Hmmm. Finland has officially decided to apply for membership in NATO. Russia is pissed.
A lot of people under 40 or so might not understand why this is a big deal. Finland is just your standard Western democracy, after all, and has been part of the EU for decades. The only surprising thing is that they aren't part of NATO already. So what's up?
To keep things short, Finland and Russia have some history. The Soviet Union tried to invade Finland in the Winter War of 1939-40 but lost thanks to stiff Finnish resistance. Later, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union demanded—and got—promises of strict neutrality from Finland. They also demanded—and got—enormous influence over Finnish foreign policy. The whole thing was dubbed Finlandization, and in practice it meant the Soviets considered Finland something between a hostage and a client state.
So joining NATO would be a huge ego blow for Russia. In practice, neither Finland nor Russia really have any beef today, but Finland officially joining a Western military alliance would be something like, say, the Philippines joining a Chinese military alliance. Not a big deal in concrete terms, but certainly a seismic shift in alliances.
Good for Finland, although it shouldn't make much of a difference for Russia strategically since they already had a NATO country on their western border (Poland). The US isn't about to stick short range nuclear weapons there to aim at Russia either anytime soon.
I can't imagine the Finns won't get admitted. Question is whether Sweden follows suit as well.
If you're a non-nuclear power, you need to be in a defensive alliance with a nuclear power or get nuclear weapons of your own.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they go for it, Sweden doesn’t really need to join. Surrounded by NATO nations is likely sufficient to protect them. I mean, would NATO really just stand by if Russian missiles were landing on Sweden or troops were invading Sweden? It’d be like a fire department not responding to the one house on fire in the middle of the city that technically never was annexed into the city.
I agree, that Sweden doesn't really need to join NATO if/when all neighboring countries are members.
But for long- and vigorously-neutral Sweden to join NATO now sends a very powerful message to Putin, to the rest of Europe, and to the world.
Sweden announced they would apply if Finland applied a month ago. Not clear why they delegated their foreign policy to Finland
Sweden has a border with Russia.
No !
But it’s a short distance between Kaliningrad and the Swedish strategic island of Gotland
Greetings from your Swedish friend
There have been reports that Finland and Sweden had informally agreed to apply for NATO membership at the same time.
Sweden joining NATO would be a big deal. The country has stayed neutral since the end of the Napoleonic wars. Though Sweden too has an unhappy history with Russia if you go back farther: Finland was originally a Swedish possession until the Russian took it from them during a period of Swedish disarray.
It is highly unlikely that Sweden and Finland would not go together in this. We have always had strong bonds, not least when it comes to military and defense matters. (Part of the rationale behind Sweden staying neutral after WWII was most likely to stand by Finland which could not join NATO then.) Also, Finland joining NATO and Sweden not doing so would mean that the Baltic sea would be surrounded by NATO countries plus Russia and Sweden. Doesn't seem like a very nice situation for Sweden.
Furthermore, the bonds between the five Nordic countries are strong, and many would like to see them even stronger in various respects. All five having the same status with respect to NATO would make this easier.
Also, a few hundred years ago (minor) parts of Russia were also Swedish, just like Finland. This, together with Swedish vikings raiding in Russia, make Swedes not the most popular people in Russia. There is a poem, The Bronze Horseman by Pushkin, that very young Russian kids have to learn by heart, in which both Finns and Swedes are mentioned in less than charitable words.
But of course, it is a big deal to leave a 200 year old policy. "Sweden's non-alliance has served us well" is often heard from our politicians. Well, times change.
If you go to Russians, any 50ish cab driver will tell you about the wars fought with every country, but in particular, Sweden. Such a large fraction of the populace is fixated/obsessed with the past that it is no wonder they are in this idiotic war. It's not just Putin.
Don't forget that at the peek the Swedish empire extended into what is now St. Petersburg and parts of the Baltic states. Peter The Great defeated Sweden and took the Baltic states and the St. Petersburg area. Just over 200 years ago they took Finland from Sweden too.
The swedes invented Russian.
Sweden announced they would apply if Finland applied a month ago. Not clear why they delegated their foreign policy to Finland
I guess you aren’t that well informed on the situation over here..
Greetings from your Swedish friend
There's also NATO stalwart Norway, with whom Russian tenuously shares Svalbard.
I have observed, in my lifetime the dynamic where the US encourages other countries to get nukes by aggressive action. It's nice to see the flipped dynamic, where this works to our advantage.
Really? I can’t think of any. We certainly never threatened Britain or France. India and Pakistan were the impetus for each other. Iran could yet be counted as seeking to counter US threats, although initially Iraq was probably the greater concern. The USSR and China acquired them as tickets to the Great Powers club. So who?
North Korea.
For over six decades since the North Koreans invaded the South, we have observed the truce. Why did they suddenly fear ‘aggression’ on the part of the U.S.? Or is it just the usual amping up of nationalism by stoking fear of a foreign enemy?
Finland (and, probably, Sweden) joining NATO is (are) something unimaginable just a few years ago. And that's not because either of those countries has changed recently, but because Putin's Russia is something we didn't see during the Stalin years, and didn't see under later Soviets, and didn't see in the years after the breakup of the USSR.
Putin, clearly, didn't foresee the response to his invasion of Ukraine. There's a fair chance he'll go berserk in the coming weeks or months and nuke Ukraine and Helsinki, and who-knows who else. There's every sign the Biden administration, and our NATO and other allies, are all keenly aware of this, and have been strategizing about various scenarios.
The question is, will most elected Republicans continue to support Ukraine, or will they back off into some Biden-bashing, neo-isolationist snit in which they demand reduction or even elimination of our aid to Ukraine or else they'll shut down the government or something? I don't see that happening soon, but only Pangloss would imagine it's not possible should Republicans see electoral advantage in abandoning Ukraine.
Your post is dead. Neo isolation in a capitalist economy is not possible. Russia is is dead as well.
Your comment is braindead.
We must protect the Finnish Catgirl Prone Minister!
Very good derp, but this isn't Twitter.
Russia didn't lose the war compleeley. They are actually got 9% of Finalnd's area to stop it. That is what wikipedia says:
"Hostilities ceased in March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty in which Finland ceded 9% of its territory to the Soviet Union. Soviet losses were heavy, and the country's international reputation suffered.[37] Their gains exceeded their pre-war demands, and the Soviets received substantial territories along Lake Ladoga and further north. Finland retained its sovereignty and enhanced its international reputation. The poor performance of the Red Army encouraged German Chancellor Adolf Hitler to believe that an attack on the Soviet Union would be successful and confirmed negative Western opinions of the Soviet military. After 15 months of Interim Peace, in June 1941, Germany commenced Operation Barbarossa, and the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviets began. "
In some ways, the Winter War was the Ukraine War Part 1. Russia wades in overconfident and gets its hat handed to it by its smaller neighbor. Still, Russia did eventually prevail against the Finns by sheer weight of numbers and learning some things, and they did get some land out of it, but Finnish resistance ensured that it did not become another Soviet Socialist Republic (considering that they had been part of the Russian empire only 25 years prior, that was a decent prospect if the Soviets had won a stronger victory...)
I clearly understand why Finland now wants to join NATO. Extending the collective shield is not without risk/cost: I am less clear what NATO gain by adding Finland....
It hopes to avoid another Ukraine. Deterring an invasion is much better than defending against one (or helping the a country defend against one).
Precisely. The EU and US could not allow any hostile Russian action against either of those liberal democracies. Admission to NATO would make that crystal clear, and forestall any miscalculation by Russia.
I understand the concept of deterrence. However, if deterrence's were to fail, and the Russians were to attack, are we really ready for armed conflict over Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania (or Finland)?
Yes. That's how NATO works, and if those countries fall, the rest are up for grabs too.
Yes. In the aftermath of WWII, Poland lost Galicia to the then-Ukrainian SSR, but gained Pomerania and Silesia from Germany. Germany also lost the Memelland to Lithuania, and Königsberg and its surrounding region to Russia. Peace in Europe has been maintained for 70 years because, until recently, nations accepted the principle that borders should not be changed by force of arms. Defending the Baltics is defending that principle. So is refusing to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Allowing those to stand without resisting takes us back to the nineteenth century of great-power politics, warring, and a much less prosperous Europe and North America, because of the disruption of trade and the waste of resources.
Yes to this-- stated maybe a tad less formally, we simply can't have a situation where some asshat with an army goes and busts up the country next door just because he feels like it. It was that aspect of Putin's invasion, I think, that most took everybody's breath away for several weeks. Back-to-the-future nightmare, etc.
"So is refusing to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea. " That's complete crap. Crimea never wanted to be part of the Ukraine at the dissolution of the USSR. Kiev bribed them with a constitutional guarantee of autonomy to get a 53% victory (With 20% of the anti-ukraine population boycotting since they were going to be forced into the Ukraine even if the majority voted no). Of course Kiev ripped up that constitution within 5 years and ended Crimean independence. And there was a free and fair election in which 95% of crimeans voted to join Russia. (Again, the crimean tartars, likely to vote against this, boycotted.)
That ‘free and fair election’ (declared illegitimate by the U.N. General Assembly) was held in the wake of a takeover by force of arms.
And why do all of your comments sound like concern trolling?
If deterrence is the point of alliances like NATO, then having one of Europe's best-prepared countries, in terms of defense, sign on would not be a dumb move. They have universal conscription and regular training, their large buildings and bridges and other infrastructure are designed with defense in mind, and they war-game and plan for situations where they don't control the skies. We're seeing in Ukraine now that serious war planning should include that possibility. Both Finland and Ukraine have a lot to teach on that score.
So especially to the extent that some NATO countries might have tended to get complacent about the prospect of a real war, Finland brings a lot to the table.
Having Finland and Sweden in NATO does increase the amount of territory NATO has to defend, but it also increases the amount of territory Russia would have to defend if it went to war with NATO. Russian forces are not infinite and the accession of those two states in NATO would be a small but significant improvement in NATO's ability to deter the Russians.
And as Altoid said, the Finns and Swedes bring a fair amount of actual military and non-military power to the NATO table.
It's very simple. Whether the West likes it or not, the reality is that we've been in an ever escalating war for Russia for more than a decade.
And it's increasingly clear that will need allies in this war. The case for the original NATO expansion was that the Putin could add the countries of the former Warsaw Pact back into the Russian empire (thereby increasing Russia's military and economic resources) or we could allow those countries to add their resources to our own.
There's no middle ground and, as we've seen, no concept of neturality which will be respected by Russia. There's simply a war which we can either win or lose. We have already seen that Russia is building alliances with key figures in this country's ruling party and the decline in our own democratic institutions as a result. We need to welcome allies like Finland to the fight.
This kind of ignore that the main lesson from the Ukraine-Russia war is that the Russian military is a joke and we are already pissing away way to many resources on our military.
Undoubtedly we are wasting vast sums on a military that suffers from some of the defects from which the Russians suffer. And, clearly, we don’t needed to spend more than the rest of the world combined. But we and our allies are in a war with Russia and we needed to win that war if we are to have any hope of preserving our democracy.
Russia' military is not a joke. Do not mistakenly substitute pride at the upper levels for a weak military. Anyone who claims that this war shows that US could easily beat Russia in a direct confrontation has fallen for the same hubris that prior planners of many wars have fallen for.
If Russia declared war and ramped up its dedication of forces, equipment, and manufacturing industry of dumb bombs to bear down on Ukraine, this war would be entirely different and most people would be highly pessimistic about Ukraine's chances.
Let pride get in the way and let it slowly piss away its military advantage until it is too late and they cannot "win".
Many Finns are still upset about the loss of Karelia to the Russians at the end of the 1940 war. Today it's not so much the idea of getting Karelia back as the idea of what Putin might like to sieze next.
Russia is toast. China tiring of the "war" is further signs that the war with Ukraine is ending. Up to Putie how this ends. We can do this the hard way which is the extermination of Russia and it's 400 million people. Or we can do this the soft way and your people can live.
Your choice.
Drugs and commenting don't mix. At least not for you.
Russia claims a population of 144 million. I'm shocked to learn there are another 260 million living incommunicado. Descendants of the Siberian exiles, no doubt.
Maybe they don't count the people in the Gulag.
Fantastic thread on Russian ethnic cleansing in Kherson,
https://twitter.com/JosephStash/status/1524675550152904704
They're depopulating the city and moving in Russian en masse.
That is a good thread. Supporting Ukraine is the correct action. Putin has been increasingly bold about occupying territory since he invaded Georgia 14 years ago. He took Crimea in 2014 and has been supporting separatist fighters in the Eastern areas of Ukraine since then.
Some historical context:
Finland was part of the Russian Empire since taken from Sweden in 1808 - "The Grand Duchy of Finland" - until the Revolution, when the Finns, who had enjoyed some relative autonomy, were able to become independent. Unlike the other Baltic states, they were able to keep their freedom after the Second World War - despite having allied with the Nazis during the conflict.
Trivia: for many decades after the war, Russian was taught at the primary second language.
More trivia: German was the main second language taught in Sweden until 1946.
If I remember right, Sweden was the major source of Germany's iron ore during the Nazi period, to the extent that one of the big reasons for taking over Norway was to assure that ore would still move along a rail line from the mines to the Norwegian coast. Sweden was neutral, but the most benign view would be that selling Germany the ore was the price of being able to stay that way.
Yes, Sweden's "neutrality" during WWII is highly debatable. In general we allowed a lot of transports through our country during that war that we are (or should be) ashamed by.
As for language taught in school: I doubt that Russian was the primary second language in Finland even during that time in history, since Swedish is (and was) obligatory for all Finns at school. But perhaps that doesn't really count, since Swedish is one of the two official languages in Finland.
Let’s remember history correctly my friend.
When the war started was Sweden a tiny country, population 5m and a nonexistent military.
France was subdued in weeks, Denmark in less than 24 hours and Norway in days.
What did you expect us to do ?
Send the few outdated bombers we possessed to bomb Berlin?
We could not provide them with fighter escort since our old double deckers was in Finland helping them to fight Stalin who unprovoked attacked them
We were the only ones who assisted them
We tried to buy modern fighters from USA but you refused to sell and we didn’t get any help from anyone else either.
We could have acted differently if we had been a superpower…but we wasn’t!
We gave protection to the Danish Jews when the resistance managed to ship them across the straight of Öresund and we did the same with most of the Norwegian Jews (+ 50 000 other Norwegians)
We allowed non armed Germans going for leave to travel on Swedish trains from the northern parts of Norway to Denmark
The debatable incident was “the Midsomer crisis “ in 1941 when Germany demanded to use our railways to transport a division from Norway to Finland to join the Finns against Soviet in the continuing war The Swedish government was deeply divided but finally agreed. In my opinion did our government handle the relationship with Germany correctly. Any other country in our position given the opportunity had done the same. … trying to keep out of an armed conflict that should have ended in disaster if it was possible to do so
"Any other country in our position given the opportunity had done the same"
Yes, yes, supplying and aiding the genocidal Wehrmacht was surely the moral thing for Sweden to do! After all, Swedish people might have died or Swedish industry might have been inconvenienced had Sweden tried standing up to the Nazis; I'm sure that the non-Swedes who died in their place only regret that they, too, did not have millions of tons of iron to sell to Hitler.
I cast no aspersions on contemporary Swedes (or anybody else) for what their ancestors did, but let's not pretend that 1940s Sweden is blameless.
During the first part of the war Sweden had to play along with Germany or face the same fate as Denmark or Norway. After Stalingrad when it became obvious the Germans were going to lose the Swedes became more independent and accepted Jewish refugees fleeing from Denmark. Among these was the Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr. The Germans were upset about this but given their increasingly desperate situation, not enough to risk the source of their iron ore.
USA weren’t that eager to participate either. An influential political group with the device “ America first” made sure you stayed out until Japan attacked and Hitler declared war.
The only countries that “stood up “ to Hitler was France and UK/the Commonwealth. All other countries involved in the war did so simply because they were attacked. I am certain our neighbors hadn’t joined by free will if they had the option to stay out
America First was irrelevant. The U.S. military was a disaster. It basically didn't exist in 1938 and was only partially built up by 1941. Germany was losing the east, us or no us. Matter of fact, if the US doesn't get involved, the Soviet army would have taken over Europe.
The second language is typically counted as one acquired is after the official language(s).
Actually, this is not how linguists define "second language", which is rather a language learned after the first language acquired from infancy. I see your point, however, but I suspect in many countries with more than one official language the situation may be somewhat similar to Finland.
The status of the Swedish language in Finland is… controversial. The vast majority are Finnish speakers, and don’t like that they have to learn some Swedish at school. They are, understandably, much more interested in learning languages that can actually be useful to them, like English. In their minds, I am pretty sure Finnish is their first language, and Swedish is far from having that status.
But, since they are forced to take Swedish for three years at school because it is one of their two official languages, it may not qualify as a "proper" second language, like I said in my earlier comment. Even though that is what it is considered being by Finns themselves (at best).
Yes, Sweden's "neutrality" during WWII is highly debatable.
Have you at long last no decency?
Nothing about Sweden's virtue is debatable. Nothing. It is the most perfectest country every. And I mean EVER. Indeed, the national security of the United States of America is hanging by a thread: let's hope Sweden joins NATO, because without that Kingdom's massive military prowess, we may as all start learning Russian (as well as Mandarin).
Eh… why this comment? What do you want to achieve? This sarcastic comment makes me assume that you think I consider Sweden to be perfect (and apparently that I/Swedes think that Sweden would "save" NATO by joining. Where did you get that idea?). Why? I certainly don’t, as you will easily find if you read earlier comments I have made*. I mostly comment here when I have information to bring to the discussion, information that I have because I live in Sweden and therefore know a thing or two about what is happening over here. I don’t see your point, except that you apparently want to make me feel bad.
I hope I misunderstood what you wanted to say with your comment, please enlighten me if so.
* I could actually go on and on about things that infuriate me about Sweden, but since those subjects have not been discussed here I have had no reason to bring them up just for the sake of ranting off topic.
Lugn , det är mej han är ute efter. Han är en märklig typ och han är inte förtjust i mig
Tycker väl inte det gör saken bättre, direkt... 🙂
Det är så trist att så många här buntar ihop alla svenskar som en massa självgoda idioter som tror att de har lösningen på alla världens problem. Svårt att delta i en balanserad diskussion då.
This sarcastic comment makes me assume that you think I consider Sweden to be perfect
Um, Jag tror absolut inte att du anser att Sverige är perfekt, vännen. Inte så säker på den svenska Archie Bunker som regelbundet besöker oss! (:
I had thought it was mostly a dig at some American supporters of Bernie Sanders, who seem to think that Denmark and Sweden are Socialist paradises, with no crime or poverty or inequality or racism or sexism …
Churchill came close to resolving that neutrality debate.
https://sjohistoriskasamfundet.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/fn70_a04.pdf
"Had Operation Paul, the Royal Navy’s plan for an attack on Luleå, taken place as it was intended in 1940, it might have brought Sweden
into the Second World War against the Allies, which could have soured
Anglo-Swedish relations for years to come."
Oh wow so glad that Britain decided against invading Sweden. Unlike sturestahle, I wouldn't call Swedish military at the time "nonexistent", surely they didn't totally disband their military after WWI - my grandfather as was usual in Sweden served his time as a conscript in the army - they trained on skis to fight a potential invasion from Russia it would have been around the time of Civil War in Finland as it was breaking off from Russia/Soviet Union.
… badly trained conscripts armed with 19 centuries guns and ammunition for two weeks of war , a few outdated airplanes, not much of a navy , no tanks
I question your trivia. My grandfather grew up in Sweden over 100 years ago. He was taught English not German and this was typical all over Sweden per my cousins.
I don't wish to question your grandfather or your cousins, but according to official information German really was the first foreign language to be taught in Swedish schools until 1946. There were apparently some experiments going on during the war teaching English instead of German, and after the war this is what happened, placing German as the third language. I don't know what kind of school your grandfather went to, but it must have been some kind of exception to the rule to teach English before German at the time. I certainly know my parents and their contemporaries learned German before English.
This is the wrong time. NATO membership may have been a good idea three months ago, it may be a good idea two years from now, but right now Russia is (1) being defeated in Ukraine and certainly not going to attack Finland, (2) at a potential crossroads, where the last thing we need is to increase the perception of NATO encirclement.
Sometimes decisions have to be made in a hurry, and sometimes decisions are bad because they were needlessly made in a hurry. The latter will be the case here, I fear. Finland and Sweden joining NATO will help Putin infect the ordinary Russian with his paranoia. It will help ensure that even if the Russian dictator departs, his successor will be just as bad. Frankly what's the rush. Finland has seldom been safer than right now.
Wrong. Putin is toast, one way or another. NATO is basically white people banding together to stop the yellow hoard. Time to complete the idea proper.
I don’t think basing foreign policy on gambling out how Putin (as an individual) might feels about things is a worthwhile activity. There’s simply no reason to believe that appeasing Putin or antagonizing him will make any difference. We should accept the reality that we’ve been at war with Russia at least since they attacked us in 2016 and act accordingly.
Yes.
Appeasement rarely works out well, especially since Putin has a track record.
We shouldn't base decisions in trying to avoid Russian paranoia. This is a measure that we cannot hope to succeed at and its certainly not clear that appeasement will reduce paranoia. Putin invaded a country and used his own aggression to spur Russian paranoia.
I wouldn't call it appeasement to keep a cool head. Nor to stick to the policy that was followed for 77 years.
I do, however, call it a kneejerk reaction if Finland and Sweden stop following that policy precisely at the moment that Russia, for the first time in those 77 years, poses no potential threat at all.
And I do think we shouldn't write off Russia for all time because it has a bad president at the moment and the population has been fed lies it believes in for a while.
"precisely at the moment that Russia, for the first time in those 77 years, poses no potential threat at all."
That's a strange way to describe the first time in 77 years Russia has launched an overt war of conquest seeking to convert neighboring lands into part of a Russian empire at gunpoint. I imagine that for Russia's other neighbors, after 77 years of seeing Russia *not* invade its neighbors, things suddenly look a lot more real and frightening.
It's quite easy for those of us in the U.S. to feel safe because, barring a nuclear exchange, Russia is no sort of potential threat to us (we've got an economy some 15 times larger, for chrissakes), but Russia is a regional power that could, if it wanted to, deal a whole lot of pointless damage to Finland just as its doing to Ukraine, and I'm not going to fault the Finns for thinking that maybe they should take this opportunity to enter into a defensive pact with its democratic peers.
I wouldn't call it appeasement to keep a cool head. Nor to stick to the policy that was followed for 77 years
I'd probably weigh on the side of NATO enlargement here, but I appreciate your sentiment.* It seems much of the country won't be satisfied until we embark on a shooting war with the Russians. Not sure I get the appeal. I mean, the biting sanctions and the massive flow of arms into the conflict strike me as anything but "appeasement." It would be one thing if Putin were winning. But clearly that's not the case. A geopolitical loss for Moscow is baked into the cake at this juncture, provided they don't introduce WMD.
So, I'd like to think we'll see serious efforts soon at a diplomatic solution (pocket the geopolitical victory for the West by providing Putin an off-ramp, and extricate ourselves from a situation that pretty much screams "tail risk.") to end this conflict.
But I'm not seeing much evidence of this.
Hopefully someone puts a bullet in Vlad's temple or otherwise forces him from power. But we can't count on that.
*Our alliances are critical for national security. America has some serious allies. Britain. France. Germany. Japan. South Korea. And so on. These are significant powers with highly capable militaries I regard them as the country's national security difference-maker. Who are China's allies other than the increasingly moribund Putin regime? Cambodia? North Korea?
Disdain for the USA's alliances was probably the single biggest beef I had with the neo-isolationist previous administration. But, again —while on balance enlargement of NATO to include Finland and Sweden in my view makes sense for America— it is also the case that every state added to our mutual defense obligations is yet another nuclear tripwire for the country. If you're vowing to protect everywhere, you may as well vow to protect nowhere.
Do you see any indication that Putin is looking for an off-ramp, or is open to serious negotiation for a cease-fire, much less a ‘diplomatic solution’? Even the attempts to negotiate the evacuation of civilians from Mariupol mostly failed.
Do you see any indication that Putin is looking for an off-ramp...
I'm not sure how likely it is that a private citizen with an internet connection would be privy to the backchannel machinations of the Russian dictator. So, who knows? Maybe. Maybe not! But I indeed perceive it's in his interest to quit this war if he can (surely you don't deny Russia grows weaker by the day*), and, yes, I also deem it's in the interest of the US and NATO (and yes, Ukraine, too, though it's understandable if they don't see it this way) to seek the beginning of the end.
*This point is what seals it for me (I can't stress it enough): a geopolitical defeat for Russia is guaranteed now (so let's pocket the win), provided Putin doesn't do something crazy, but, worryingly, the weaker Russia grows, the more likely it is that Putin will do something reckless.
At present, Russia occupies significantly more Ukrainian territory than it did in January, has killed thousands of Ukrainians and destroyed infrastructure worth tens of billions of euro. This is only ‘a geopolitical defeat for Russia’ if one assumes that Putin’s objectives went far beyond occupying a larger portion of the Donbas. But if one assumes that, one must then question whether Putin would accept a negotiated compromise as final and binding, or would simply regard it as a pause along the way to the ultimate goal.
This is only ‘a geopolitical defeat for Russia’ ...
I'm not suggesting Russia doesn't have to make concessions: I advocate negotiations, not surrender by Ukraine. But, if the situation can be brought back to something resembling the status quo ante 24 February in terms of territory, then we'd have a Russia that A) was enormously weakened, economically B) was enormously weakened in terms of destroyed/captured military equipment C) had taken tens of thousands of casualties D) had witnessed the intensification of anti-Russia sentiment in myriad nations, including its close neighbors in Europe E) had experienced a significant, quite possibly severe brain drain F) had witnessed an expansion of the alliance it sites as a casus belli (that's pretty much the very definition of "geopolitical loss") G) had experienced long-term damage to its most important export sector H) had triggered large-scale increases in military spending by its adversaries I) had experienced a severe blow to its global prestige and respect J) had failed to extinguish Ukrainian independence.
I think under such circumstances it's highly likely Russia's expansionist tendencies will have been curbed for the foreseeable future, which should be a paramount goal for NATO. Of course, there are no guarantees on that score, but no policy is guaranteed to yield satisfactory results: the best we can do is navigate the situation we find ourselves in, taking into account the various potential costs and benefits. (There's no guarantee Putin won't use WMD at some point, either, or that Ukrainians won't continue to die in their thousands, or that disruptions to global agriculture won't have very dangerous ripple effects.)
I agree with all of this, I just can’t imagine Putin agreeing to a negotiated pullback to the pre-24-February line. He is already attempting to Russify some of the occupied territory, including Kherson.
His off ramp is China. His war in the Ukraine is winding down. There is no where next to go. He has been given a end date, which is probably May 25th. Then parts from China stop.
You can’t know that Putin wouldn’t carry out attacks of some kind against Finland or Sweden; he has certainly been making poor decisions recently. Your calling the changed opinion of NATO membership a ‘knee-jerk reaction’ is totally pulled out of your ass - they have been working closely with NATO for years. You are speculating wildly and claiming certainty.
Appeasement did not work out well after the USSR allowed the unification of Germany and dissolved the Warsaw Pact.
Opinion polls, for whatever they are worth, already indicate that most Russians believe the propaganda. If a few more come to believe it, or not, Putin’s policies won’t be influenced.
I am talking about long-term perceptions. Not what Russians think now but what they will think when it's all over, or when Putin is gone. And if Finland and Sweden join precisely at this time when Russia is weak, what they will think is this: NATO is trying to encircle us all right. Of course they will think that. And a chance for an opening will be lost.
You actually think that Russian government policy follows Russian public opinion, and not the other way around?
The concerns you raise about the long term perceptions of Russians is a reason for Finland and Sweden to join NATO now if they are going to join at all. Finland and Sweden are joining NATO because of Putin's attack on Ukraine. If Finland and Sweden delay a year or two, that risks obscuring the cause and effect relationship. Russians might conclude that Finland and Sweden would have joined NATO regardless of what Putin did in Ukraine.
Above you ask, “what's the rush?” But I'm not seeing a rush; I'm seeing Finland and Sweden deciding, after two and a half months of debate, that in light of Putin's invasion of Ukraine it now makes sense for the two countries to join NATO. Joining NATO is normally a two or more year process, so Finland and Sweden made the decision based on long term considerations. Saying that Russia is weak now because it has so many troops tied up in its war with Ukraine misses the point. That war will end eventually, likely before Finland and Sweden join NATO.
Oh please. Yes the countries should have joined after Crimea but better late than never, they are sitting ducks right now. Russia cannot be placated anymore than Nazi Germany could, anyone who says different is a fool.
I really don’t care what ordinary Russians think or support. For me, the die was cast in 2016 when Russia attacked my country. Russia needs to be contained and then diminished through severe economic sanctions. Russia’s allies in the west need to be defeated and exiled to Russia.
OMG, you'd think the self-described/effacing Swedish Troll would be all over this topic. Must be sleeping already.
IDK if Filipinos present a serious loss for the US, but I do know that the loss of Finnish (and Swedish) neutrality is a big blow to Russia's sense of security, not just a blow to Putin's/Russia's ego.
What would NATO do if the Russian Federation broke up -- would it lose its raison d'être and end its alliance, or would it continue to expand membership with many of the republics to contain China?
I've yet to understand how Russia's "sense of security" is affected by NATO at all.
I mean, Switzerland and Austria are not members of NATO, and they are completely surrounded by NATO, and I never hear of Switzerland talking about how its "sense of security" is affected by NATO expansion.
I don't see a quote of Sweden about how Finland maybe joining NATO affects Sweden's "sense of security" either.
I mean, maybe someone can explain, unless its just Russian crazyness. At this point, the proximity of nuclear weapons is really just an argument, if you have delivery systems, you have them, see, e.q., North Korea. Russia has a fleet of nuclear armed submarines for goodness sake.
Now, ego is understandable, barely.
I guess I just have not come across any explanation which is not based on crazyness for this invasion.
Good post. Putin would not have to "protect" Russian-speaking people in the Eastern regions if he had not been supporting separatist factions there since 2014.
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, Russian paranoia about encirclement and/or rampaging invaders goes back a very long time and isn't necessarily rationally-based. And they can always trot out Churchill's (I think) line that NATO was formed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.
"And they can always trot out Churchill's (I think) line that NATO was formed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
True, although Churchill did die the better part of six decades ago (~15 years before the median Russian was even born), so it's not really clear how relevant his thoughts on NATO might be. I mean, if the Germans aren't chafing under the weight of NATO keeping them "down," it's hard to see how the average Russian should care what Churchill had to say on the matter.
Well, I didn't say it was about NATO. It's about the loss of neutrality in Sweden and Finland which is about increased uncertainty on the control of the White Sea and the Arctic zone through the Bear gap.
Putin is transfixed on rebuilding the USSR in order to regain control of the buffer/choke points/gaps of past invasions/wars.
These are things he's said just prior to his invasion of Ukraine (and even before that, but most of us weren't paying attention.)
That's why they're in Transnistria and after finishing the takeover of Moldova everyone believes the Baltics and/or Poland is next. Certainly Poland is under the belief that Putin wants to control the Suwalki gap, which is why they're the most eager NATO country to push for heavy weapons and advanced fighter jets to Ukraine's fight.
Their military took a beating in the Ukraine. There is no "next".
Their forces are not that far gone, yet.
Ideally, the war continues at this level for a few more months, at which point Russia has completely lost its ability to maintain and certainly expand their war.
It won't last a few more months. China is done with it. Pay attention. The current Ukrainian offer is the best they will get. Very possible Ukrainian forces will push them out of grain country. China will threaten to stop sending parts. They got Crimea back. Accept your reward.
Remember, Sweden have been non-aligned since the end of the Napoleon war and it has served us well . That doesn’t mean we haven’t been cooperating with the free world secretly or openly but we did keep things stable on the northern front during the Cold War due to our stance
Remember, we was a regional superpower during the bad old days when Soviet was a threat. Our defense budget was regularly 3-4% of GDP and at some occasion as much as 10% . We had an army consisting of 800k soldiers (all able men in the country ) and the fourth biggest Air Force on the planet. We scaled down after the wall fell.
Stupid!
At the beginning of the 90s was just 15% positive to join but when Putin ordered the Russian Air Force to practice nuclear runs on Stockholm and military exercises preparing for an invasion of the Swedish strategic island of Gotland a couple of years back did the opinion slowly start to change
We have been cooperating a lot with NATO lately and Sweden and Finland has been very close on defense issues (remember also that the only ones who helped them during the Winter War back in 1939-40 was Sweden )
NATO has always been a right-left issue in Sweden and as recently as in November did our minister of defense (a Social Democrat) publicly state that Sweden wouldn’t join NATO on his watch. He has changed his mind by now . Things might have seemed to go slow in Sweden compared to Finland but our PM needed to make sure she had the support of her party especially since we are having a national election in September. Retired Social Democratic celebrities has been busy stating they also have changed their minds and as a result are their voters now in favor of joining.
I had been shaken my head in disbelief if anyone had predicted this as late as in January, it’s like as if the Republicans had agreed on scrapping the second amendment
The Social Democrats will have a meeting this Sunday but nobody doubts they will agree on applying for membership. The parliament (riksdagen) will have a debate the day after and then it’s all done…
Guatemalaization
As others have noted, Russia didn't lose the Winter War. It just had a lot more trouble winning it than it should have. We're lucky it ended when it did. Churchill was mad keen to send troops to help Finland, meaning Britain could have been at war with the USSR when Germany invaded it. God only knows what the outcome of fighting both Germany and the USSR while the latter was also fighting Germany would have been.
I'll repost this excellent explanation of the Russian mindset, given in a lecture by a retired Finnish intelligence colonel. It explains so much about the Russian paranoia, the Russian way of thinking around the concept of truth, their view on democracy, ...
It is originally a youtube video in Finnish, that by now has subtitles in 18 languages, there is also a dubbed version in English, you can find it transcribed in English (see the description of the linked youtube video)... it is deemed such an important source of understanding today that it is presented in many different ways to enable anybody who wants to learn. I cannot recommend it strongly enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw
Good to see cooler heads may be beginning to prevail in DC:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/13/ukraine-russia-austin-shoigu/
The cooler heads were always in control in DC; that’s why there are no U.S. forces on the ground or in the air in Ukraine; and why Russian responses to US support of Ukraine has so far been limited to bluster. Reportedly Secy. Austin had been seeking this contact for weeks. What would be a real change would be cooler heads in control in Moscow.
US special forces are embedded in the SofF.
Biden would love for a July 4th gas tumble. I suspect they will push the Ukrainian government a land for peace deal.
Finland and Sweden are stellar democracies and will make great new members to NATO.
But hmm, why is Turkey still allowed in NATO? Turkey is now authoritarian and Freedom House ranks it as not free.