcing Putin to delay.

Well, yeah, obviously not everyone

Personally, I've made an absolute killing the past two months, by betting big on oil and gas, especially on companies with no Russia exposure.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Reminds me of something a very good Ukrainian friend of mine told me: even as her dad and friends were under fire in Kyiv, they couldn't believe it was really happening, because it was completely off their radar (despite the frozen conflict since 2014). I remember reading back in early February that, according to a survey by a Foreign Policy author, 61% of Russia experts thought there'd be an invasion - so even 39% of people whose job it is to understand the inner workings of the Kremlin failed to see it coming. Even Russians seem to be dumbstruck by this advance, so it's no wonder the general public seems to have fallen for the Kremlin version of the conflict hook, line and sinker. Hell, most Brazilians I know seem to be pro-Russia (this is just an impression, I wish there was a poll to prove me wrong though).

Hope springs eternal

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I obviously very much respect your judgment, Jack, but I think it's difficult for British people to understand the fear of the Russian military that most of the rest of Europe has (especially those on the Eastern side).

I did go out with a Polish girl for eight years, remember? I think I have a decent idea.

And yes, the reports of just how pitiful the Russian military are performing only strengthen my earlier sentiment. Russia simply does not have the military capability to occupy and hold numerous resistant nations at once.

Just to clarify; my fear isn't really Russia invading Finland while they're still in Ukraine or them all of a sudden pivoting to the Baltic Sea region (region, not the Baltic states) while this conflict is ongoing, but afterwards, regardless of the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

If they magically do well after all, Putin will have gained at least some confidence to continue on to smaller targets. If they do badly, and if the proposed inner turmoil in Russia grows so bad that Putin feels threatened by it, he's going to try to take the focus out of it; meaning another special operation somewhere abroad, probably with a smaller target.

Right now, there's an online hybrid op going on in Finland where actual Russians living in Finland, and the St. Petersburg online brigade spread misinformation (well, mostly misinformation) about harassment and racism towards Russian-born immigrants in Finland. The same tactic they had in Ukraine. I know full well that we aren't exactly welcoming to Russian immigrants, but the problem isn't that big. I've known many enough old Russians to know that especially the older ones are still under Putin's spell somehow, and it's really hard to try and stay non-hostile towards someone who openly, in Finland, says Finland is on borrowed time, and that the area belongs to Russia anyway.

I really would love it that their relative defeat in Ukraine be so massive that they decide to take it easy for a decade or two, and that Putin is brought to Haag, served tea, or something else, but that's only something I'd love to be able to believe, not something I see happening. I think Putin's all-in now, no matter how it goes.

I think you two are being a bit too hopeful about it, but I hope you're right

They've also reformed much of their military in a short timespan before, after their humiliating half-success in the Winter War, so I'm not going to say their current problems in Ukraine are any indicator of what they're capable of in a few years. That would be a dangerous mistake to make. Believing that the seemingly hapless giant poses no actual threat to its close neighbours is something Sweden would probably want to undo completely.

And please bear in mind that it's somewhat difficult for me to stay very objective in a situation like this. Being wary of Russia and anticipating their aggression is very much the default mindset for anyone living next to them. Ask the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians.. But first make sure the person you're asking doesn't speak Russian.

quote:

Originally posted by JEO They've also reformed much of their military in a short timespan before

That takes money though. One of the reasons Russia's military is historically shitty right now is the collapse of the value of the rouble after the 2014 Crimea operation. Their current defence budget is similar to the UK's, which would have been unimaginable during the Cold War, and the heavy economic sanctions are going to hit them even harder in this respect.

quote:

If they magically do well after all, Putin will have gained at least some confidence to continue on to smaller targets. If they do badly, and if the proposed inner turmoil in Russia grows so bad that Putin feels threatened by it, he's going to try to take the focus out of it; meaning another special operation somewhere abroad, probably with a smaller target.

Most likely, they get drawn into a costly war of attrition in Ukraine where even if they "do well" (occupy the whole country) they have to keep a hefty garrison across the whole nation to suppress the inevitable insurgency and guerrilla warfare. And if they perform so poorly they have to abandon the whole invasion quickly (which doesn't look likely given Putin's ruthless bloody-mindedness), the operational effectiveness of their military to carry out a full scale invasion has basically been debunked. I just don't see any outcome where they settle the Ukraine issue quickly enough to rebuild and go again at a second country.

In the meantime, Finland would do well to get its NATO application form posted off as quickly as possible.

Also: is it worth us shifting all of this to a dedicated Ukraine thread, so people talking about Friday drinks and house buying aren't interposed with discussion of defence budgets?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J In the meantime, Finland would do well to get its NATO application form posted off as quickly as possible.

There's a reason they've refrained from sending the letter until now: this would eventually become a way to fight global warming with a nuclear winter.

In the short term (10 to 20 years), and if we assume this war will have disastrous consequences for the Russian economy, this means Finland would be protected against a weakened Russia. But, we have no idea who will replace Putin, and I'm afraid the sheer force of the recent sanctions might turn Putin's Russia into something akin to Kaiser Wilhelm II's Germany. That is, a very fertile ground for extremism.

NATO has been instrumental in keeping Europe relatively peaceful for quite a while, mostly because it kept absorbing threats. It's easy to forget the Treaty of Dunkirk meant to protect the UK and France from a possible German attack. Then West Germany joined. And then a unified Germany.

And then the weirdest thing happened: NATO, which was supposed to fend off the expansion of communism was joined by the countries from the former Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union was no more, but the organisation kept growing until it reached Russia... and Putin was reportedly keen in joining. If I recall correctly, he had plans to turn it into an alliance against terrorism - which made a lot of sense in the beginning of the century.

As buffer states between NATO and Russia became less numerous, Russia felt more threatened (that's what buffer countries are for). Expanding NATO even further will only make Russia feel more threatened down the line, and there's no way of knowing how Putin's successor will tackle this problem (the ongoing war itself could hardly be predicted). And, if NATO decides to have Russia among its ranks, it'll be China's turn to feel threatened. And the cycle continues...

In short, expanding NATO will likely only worsen an already bad situation in the long run.

There's not going to be a nuclear war and Russia is never going to invade a NATO member state. If it didn't happen between 1945 and 1990 it's not going to happen now. Using examples from the pre-nuclear age is pointless.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira

Dude.. Man. I don't know if you're saying this just to provoke discussion or if you actually think like this, but if it's the latter, you may not know Russia and their reflexive control scheme, or are willingly doing what they want you to.

We've been running from the bully exactly because so many people bought Russia's intimidation and thought like you seem to, while NATO has been the "easy" answer all along. Russia being surrounded by NATO countries doesn't make Russia more, but less belligerent. The best time to surround them was when they were weaker militarily, but popular appeasers and former Stasi collaborators managed to keep NATO practically a non-option here. I dare say that if Finland made it to NATO 15 years ago, Russia's belligerence wouldn't be this extreme today.

The "buffer zone" thinking is not very popular in Finland at this point, and the option of trusting Russia was thrown out of the window overnight. Like our president said: the mask is off. There's no going back to buffer zones or "neutrality".

I've seen this idea of small countries next to Russia remaining buffer zones being thrown around in big countries like the USA, like it's the small nation's role somehow. I don't know whether this idea is seen as plausible because of their ignorance on how Russia is to their small neighbours if they bow down to Russia, or whether the people in small countries just don't matter to the big boys. We've been a buffer zone for decades, and if even one thing goes to plan, we're not going to be that again. We are joining NATO, period. I second that Russia would never attack a NATO country; that would be suicide. Like I've said, Putin and Russia go for weakness. The only debate left is whether we're joining during this conflict or after it, and I'd prefer we do it ASAP.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And, if NATO decides to have Russia among its ranks

What's the time scale you're operating on here? 200 years? I think the European blue-eyedness towards Russia is gone for at least 50 years, and the possibility of Russia joining anything West of it is pretty much zero for quite some time.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J In the meantime, Finland would do well to get its NATO application form posted off as quickly as possible.

The polls historically shifted in favor of NATO almost overnight, and the membership has now been brought to public discourse in a way I've never seen before. Two civil initiatives for NATO membership to be addressed in Parliament collected the needed 50 000 signatures in record time. "The train to NATO membership is now moving" and "we are going to be in NATO" were two phrases I heard being used last night in a semi-official context. I'm starting to get confident we'll be in NATO relatively soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira In short, expanding NATO will likely only worsen an already bad situation in the long run.

Jesus, man!

Thanks, Swampstah!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J There's not going to be a nuclear war and Russia is never going to invade a NATO member state.

All right, this is actually two entirely different claims, and I partially agree with the latter half for one simple reason: Russia wouldn't have to invade a NATO member state to invade Finland if they ever decide to join.

Since 2005, Russia has been known to destabilise and carve out buffer states in neighbouring countries with intensified NATO talks, prior to their entrance (that's how we ended up with Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and South Ossetia after all), so the negotiations themselves would hang a bullseye on Finland's for a while. In a way, the Kremlin is already watching because it always has.

Now, regarding the nuclear strikes. I used a colourful hyperbole to drive my point home, as is my wont, but don't you reckon a blanket statement is a tad bit too strong? At this very moment, the use of any nuclear weapon is very unlikely, but remember "Russia won't invade Ukraine"? It wasn't an unreasonable position just a little over a fortnight ago (I myself thought it wasn't feasible until Putin's "Ukraine doesn't exist" speech), US Intel sounded nothing short of paranoid, and yet, here we are. The risk is definitely higher than zero, no need to push the envelope with a cavalier approach towards Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If it didn't happen between 1945 and 1990 it's not going to happen now. Using examples from the pre-nuclear age is pointless.

Good to know things don't ever happen for the first time

Anyway, that's not a very good comparison because it's a very different context: the Cold War slowly evolved after a number of years, with a gradual escalation between two former allies that eventually fell out, which gave both sides the possibility to develop checks to avoid an accidental clashes. This is not the case just yet.

quote:

Originally posted by JEO Dude.. Man. I don't know if you're saying this just to provoke discussion or if you actually think like this, but if it's the latter, you may not know Russia and their reflexive control scheme, or are willingly doing what they want you to.

I'm not saying any of this to provoke a reaction or because I agree with Putin in anyway (there were plenty of diplomatic alternatives to waging war). I don't want to be the doomsayer because I realise this issue is literally closer to you than to either me or Jack. I only mentioned it to him because there have been calls against NATO expansion since the 90s (login to JSTOR required), and they have, for the most part, been quite prescient. Finland and Sweden joining NATO, just like Ukraine's no-fly zone, would be a great solution in isolation. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, and we can't wish the Kremlin away.

Anyway, I'm not sure I want to push this argument any further, because I understand this isn't a theoretical issue, not one of us has enough clout in international politics to solve the problem, so revisiting this discussion might just be upsetting.

Our Russia appeasers don't agree with Putin either; it's just that they're as much of a coward as you seem to me. They choose to rather appease in fear than simply do the thing Russia "respects" and "fears": not giving in. No doubt, in their mind, they're preventing some unimaginable tragedy with their actions. Oh, and also making lots of money on the side.

Finland's co-operation with NATO is practically on the level of a NATO member. Russia knows this, and so should you. What we're missing right now is the last little bit. Our public discourse's messages are now aimed at NATO members, not Russia. Russia knows we're going to join at some point, and even in the off-chance that we aren't, Russia already thinks of us as a NATO member - a NATO member that doesn't have the support of NATO: a NATO member that can be thought of as a NATO member in Russia, internally, to justify an invasion, but which does not enjoy the protection of the intimidating effect of NATO.

Their invasion, if Finland won't join NATO PUBLICALLY, is just a matter of time. Staying out of NATO at this point is suicide for Finland. When it comes to non-NATO members, Russia will come up with a reason to invade, you don't need to give them one. You're not their neighbor, and you don't know their mindset. As I've said so many times, WEAKNESS is what Russia is going for; they see weakness as an OPPORTUNITY, and at this point not joining NATO would be weakness on Finland's part. Your assumptions about rationality or motive don't apply to Russia or the majority of Russians the way you think they do. Or maybe you know more than you give out, but the sheer fact you didn't comment on Lenin's bayonet makes me think you don't.

The only last thing is to publically debate Finland's public's acceptance to a level that will give current NATO members the needed guarantees that we are fully in to protect other NATO members; that we're not just in for ourselves. A tough thing to prove at this point, and not least because of opinions like yours that have plagued the discourse for decades. Thankfully they are opinions that are at this point increasingly on the losing side of this debate.

Your argument is that NATO's "expansion" lead to Putin's aggression, which is even more proof of you knowing exactly fuck all about Russia. Eastern European states joined NATO exactly because Russia will expand westward if we don't join NATO.

I'm really fighting myself here to not call you a massive pampered fuckwit who hasn't spent most of their adult life going to military refreshers, fearing and pessimistically anticipating this very moment, where opinions like yours have let things get to this point where we STILL in 2022 are not integrated deeply enough with the west for Russia to not play with the idea of threatening us. The only reason I will not is because I think you might have been a conscript yourself.

When Russia threatens to do something if the threatened party does thing X, it's an empty threat. When Russia says they're not going to do thing X, they are going to do thing X.

-Russia has guaranteed not to attack its weaker neighboring countries = they will attack their weaker neighboring countries.
-Russia has not sent conscripts to fight in Ukraine = almost all the captured "soldiers" in Ukraine are conscripcts of age 18-20.
-Russia does not bomb civilians in Ukraine = they bomb civilians every day in multiple cities in Ukraine.
-Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons = they will not use nukes; the nuclear threat, and in the end, "benevolently" not using their nuclear capacity, is their last non-humiliating way to de-escalate and retreat without a total loss of face in case of a humiliating (from an outside of Russia viewpoint) defeat in Ukraine.
-All historical Russian casus belli are manufactured by Russia - prove me wrong.

I'd worry about a nuclear war when Russia says they're not going to use nuclear weapons.

As much as you've garnered an image of something of an intellectual even in my eyes here during your two decades, you're way off right now. No link, no list of semi-related points, no fucking The Guardian article, no "actually" argument is going to change the fact that NATO is the only way forward for Finland as a de facto independent country, and that Finland's membership in NATO won't make WW3 one fucking bit more probable. Instead, it will do everything that's needed in the Baltic Sea region to make things more stable in the long run. After that, Sweden can finally enjoy its days of real neutrality without any fear of Finland being overrun by Russia, behind NATO without putting up one fucking finger, without actually being in NATO, and without relying only on the flesh barrier Finland has provided for centuries.

And I dont give a fuck about "calls against NATO expansion" since the fucking 90s. To me this is literally about my life, my family's life, and about the life of EVERYONE I've EVER KNOWN, and after that, if my life is spared, my way of living. To you this is seemingly some half-assed antagonist thought experiment on a long-dead trance forum. Revisiting this discussion is not upsetting. To me the only upsetting thing here is your way of seeing things.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira ...and they have, for the most part, been quite prescient

You still don't seem to understand that Russia making the threat and the threatened hesitating is what wins Russia the opportunity to act on the threat.

It all would have been so easy if it was not for this brown-tongued idea of not pissing off the aggressive retard living next to us.

This is not some thought experiment for me either, reason I won't keep debating you. Like I mentioned before, I have people very dear to me being shelled in Ukraine and my heart aches for them. I wouldn't be so callous to speak out of ignorance about something I know nothing about, I'm saying things ambassadors to the U.S. in Moscow have warned about. You just happen to disagree with me and that's okay, I get it.

We've seen it happen to Georgia. We're now watching it in Ukraine. I don't want any other country to be next, full stop.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Thanks, Swampstah! All right, this is actually two entirely different claims, and I partially agree with the latter half for one simple reason: Russia wouldn't have to invade a NATO member state to invade Finland if they ever decide to join. Since 2005, Russia has been known to destabilise and carve out buffer states in neighbouring countries with intensified NATO talks, prior to their entrance (that's how we ended up with Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and South Ossetia after all), so the negotiations themselves would hang a bullseye on Finland's for a while. In a way, the Kremlin is already watching because it always has.

As we've discussed, Russia simply does not have the military capacity to mount a full scale invasion of a second country while it remains embroiled in Ukraine, which is why now is the perfect time for Finland to get with the programme.

quote:

Now, regarding the nuclear strikes. I used a colourful hyperbole to drive my point home, as is my wont, but don't you reckon a blanket statement is a tad bit too strong? At this very moment, the use of any nuclear weapon is very unlikely, but remember "Russia won't invade Ukraine"? It wasn't an unreasonable position just a little over a fortnight ago (I myself thought it wasn't feasible until Putin's "Ukraine doesn't exist" speech), US Intel sounded nothing short of paranoid, and yet, here we are. The risk is definitely higher than zero, no need to push the envelope with a cavalier approach towards Russia.

Russia invading Ukraine is of an entirely different magnitude of probability to a full scale nuclear war breaking out and annihilating Russia, NATO and everyone else. The outcome of every single exercise in game theory run by both sides is to avoid complete self-destruction.

quote:

Anyway, that's not a very good comparison because it's a very different context: the Cold War slowly evolved after a number of years, with a gradual escalation between two former allies that eventually fell out, which gave both sides the possibility to develop checks to avoid an accidental clashes. This is not the case just yet.

That is exactly what has happened between NATO and Russia over the last 20 years.

Jack, out of respect for JEO, I'd gladly continue this discussion in a separate thread about the war in Ukraine, as you suggested earlier, if you're willing to debate this further. I don't think it's fair to keep this here as this is completely unrelated, and he can't put me on ignore. Maybe it would be better if we kept this space for more trivial discussion so people can relax a bit?

Bung all these posts in a different thread if you want and we can carry on there. Will make them easier to find for future COR archaeologists. I don't think you need to get touchy feely on JEO's behalf though.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Bung all these posts in a different thread if you want and we can carry on there. Will make them easier to find for future COR archaeologists.

Sure thing, will do soon

I think the whole question about the expansion of NATO rests on the counterfactual of what would have happened if NATO had not expanded. Would Russia be a peaceful, international law-abiding, prosperous democracy? Can anyone answer 'yes' with a straight face?

Putin wants to create the old Tsarist Russia, not the USSR. Look more at the statements of the Russian Orthodox Church than NATO, if you want to understand his actions.

At this point, blaming the expansion of NATO on this situation is just regurgitating Russian propaganda.

I look forward to Finland, and hopefully Sweden, joining as soon as possible.

All right, this discussion now has its own thread. Some of the content is still in the Friday thread, but I'm sure it's possible to follow the debate just fine here.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J As we've discussed, Russia simply does not have the military capacity to mount a full scale invasion of a second country while it remains embroiled in Ukraine, which is why now is the perfect time for Finland to get with the programme.

Russia has proven, time and again, that they can play a weak hand extremely well.

From the meddling in US elections with troll farms to the "little green men" in Crimea, brute military force has been just one of the ways the Kremlin has sought to achieve its goals. We just can't ever know what is next.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Russia invading Ukraine is of an entirely different magnitude of probability to a full scale nuclear war breaking out and annihilating Russia, NATO and everyone else. The outcome of every single exercise in game theory run by both sides is to avoid complete self-destruction.

I'm in full agreement. However, as James M. Acton, the co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, explains at length in a rather accessible podcast by FiveThirtyEight, and he explains the use of nuclear weapons is very unlikely - unless one of the belligerent parties is having a really bad loss (e.g. Russia feeling overwhelmed and outgunned would be an example) and judges that the deployment of a nuclear weapon might be preferable to an unfavourable outcome that could be perceived as more certain and qualitatively worse. Reason caution is advised, in his opinion.

Of course, it's not a consensus not even among experts, so I'm not saying the world will definitely end as in a Matt Maltese song. But, as there are still discussions by people who know about it way better than either of us, I'd be a tad bit more cautious about escalating the tension in the region. The pessimist may turn out to be right.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J That is exactly what has happened between NATO and Russia over the last 20 years.

Has it? Between 2009 and 2011, there were a couple of joint military exercises between NATO and Russia, and that's about it. The Cold War started soon after the US and the USSR fought Nazi Germany as allies. The trust baseline started in very different levels, and I'm afraid Trump may even have had a negative impact, having left treaties like the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and nearly bungled the "New Start" renewals, raising distrust between the parties. I don't remember another American president being so reckless in the Cold War.

I could be mistaken though, so if there are more parallels, I can't remember them right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I think the whole question about the expansion of NATO rests on the counterfactual of what would have happened if NATO had not expanded. Would Russia be a peaceful, international law-abiding, prosperous democracy? Can anyone answer 'yes' with a straight face?

I don't think anyone here said anything resembling that. The argument so far has been about military build-up and perceived threats.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Putin wants to create the old Tsarist Russia, not the USSR. Look more at the statements of the Russian Orthodox Church than NATO, if you want to understand his actions.

No disagreements here either. Jack and I have both mentioned the Cold War at some point, but I believe we're in agreement when we both say this is not a USSR redux either.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews At this point, blaming the expansion of NATO on this situation is just regurgitating Russian propaganda.

Come on now, mate, really? I'd understand your being dismissive if I just typed a few ramblings away, and I'd be humble enough if this were the case. However, and I don't want to to appeal to authority or anything, would you really be willing to say John Mearsheimer is being something of a Kremlin mouthpiece, for example? He's been even more critical of NATO expansionism than I have in this thread, saying "[t]he West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis"... and that's from The Economist, not the RT, so it's hardly a publication with a pro-Russia bias. I said what I said precisely because I've tried to get as broad a view as possible about this conflict since the annexation of Crimea, as I've explained I had my reasons to.

I have also, up to this moment, been citing and quoting experts whose opinion I believe we can all find unbiased and reliable, from Russian scholars critical of Putin to Western officials (I linked to a diplomatic cable by the current CIA director, then U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, a few posts back). If I'm not mistaken, I am the only one citing sources around here, aren't I?

I understand perfectly well JEO's "Fuck Leftist Westplaining" knee-jerk reaction as he's closer to St. Petersburg than I am to Rio. But, you have a PhD in political science. If you're going to say these these people and I are "just regurgitating Russian propaganda", I'm genuinely interested to know when Brookings (whose former senior fellow, Michael Mccgwire, I also quoted) became an agitprop institution... because that's the sort of person I'm referring to

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Russia has proven, time and again, that they can play a weak hand extremely well. From the meddling in US elections with troll farms to the "little green men" in Crimea, brute military force has been just one of the ways the Kremlin has sought to achieve its goals. We just can't ever know what is next.

Right, sure, okay. I think this whole point is just drifting now. If Finland join NATO, Russia will not invade and occupy them. I don't know exactly what you're suggesting they might do to Finland instead of invading them while Finland goes through the process of joining NATO, and I'm not sure you know either, but I think JEO and his countrymen will take a bit of cyber-terrorism over a full scale invasion.

quote:

Of course, it's not a consensus not even among experts, so I'm not saying the world will definitely end as in a Matt Maltese song. But, as there are still discussions by people who know about it way better than either of us, I'd be a tad bit more cautious about escalating the tension in the region. The pessimist may turn out to be right.

Cutting through the back-and-forth in the article, the consensus they come to is this:

quote:

So, essentially, Russia is backstopping its conventional aggression with nuclear threats. Step 1: Invade your neighbors. Step 2: Threaten nuclear war to prevent outside interference that could reverse your conquest. EA: That’s a better characterization. As the Georgetown University professor Caitlin Talmadge pointed out last week, the Russians are largely using their nuclear weapons as an umbrella, presuming that the stability-instability paradox—which suggests that states with nuclear weapons are even more likely to start a war, assuming that nuclear weapons will prevent the worst outcomes—will hold that and they’ll be able to get away with conventional military activity as a result. But for the United States, the result is the same whether or not Russia says it out loud. The United States doesn’t have an interest in getting in a shooting war with Russia, particularly given the risks of nuclear escalation that come with it. There’s a reason why, during the Cold War, the superpowers typically kept conflict contained to proxies.

This is pretty much exactly what I said in one of my very first posts, which you didn't move into this thread:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J There will be no direct conflict between NATO and Russia, that much is clear. The risk of escalation is far too high.

Russia may use a limited nuclear strike in Ukraine if things go really badly for them, but frankly I would be fucking amazed if that ever happens. But Ukraine is not part of NATO and that won't result in a nuclear exchange. What I'm talking about is a full nuclear war between NATO and Russia, which essentially means mutual annihilation. That's not going to happen. Putin is ratcheting up the nuclear threat to ensure NATO don't actually deploy troops in Ukraine or institute a no fly zone or anything to that effect, and it will work because neither side wants to end the world. And I don't find your earlier, possibly hyperbolic, assertion than Finland has stayed out of NATO because they're scared of global thermonuclear war if they do join very credible. To me that line of reasoning is so self-evidently daft I just settled for a slightly weary "There's not going to be a nuclear war."

My gut is another dimension where thermonuclear war is happening right now. This dimension doesn’t have Armin von Bergen so there will be no peaceful resolution

quote:

Originally posted by Lira If I'm not mistaken, I am the only one citing sources around here, aren't I?

How about you put your sources away for a moment then. Lower yourself to my level and give me answers in a way I can understand.

-Given the world today, if you got to decide, would you have kept NATO from "expanding" to the former Warsaw Pact countries and/or the Baltic states?
-What do you feel would have been Russia's reaction if, after the USSR's collapse, these said countries expressed strong interest in integrating with the West and the West outright denied them?
-Why are the countries that didn't join NATO or didn't make it to the EU early enough the ones in Russia's sights now?

These questions might be slightly leading, but please, just tell me what you think.

If you won't arrive to the conclusion that we are all indeed better off with NATO having "expanded" than not, you might just be dismissing the whole of non-Russian Europe, where I think there are quite a few more experts who agree on NATO's "expansion" being a good thing than not.

I feel like you're complicating an issue that's now 100% clear to at least all of Russia's neighbors, if not the whole of Europe; it was absolutely necessary for all the current Eastern European NATO countries to join NATO for things to be as good as they are now, as opposed to how things probably would have been if they hadn't chosen to join. Even if it was NATO's expansion that lead to the conflict we see now, do you not think it was and is worth it?

My questions ultimately boil down to one question: would you rather have the current situation in Europe or have half of Europe as Russia's buffer states?

You are either in a strong alliance against Russia or forcibly kept from not being a part of it in some way.

And sorry for my vitriol towards you. I'm in a sort of proxy war against Russia myself, through people with opinions like yours.

Here we go. The hybrid has officially started.



https://twitter.com/RussianEmbFinla...087251009081348

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.