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. |
quote: |
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I understand your worries but I think the risk to Finland is relatively low at this stage... |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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). |
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). |
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 |
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. |
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 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 |
quote: |
Originally posted by Lira And, if NATO decides to have Russia among its ranks |
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. |
quote: |
Originally posted by Lira In short, expanding NATO will likely only worsen an already bad situation in the long run. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
quote: |
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J That is exactly what has happened between NATO and Russia over the last 20 years. |
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? |
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. |
quote: |
Originally posted by Lews At this point, blaming the expansion of NATO on this situation is just regurgitating Russian propaganda. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
Here we go. The hybrid has officially started.
https://twitter.com/RussianEmbFinla...087251009081348
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.