Finland and Sweden formally applied for NATO membership on Wednesday, a move that, if approved, would fundamentally transform the security landscape of Northern Europe and give the alliance a valuable edge against Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
We can all thank Vladimir Putin, geopolitical master strategist, for this.
This truly is amazing. After all the years of the Cold War then the fall of the Soviet Union, I hardly expected a revival of this kind of brutality. This was supposed to be the age of Aquarius when everything was going to be wonderful.
This has to be the biggest self-own in the history of self-owns. Heck of a job Putin, you deserve an award.
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1525885404125499392
First, they need to figure out how to get Turkey on board.
Erdogan looks at Sweden and Finland and sees a virtuousness he doesn't want to encourage.
Garry Kasparov wrote yesterday that Obama and Merkel should travel together to Kyiv to apologize in person to the Ukrainians for enabling Putin. I laughed out loud at the thought of either one of them admitting error, much less apologizing for it. But I'm sure Kevin will explain that Obama--maybe Merkel too--was actually playing nine-dimensional chess with Putin and that this is really a moment of triumph for him.
Don’t know that Putin was needing any enabling, but yes, it’s too bad the West didn’t come down on him a lot sooner. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria … Pretty clear what the project was.
So we should have organized a robust coalition to oppose Putin's moves on Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria? Good luck with that. It's the higher profile and scale of Ukraine together with Putin's now proven track record that has energized the international resistance.
I'm genuinely curious in what way you think Obama and Merkel "enabled" Putin.
I am curious also. It seems the one who "enabled" Putin was donnie fat mule, trashing the EU and NATO.
I'm guessing the reasoning will be something along the lines of "They didn't bomb Russia pre-emptively."
Coupled with a lot of implicit assumptions about the apparently god-level power and prescience wielded by Obama and Merkel.
Plainly, if anything happens anywhere on the globe, it's only because America and I guess also Germany either did it or consciously permitted it to happen.
The same Obama that was either an incompetent buffoon or sinister mastermind depending on the FOX talking point of the day.
I'm going to guess that it has something to do with "letting" Putin take Crimea.
There were obviously some tactical errors, like Obama pointing out that Russia is weak. He was right, but heavily-armed white people— and countries— tend to respond aggressively to having their failings pointed out. I don’t know that Syria had any good options, but it was bad news all the way down.
Germany’s belief that trade can solve all problems has some basis wrt Russia; nobody wants to actually take Russia itself*. They have lots of raw materials, but it’s cheaper to just buy them than to try to occupy the country, regardless of the price. That’s why Putin’s rhetoric falls flat outside of Russia… it’s not worth the battle to take materials that can be bought far more easily.
*China might have some territorial interest in the eastern half, for fairly obvious reasons, but I don’t know enough about the history or politics of the two countries to speculate beyond acknowledging the possibility.
Germany was hardly the only Western nation that subscribed to the theory that trade with Russia would be an unstoppable force for interdependence, consequently liberalization, and peaceful relations with the West. Doesn’t seem to be working all that well with China, either. Yet, there are differences: Russia exports natural resources and grain, and imports almost everything else; China is an energy and food importer, and exports manufactured goods. Russia has a few large customers for energy; China has worldwide customers. Will those factors make a difference in foreign relations? Or will China’s behavior reflect lessons learned from the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
Did you read Kasparov's piece? Somehow, I suspect he follows Russian politics more closely and more knowledgeably than anyone here.
It's not Kasparov's knowledge of Russia we are questioning, rather his knowledge of the west, including the limits of its power.
Yes, forget about dealing with the future, lets concentrate on organizing the circular firing squad to deal with the past!
It's the Way of the Democrats. (sigh)
No 9th dimensional chess--just pragmatic politics. Ukraine was not in a position to fight Russia at the time.
I think the biggest change between 2014 - when the Russians invaded Crimea - and now has happened within Ukraine. They decided to fight for their country. They reorganized their military along NATO lines. They changed their weaponry, they changed their tactics, they elected a leader based on a speech about how they needed to care.
I mean, yeah, the difference in Germany between then and now matters, but if Ukraine didn't care, would Germany?
I did not then, nor do I now, see what Obama could have done differently in any substantive way.
Considering the bulk of Crimea supported Russia.........
Citation missing.
I'm sure you can explain how your 'majority' isn't actually represent a majority of those who live there, as well as not including any of the indigenous peoples, as well as there being a rather notable number who were left under house arrest or deported so weren't allowed to vote on the matter?
Do not feed the troll.
Back in 2014 the most strategic thing to have done would have been to undertake an even greater expansion of LNG shipping capacity across the Atlantic. Even if it would have been stranded assets in twenty years. Gas being Russia/Putin’s main playing card. But that would have infuriated the Greens/environmentalists who insist on the perfect (windmills and panels) over the good.
Yes. So far as I am aware, only Poland invested strongly in LNG terminals; I believe they will have another coming on line. NIMBYism played a role in delaying/canceling export terminals in the US; it’s not an existential issue for exporters as it is for importers in Central Europe.
"But that would have infuriated the Greens/environmentalists who insist on the perfect (windmills and panels) over the good."
And why exactly would Europeans have wanted to pay more for gas from the US than from geographically far closer supplies?
European gas prices for most of the past decade have hovered around 3-5 USD/MMbtu. Which is pretty much on par with the price of US gas _domestically_. To get that gas to Europe would have required building many tens of billions of dollars worth of new pipelines and LNG terminals (on *both* sides of the Atlantic), plus a vast fleet of LNG tanker ships, rendering American gas completely uncompetitive with Euro supplies (even if those supplies came from Russia).
Euro companies and markets are quite sophisticated; if a German company wanted to invest in building out infrastructure to secure American supplies of gas, they could have. They didn't, because it was a money-losing venture. Maybe you are arguing that we should have federally subsidized gas sales to our wealthy cousins in Europe, but good luck selling that politically.
Honestly, "[b]ack in 2014 the most strategic thing to have done" in the U.S. would have been to impose new vehicle fuel efficiency standards so as to tamp down demand for oil and thereby undercut the rents petronations like Russia extract. Which we did (sorta); it's too bad we didn't do more of that.
In fact Poland has a terminal at Świnoujście, and is expanding it. I grant that the decision to build out capacity for LNG importation may not have been purely an economic one - Poland is making it clear that they do not wish to have Russians any closer than they already are.
I remember when Bush looked into Putie's soul and saw an ally, but sure, let's blame the Democrat.
I don’t think NATO needs any more of an ‘edge’ against Russia, but this helps Ukraine as it will necessarily draw some time and attention from Putin, Lavrov et al. Not to mention that it points up again what a stupid move this was on Russia’s part.
Ukraine was doing well and probably poised to grow--so had to be crushed. Putin needs kleptocracies around him so he looks good--and he gets a piece of the cut.
Besides, he didn't want to take the blame for Russia's covid crisis.
You make Putin sound like Trump.
I think a noteworthy non-event is Belarus’ non-participation, so far, despite reported pressure from Russia to commit troops. This despite Lukashenko’s owing his continuing in the Presidency to Putin. I take this to mean that Putin hasn’t got the troops to depose Lukashenko and insure that a successor loyal to Russia takes his place. Of course it makes sense for Lukashenko not to make (more of) an enemy of a neighboring country four times as populous. We’ll see if this holds as the war drags on.
Dude, it's the opposite. Belarus has a large anti Russian populism that opposes the government. You don't seem to understand that.
That's not the opposite "
Considering its government is hanging by a thread, it's not the opposite, it's why Putin can't call on them. Arming Belarusian dissident soldiers would be quickly moved.
I think we can give Mr. Putin Turkey and Hungary in exchange for Ukraine.
Uhh, no.
Read an osint comparison of Oryx's weapons tracking to Russian reports of their battalion equipment losses. It appears that Russian tank losses are closer to ~800.
Does that change your point of view on the situation in Ukraine, or do you still believe that this is a war that will go on for years?
Got something re Starlink's importance for Ukraine for you to read: https://twtr.in/3JKa