Bad intel doesn't explain seeing what isn't there. Blurry vision, seeing vague and undistinguishable things, does not account for making those things into something identified and intelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bad intel could be the same as people misinterpreting surveillence information. On top of that, this info going up the chain from the analysts at CIA to Bush and him only getting the info that there are weapons of mass destruction there. That can absolutely happen and give reason to invade, however stupid or lack of judgment that is. We still don't know if it was bad intel or intentional play of words to justify it.
If intelligence agencies were to only act on 100% proven intel, we would have had a lot of shit happening in the world because almost nothing was prevented. We can criticize and blame these agencies all over the world for many things, but... and I have actual sources for this... there are things happening all the time that gets prevented by them. If they only act on 100% verified information, it could slip through a lot of bad things happening.

But the intel about weapons of mass destruction was, as said, either intentional play with words, or just one of the worst fuckups of intel gathering and processing we've seen.

I generally ignore people who claim to know the intentions of others, especially when the other is a proven strategist, and strategy is a skill based on keeping one's intentions secret. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the leaked documents, the sources and intel from within Kreml so on and so forth do not point towards such a conclusion? I guess it's easy to dismiss anything by arguing like that, but what is most likely? What everything points towards (not only what he says, but everything else as well), or someone speculating about Putin as if he was a cardboard cutout standard world leader figure with predictable methods? That he is a strategist does not mean that everything people have dug up on him and his mindset is wrong. You can't exist as a world leader for over 20 years without information slipping away.

For the first time (like there), polls say that more Finns are for NATO membership than against. Still many that haven't decided. Russia invading Ukraine finally changed the mood here dramatically. — ssu

It's the same in Sweden, polls have shifted. It's just that our politicians are very afraid of that choice because of Sweden's long tradition of "neutrality" (questionable during WWII, but whatever). So I can understand how our prime minister has an extremely hard choice to make. If WWIII breaks out, without us in NATO, we could do the same as before, just chilling out and then have one of the best economies in the world when everyone else is in rubble. But if we join NATO, we would be forced to fight in any conflict NATO ends up in.

But I think it's worth it. Russia, or rather Putin, is such a manchild that it's too unpredictable to stay out. And if WWIII involves nukes, it doesn't matter if everyone else around us gets hit, the fallout will still kill us and everyone else. So for regular warfare, it would be rational to be part of NATO. But another thing is that if Finland joins, we might be well off anyway. I'm not sure it's very strategic for Russia to invade Sweden when it's pretty much encircled with NATO members. It's a very unstrategic place to invade and the only fallback is the Baltic sea.

So I don't know what's the best course of action for Sweden. I generally think NATO is the best choice, it creates a large border towards Russia that Russia will never be able to attack other than with nukes, but that's endgame anyway so it doesn't matter who you are.

I haven't heard that from the Russians. That I would put in the "hyping fear" category. At least now, for the time being. — ssu

I think it was a misinterpretation of when Russia threatened us. Russia never said "invade", they just threatened. It could mean firing missiles or something, who knows, some retaliation because we sent weapons to Ukraine.

At this time, it has become pretty clear that Russia is just threatening, with nukes, with forces or whatever. They're desperate. If they were to ever attack, they would have two fronts, one in Ukraine and one in the north, diluting their military. With the economy crashing and war chest being in trouble, it's close to impossible for them to do something like that. And if they attack any NATO member, it's gonna be like having a swarm of bees attacking Russia. It's gonna flatten the entire nation. Putin would be hunted down, probably into the same fate as Hitler, offing himself in a bunker. The only viable option for them would then be nukes, but that would end everything, which, because I feel like Putin is just a crazy mentally challenged manchild, whatever credit other people like to give him, is a real risk. If he's cornered into his bunker and everyone wants him dead, then he might as well fire off everything. And this is why he is in my opinion the biggest risk of total annihilation we have. It's why I have no moral problem with offing him.

This is a good demonstration of the role of intention in interpretation. You see what you want to see. They wanted to invade Iraq, they saw weapons of mass destruction there. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but we don't know if that was an intentional play or if they just had bad intel by bad intel operators. If the intel had been correct, it might actually have been warranted, otherwise, the nation might have become another North Korea, but in a far more dangerous place so close to Europe. Even if it's questionable if an invasion would have been necessary anyway, it would at least have had an intention that far outweighs anything of what actually happened.

I don't think this distinction is valid. They wanted to exercise control over what they perceived as an unruly state, through disposal of its leader. Seems like a very similar situation to me. The tactics differ widely. — Metaphysician Undercover

Those are not the same. Putin wants to redraw borders, Ukraine should be "his". This was never the long-term intention with Iraq, regardless of initial intentions for the invasion. And the focus was on the leader and change in the political system. Of course everything of that failed in the long term, as it usually does when the US tries it. But it's easy to also forget all the people who were actually killed and terrorized by Saddam in Iraq and who welcomed the invasion and removal of him. What I mean is that the invasion of Iraq is in no way comparable to either the intentions or methods in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is a massive attack on a free nation with the intent of claiming it and reforming it into the Russian empire with Putin as their leader.

They picked one hell of an opponent to fight for freedom against. — FreeEmotion

How did THEY pick the opponent? Does the country being invaded get to pick who's invading them?

I think NATO is pushing the Ukrainian president on, as a pawn in their hands - his pleas for help were not answered in time. — FreeEmotion

NATO cannot fight in Ukraine because NATO is a defensive alliance only for its member states. They don't attack or go into a non-member nation to help out. I don't understand why people find this hard to understand? NATO only initiate combat if one of their member-nations are attacked and they can't do anything in Ukraine since they're not members. Doesn't matter if they plea for help.

Ask any military strategist (not politician) what the best thing to do in the situation. I am sure it will be to agree to a ceasefire. If not, then I will just accept that. — FreeEmotion

So they should just roll over and be fucked by Putin then? You don't understand people fighting for their lives and freedom? This is Putin's crime, he has no right whatsoever, he breaks international law, almost the entire UN condemns the invasion and any I find it horrifying that people even consider letting Putin just take Ukraine in order to ceasefire.

Haven't we learned what happens when we give a narcissistic authoritarian dictator what he wants? Haven't the 20th century shown us just what happens if we just give him free reign? If this goes on, then Putin will be on a hit list. The entire world will hunt him and his minions down. Russia will probably become a closed nation with extreme totalitarian standards. When I propose attacking Putin and his minions himself, it's not just to help Ukraine, it's also to free Russia. People in Russia need to be free of Putin. Just look at how many oppose the war, oppose Putin, even risking their own life and freedom doing it.

Why are people still making the mistake of appeasement against people who rise to dangerous levels of power? And only when that power and terror has reached too far do people do anything. Enough is enough, there's only one way to fix this situation, even if it's extremely hard and complex.

My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all. — I like sushi

Putin will not back down like that. This is not how Putin's regime works. They're closer to how any other authoritarian regime worked during the 20th century than any modern democratic one. Putin is closer to Hitler in this regard, having his trusted inner circle, an extreme protective machine around him, total control over the news (and now even more when they've shut down any independent news stations), and killing or imprisoning people who oppose him. Do you really think that Putin would "step down"?

And Russia has no right to demand a free nation not to join NATO. They can ask them not to in a diplomatic fashion, but they can't demand anything. Just like Russia can't demand Sweden or Finland not to join NATO. Because of the latest fighter jet incident here in Sweden, I'm thinking that joining NATO isn't just good for security, it would also be a big fuck you to Putin and his minions.

STOCKHOLM, March 2 (Reuters) - Four Russian fighter jets briefly entered Swedish territory over the Baltic Sea on Wednesday, the Swedish Armed Forces said, sparking a swift condemnation from Sweden's defence minister.

Two Russian SU27 and two SU24 fighter jets briefly entered Swedish airspace east of the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Armed Forces said in a statement, adding that Swedish JAS 39 Gripen jets were sent to document the violation. — ssu

Yes, things have been on a higher alert level since this. Fortunately, we have pretty fast response times for this. If they had any intention other than "making a statement", they would have been shot down before they were even close to Gotland.

It's ironic that this happens at the same time as I was writing in here about reasons to join NATO for Sweden and Finland as an act of defense against Russian aggression. Maybe people could understand why nations want to join NATO now instead of pushing the bullshit narrative of the US forcing such things upon us. If these fighter jets had breeched our airspace while we were part of NATO, that would have been a serious matter for Russia that they can't just talk themselves out of.

When this is all over, if it is all over, lets see if we agree lives could have been saved by surrendering early. At the moment Ukraine has the worlds support like it never had before the invasion, so a ceasefire will ensure situation hugely in their favor. I hope Zelenski makes the right choices. — FreeEmotion

Ukraine doesn't want to be part of a totalitarian regime. They're not just fighting for their lives, they are fighting for their freedom. For many of them I think that if Russia takes over Ukraine, they would try and leave the country, seek freedom somewhere else.

Everything I can find that hints at Putin's mindset seem to boil down to a total miscalculation of what Ukrainians want. I think he had become so delusional about his own importance, maybe even lied so much he started believing his own lies, that he genuinely thought Ukrainians would want him as their leader. It might be that he has now realized this wasn't the case and, therefore, he doesn't care anymore about civilian lives. So now he's only aiming to claim the land.

At the moment, Mariupol is completely surrounded. People talk of a Leningradsituation. If this happens, Putin might have close to a million civilian casualties.

Putin did something terrible in invading Ukraine and George W. Bush did something in invading Iraq? Not sure if we are all against invasions in violation of the UN Charter. — FreeEmotion

US invasion of Iraq was a farce. It was either a strategy to "fool" the world that an invasion was needed, or just the worst intel operators ever.

But even if the US invasion should be considered a violation, Putin's war is on another level. The key differences are that US didn't invade to make Iraq into a new state of the US. If anything, they just wanted the oil. The second, and most important thing, is that the US actively tried to avoid collateral damage. When it happened, there were major internal criticism, major criticism from the public and it was never handled like it didn't happen. Putin just aims his missiles straight into populated areas with civilians and just doesn't care. The only reason civilians aren't killed more is because there are some Russian soldiers actually thinking that driving over civilians with tanks is a bad thing. Putin and his minions just don't care if civilians die. If the only way to conquer Ukraine was to just level a city filled with civilians, he would do it. The only reason he isn't doing it is that he needs to convince the Ukrainians to be little Russians to big Russia (as in the manifesto). He's the old-style dictator who shoots civilians and hopes they'll still love him when this is over.

So I wouldn't say that those two invasions were the same, it's not black and white and if Iraq was dark grey, this war is pitch black.

I could talk for a while about why Americans assume their political structure should be exported to raise up all the suffering people of the world, IOW, why the American system is kind of like a religion, but that might be too far afield of the thread's topic.

I don't know if China also thinks their system (which is still evolving) should be exported. — frank

If we are to actually find out what nation should "lead the world" with "exporting political and cultural forms", the only thing we can practically use to figure that out would be to look at the indexes of life quality and other similar lists.

Then figure out which nation gets generally the highest between all statistics and use that to "fix" other nations.

It's either that or each nation needs to figure it out for themselves. There is an argument to be made for previously suffering nations who are now building their society into better life quality to be left alone to suffer through it instead of them just "taking" another nation's political and cultural form to speed up the process. While it makes the process go faster, it might not build up a genuine cultural core within the people. So by them suffering into their own functioning society, they also grow internally with that change if left alone to do it by themselves.

But at the same time, many nations have in history seen a system they liked better and adopted it into society, for better or worse.

But I think the core thing is that culture and politics should never be exported, it should only be open to being imported, through knowledge and interactions between nations. If a nation wants to adopt Chinese politics, they should be able to, if someone else wants to adopt western culture, they should be able to. Of course... I'm kinda speaking of Ukraine here. They started to import the western form in politics and culture and they have every right to do that to themselves.

There are some aspects of Chinese culture that just rub me the wrong way, sort of like I gather American ways irritate the fuck out of non-Americans. — frank

Some? Are you talking about culture or politics? If people think a Chinese superpower rule is good for the world, they must be totally unaware of how things are in China. Culture is one thing, that's the day-to-day interaction of regular people. But the politics of China is not ready for global export, it's broken to its core.

I think he wants Russia to be among equals among core nations. He needs to do something about his economy and his legitimacy though. — frank

You can't force people to be your friend, that will end up you being alone. And if you force someone to be part of your family, that's just mafia methods. Which might be why many think of Putin and Russia as a mafia state, not only in terms of operation, but "the family".

For the Russian leadership, blaming the West for the war in Ukraine is a matter of survival. If Putin fails to convincingly pin this war on NATO and "Ukrainian drug addicts", if the average folks realize that their president has bombed their Ukrainian brothers and sisters for no reason other than a power trip, then Putin is politically dead. And possibly, biologically dead too. So blaming the West is key to his survival. — Olivier5

And this is EXACTLY why the argument I've been pushing in this thread is important. The "blame" needs to be proven to be either towards the west or towards Putin. If the west can't be proven guilty of what happened, then it's impossible for Putin himself to blame the west with any form of credibility. This is why speculations and suspicions about "the west" are totally irrelevant next to actual evidence of guilt

It's a public debate criminal court basically. To establish if Putin had a just cause or can be absolutely blamed for delusional empire aspirations.

He already signalled his demands at the negotiating table: he wants Ukraine to be recognized as neutral. He wants it demilitarized, and he's probably going to choose its next leader, who'll be a puppet.

He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe.

The west will then back off the sanctions and go back to normal with no further overtures to Ukraine and less trust for Russia than it had. — frank

If the manifesto of "The new world order" is correct, you have to add that as well to speculations on Putin's ambitions. What Putin says officially during the ongoing conflict means very little. He also said he wants to denazify Ukraine and that Ukraine is filled with drug addict nazis. So by his word we have millions of people flooding into other European countries now and they're all nazis and drug addicts and drugged nazis. He's basically full of shit. The manifesto was supposedly what was going to be released after a fast takeover of Ukraine, it's a declaration of the new empire that points more clearly to the goal he's aiming for. At least, as long as he's not just a fucking nutcase, he would have the intellect to realize by now that this manifest would be toast.

but it is worthy to note that Russia is getting backed into a corner where their only option is nuclear, meaning on all conventional levels, they will likely come up short in the conquest to to rebuild their former empire. — Hanover

Since they have no right to Ukraine or any nation other than the borders of their own, Putin could just retreat the troops, deal to get the sanctions lifted, and promise to care for what he already has (current Russia). That is also an option, but that isn't an option for Putin.

This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. It's either to establish the new world order and rebuild the empire, or fuck the world and the west and NATO and every single fucker (hit the button).

I disagree here, amassing troops on a border is a threat, in my opinion, and that is how I see it. I don't think I need to push the point further. Actually I want to look at the media coverage on this. — FreeEmotion

But it isn't a threat, it's not a threat that warrants extreme actions as counters to it, which is what Putin is doing. You cannot use it as any evidence of threat in order to then justify attacking that nation, just because you "feel" it's a threat. If that were the case, then if Sweden joins NATO and Russia breaks airspace or sea with submarines, then that is an act of war, so let's invade Russia. That won't happen. And if Russia had troops close to Finland and Finland was a member in NATO, would that warrant them to attack Russia? With the combined outcome being "they threatened us with having troops on their side of the border so Russia is to blame for what we did"

We can talk of escalating conflict of the psychology of it all. Actions and who's to blame have clear parameters based on all of this. Blaming others for your actions without any logical reasoning as to why others are to blame doesn't make them any more guilty.

Exactly. And if they are paranoid, everything is an act of aggression. I am sure they at NATO know what gets them worried. They have to. And they keep doing it. — FreeEmotion

Still not the fault of NATO if Putin starts a war. What NATO and other nations are doing is up to them. Russia has no claim in demanding anything abour other independent nations' right to choose their defense strategy.

True. Which is why it went from 12 to 30 as the cold war faded. — Christoffer

Which can be a natural progression of an alliance overall. I mean, EU has also expanded, so that doesn't mean anything specific for just NATO. Over time most alliances grow.

False. They have to vote. I do not know the level of influence the US has. — Christoffer

Exactly, but some position that the US controls NATO, and therefore they have an anti-Russia agenda and all the expansion efforts are only there to beat back Russia. If they only have one vote, how can that be?

True. Not threatened in words. Taken action that they know full well Russia does not like or will perceive as a threat, like putting your hand in the glove compartment when a police officer ask you to step out of the car. Maybe you are reaching for your mask, but you know how that will go down. — Christoffer

Taking actions that Russia doesn't like, in this case, building defense in member nations close to Russia, still doesn't warrant Russia to do anything. What nations do in their nations is their business. That Russia doesn't like, why should that be cared for? Is Putin a child whose feelings shouldn't be hurt? Since we established that NATO does not act with invasion or offensive actions over any borders without first being attacked, then him not liking people establishing a defense just boils down to him totally misunderstanding NATO, or... as I've described, he knows that if his precious nations he wants to claim become members, he cannot establish the old Russian empire he wants. Nothing of that is nothing more than Putin's ideas of NATO threatening, they did never and have not actually threatened him.

And... the police officer? Is Russia the police officer? Should Europe bend down to Russia and Putins will? No, he's not a police officer in that analogy, he's a guy pretending to be a police officer and when we say that he doesn't have the right to ask us to do anything he shoots us.

False. Based on the whims and fancies of NATO members who can veto. — FreeEmotion

If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone. — Christoffer

Again, if Russia feels threatened and has said it does not want a nation to join NATO then what is a threat? Threatening means doing something that is interpreted as a threat, and you know it will. Again, put your hands under seat to reach for your mask. — Christoffer

How is a defensive collaboration a threat? Putin can say whatever he wants, he can believe whatever he wants, but it's still not a threat. If Sweden joins NATO in order to feel more secure on the global geopolitical stage, that is not a threat to Putin, regardless of his fantasies that such an action is.

If Sweden, however, said that we will take back Kalinigrad because we think that this part should belong to us (since it once did long ago), then that is a threat.

Us setting up a better anti-air defense on Gotland in collaboration with NATO, even if it's to secure against a Russian attack... is still not a threatening act to Russia or Putin, regardless of his delusions.

All of this is about establishing actual guilt. What he believes is irrelevant. Because "guilt" of others for Putin's actions gives him partial justification for his actions. I'm saying that he doesn't have justification for his actions.

That is the importance of this argument.

False. They have therefore unequal blame, a factor of some sort. Putin could have tried non-violence. — Christoffer

Exactly like how things like this are done in modern times. If you want a nation back, ask them, do you want this? Do we all want to vote in this? If it leads to a vote and it fails, tough luck better luck next time. There's nothing wrong in wanting to expand a nation, or create a union, what is bad is if you try to claim it by force. This is considered a crime by international law.

The world is not the same today and can't be judged by the same measuring tape as before.

There is such a thing as the psychology of international relations. If there is any doubt, see how Israel will react to massing of troops on its border. — FreeEmotion

Still can't do anything. A nation can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't break borders and actively threaten another nation. Putin knew this, that's why he played the innocence card with gathering troops around Ukraine before the invasion. And no one can blame him for any of that. We could question his motives, speculate, we could criticize him for doing it and pressure him to answer why, but since he didn't threaten Ukraine, it's all in line with what a nation can do on their side of the border. But when he invaded, that's when he broke everything and why the world now acts.

There's nothing in international law or any kind of post-world war agreement in the world that a nation can't put forces at their borders. And the same goes with NATO building defense in NATO member nations. People, like Putin, can complain and question, but he has no right to demand anything and he has no right to feel threatened by it, regardless of what fantasy he cooks up to be the case.

The blame game is not really applicable to international politics, nor is it good to apply it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, that's where this part of the debate started. By the usual suspects in here on this topic dismissing any notion that Putin acts on his own and has little to no real viable reasons to do what he does. If there are no viable reasons, then his actions become purely criminal. If there isn't a threat against Russia, if he would just let go of his empire dreams and cared for the Russia as it is, nothing would happen to him or Russia. But this is not the case, his actions stem from claiming something he has no right to, and in doing so murdering civilians, destroying another nation and decimating his own people's economy and freedom.

To even say that NATO is to blame for this, creates a situation where we give credit to Putin for having valid reasons to act out aggressions. But since no such blame can be established, since no actual threats have been made towards Russia and Putin, we can interpret his actions with far more judgment than in the opposite scenario.

I don't know if you'd noticed, but defense and attack use the same military. Whether it's one or the other is about intent, nothing concrete can prove which it is. — Isaac

Nothing concrete can prove which it is? So invading Ukraine is the same as Sweden increasing its military spending and maybe joining NATO. Because it's the same military, one is bombing civilians and forcing themselves into another nation, one is building an army guarding the people of Sweden... it's just a mess, how could I ever see the difference here between defense and offense...? It's impossible!! :chin:

Why? — Isaac

Why? — Isaac

Because if we can establish that NATO is guilty, have equal blame for the actions Russia takes, be it the invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Sweden/Finland, or a nuclear strike, then that changes the discussion entirely compared to if Putin acts alone and "feels threatened" by the west. — Christoffer

Yes, I see how the discussion is changed, but you didn't say changed, you said "harder". — Isaac

It makes it harder to discuss the topic overall if a foundational piece is still up for debate.

We're talking politics here, we don't conduct political philosophy as if we were establishing the existence of God. God help us if we did. — Isaac

Burden of proof still applies. You're not free of logical fallacies just because we talk political philosophy.

No, but it has everything to do with your "we can't discuss anything without concrete evidence" rule. If you demand concrete evidence before we can discuss 'The West's' role, then why doesn't the same criteria apply to you discussing Putin's motives? — Isaac

Because how can we establish a clear motive if the reasons for that motive need to be established first? If NATO were to be blamed, then his motives would have some form of just cause. But if NATO is not to be blamed, then he acts alone or he acts through false or through invented reasons. It generally informs the "bad man" argument. If he is a bad man acting out selfish delusions or does he have just reasons for his acts (outside of bombing civilians and all that shit). The consequence of answering this question is that it informs a large part of how to properly analyze the events, intentions/motives.

Of course it matters. Your argument is that it wasn't a threat to Russia, so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. If you can't say what their reasons were, then how can you say they weren't 'to threaten Russia'? — Isaac

Well, the reasons don't matter since joining NATO is basically done to increase security through an alliance of defense. If Australia joins NATO, don't you think that this is because of the tensions in the pacific and has little to no connection with Russia? They would join in order to have security against China, that's their reason. How does that fit with "threatening Russia"?

So the reasons can be whatever. But you frame it exactly in the way that you don't have evidence for:

so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. — Isaac

You are here basically saying that nations actively join NATO "to threaten Russia" and if I cannot say the actual reason, it means the reason is "to threaten Russia". Really?

Yes. An analogy which relies on them have solely defensive reasons to join NATO (and NATO solely defensive reasons to allow them). So your analogy fails unless you can demonstrate that this was the case. — Isaac

This is one part that I asked over and over you to answer. And it follows burden of proof. If the official and mission statement for NATO is to form an alliance of defense so that if any nation gets attacked, all nations will aid in defense of that member nation. You have to prove that there's another agenda. For example, I want you to explain the reasons why Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. Because that explanation would inform whether Sweden and Finland have any other agendas with joining NATO.

You can't say "Who Knows?" in one breath and then in the other say that threatening Russia definitely wasn't one of them. If no-one knows the reasons, then why is Russia acting irrationally in assuming that threatening it wasn't one of them? — Isaac

Again,burden of proof. You aren't correct in your conclusion because I can't name one nation's reason to join NATO for defence. You aren't automatically correct because we don't know Polands reason back then. Are you unable to see how all of this lacks any kind of logic? How can you be right like that? It's you who needs to provide support for the conclusion that joining NATO is an act of threat against Russia. So for, I see jack shit from everyone having this conclusion.

We've been through this. There doesn't need to be 'concrete' threats for strategic decisions to be monumentally reckless. Concrete threats are not the only type of threat. In fact they're probably the least common since 1945. — Isaac

RECKLESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NATO'S FAULT PUTIN INVADES UKRAINE!

You are fundamentally confused if you believe that being reckless = threat. Being reckless can be PERCEIVED as a threat by Russia/Putin. But that doesn't mean NATO IS TO BE BLAMED, it doesn't mean NATO has any logical GUILT for Putin's actions.

Putin perceiving threat [does not equal] Actual threat by NATO
Putin's actions based on his perceived threat [does not equal] NATO being responsible for those actions.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Imagine if Putin really is delusional, imagine that he truly is a fucking crazy man who belongs in a mental institution. Now, his mental condition makes him perceive everyone as a threat. People start taking actions to be able to have a defense against any kind of action he would take, irrational as he is. He doesn't see it that way, he sees conspiracy, he sees all of them threatening him, so he acts out violently. Fortunately, people had the defense, so they could defend against it, but your argument is that joining together for defense is partly to blame for Putin's violent outburst, so we should blame everyone who wanted to defend themselves.

Human feelings are extremely complex and difficult to decipher, from observation of a person's actions. That's why psychology is borderline science. And, in psychology the patient is supposed to try and make one's feeling known to the psychologist. When an individual intentionally hides one's feelings, the acts are twisted around multiple motives, so psychological problems are often referred to as a "complex". Jealousy for example manifests itself in very strange ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither warrants blame on NATO. The argument is not about whether Putin feels the need to act, but who's to blame for his acts. Is blaming NATO for his actions logical? Do they have guilt in what is happening or are the actions Putin's? If NATO is to blame, how is that so? What warrants them equal blame? No one seem to answer me this.

"Feelings" are attributable to individual human beings, very unique and particular to the individual, as they are tied up within the highly structured and organized chemical system within the human being. It makes absolutely no sense to say that an entity like "Russia" has feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry, Putin.

No I literally rejected the very terms in which you framed the problem, so maybe before we get to 'logic' we can ask if you are capable of literacy first. Baby steps. — StreetlightX

How is that in any shape or form not in line with the problem?

Here's baby steps for your baby brain:

1. NATO is a defensive alliance that is made up of a union of nations that help each other if one nation gets attacked.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide a logical argument for why this isn't the case.

2. NATO's expansion is based on a US agenda.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide evidence to how this works and how all other nations doesn't have the same power as US within NATO.

3. NATO's expansion has never been through any attack on anyone's border.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide example.

4. NATO has never directly attacked Russia or threatened Russia.

Regarded as true. If false provide evidence that they have threatened or attacked Russia.

5. NATO expansion is based primarily on a nation's will to join NATO. NATO doesn't force anyone to join.

Regarded as true. If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone.

6. A nation joining NATO is an active and direct threat against Russia.

Regarded as false. If true, provide a logical argument for how joining NATO is the same as threatening Russia.

7. NATO has equal blame for Putin's actions.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide a logical and rational argument for how that is true.

Each answer can be started with true or false, then provide further elaboration. But I predict that you will ignore this and just tell me how stupid I am, because that is the level at which you operate. Like a baby.


Once again. Putin and Russia feeling a perceived threat from NATO does not make an act of aggression, invasion, war or direct military threats by Putin and Russia something to blame NATO for. As long as NATO hasn't threatened to invade Russia, there is no actual threat made by NATO, therefore there is no act by Russia that NATO can be blamed for. A defensive build-up of military defensive forces in nations Russia has no control over (independent free nations) is not the same as threatening Russia. The only viable threat through this would be if there was an example of NATO actively attacking another nation without being attacked first, essentially breaking the defense protocol.

Russia, Putin, is acting by his own hand. His actions, invasion, war, threats etc. is something he and Russia alone are responsible for, not NATO. If you want to blame NATO, then you need to establish a clear threat towards Russia, not what the manchild Putin feels is the case.

No, this is about blaming NATO for what NATO has done. Again, if you feel the need to choose a team, that's your problem. — StreetlightX

What has NATO done? What are you blaming NATO for? Answer already

You don't seem to understand that these words are meaningless in the real world and this is not a video game. — StreetlightX

So building a defense within your own nation is considered an offensive act warranting getting offensive acts of invasion or threats of violence against you? That's your logic, right? Because that's what Sweden is experiencing right now. If we join NATO, we will be blamed for Putin invading us or some other nation.

EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC PLEASE

Anyone who doesn't think world politics is a video game. — StreetlightX

But this is about blaming NATO for what Putin is doing. Stop fucking around and answer me what threats they've actually done. What Russia "feels" is a threat can only warrant them to build up their own defense, but acting out aggression and invading others or conducting actual military threats based on their "feeling" does not warrant NATO to be blamed for Russia's offensive acts.

You all don't seem to understand the difference between defence and offense, or that "building defense" is not the same as "invading another country" or "making actual military threats towards another nation"

Show some logic on a philosophy forum. Your reasoning fits more on Reddit than here. If I ask for logic in your reasoning, then provide it, and don't spin off in other directions distracting from the fact that there's no logic to your conclusions.

Deduce why NATO is to blame for Putin's actions. Simple fucking request here. I've given you enough of my time to do it and yet there's nothing by noise.

Yep. So I'm asking you what reason Poland had to feel threatened by Russia in 1997. Otherwise none of that is legitimate and we'd have to look for other reasons they joined NATO which might be more provocative. — Isaac

It doesn't matter if they were actually threatened, it doesn't matter the reasons. Maybe they wanted to be part of a defensive alliance just to be secure for any possible future conflict. There are a large number of reasons for them joining, neither warrants blame on them for any actions by others (Russia).

What criminal activity? What is the criminal activity in your analogy for Poland in 1997. What had Russia done that puts them in the 'criminal activity' role in your analogy? — Isaac

You are the one making the Poland argument. Their reason could be general security. I'm making the analogy based on the guilt blaming of NATO in today's conflict with Russia. Get in the game and stop steering this into some other argument that is irrelevant.

Whose homes? When NATO started expanding in the late 1990s, whose 'homes' had Russia tried to invade? — Isaac

The reasons can be the general security that each nation wanted to have. Maybe the general security was because the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bit of an unknown factor. Who knows? The fact is that the decision of an independent nation to increase security and defense is not another nation's fucking business as long as that action doesn't act as a direct and concrete threat.

What do you mean 'once more'. Once more after which previous occurrence?

Your analogy seems flawed. — Isaac

You intentionally stupify yourself in order to defend yourself against me asking for logic to you blaming NATO for Putin's actions.

Show me concrete threats to Russia, I've asked many times, just answer for once.

You don't get to tell Russia what counts as an act of aggression towards them or not. — StreetlightX

Who cares what they feel is aggression as long as no one attacks them? If I mount a defense in Sweden in order to feel safer against a possible Russian invasion, based on previous acts and speeches by Putin that can be deciphered as possible threats (as we've seen during this conflict), then how the fuck does that make me guilty of his invasion of Sweden?

Your logic is like me attacking you and when you try to accuse me of the attack I can just say that I felt threatened by you so you're as much to blame for my actions as I. It's a delusional logic to propose.

On the contrary, you've been presented with the rational arguments of no fewer than five experts in their relevant fields which you've summarily dismissed on the grounds of a lack of concrete evidence as you would use 'in a court of law'. You don't seem interested in rational arguments at all. You want a smoking gun or nothing. — Isaac

I've been presented with suspicions and speculations about NATO's guilt but nothing to explain how that guilt is logical. You have yet to connect the act of building defense in your country, in collaboration with others, to be an act of threat against a nation that you build defenses against for if they would invade.

How is building a defense within your borders and act that creates guilt on your part if someone invades you? Explain already.

And...? I'm still not seeing the harm. Again, assuming you're absolutely right and the US/NATO/Europe are entirely blameless. You could just ignore discussion speculating on their blame. You could swamp it in turn with discussion of...what exactly I don't know.... Since we all agree that Putin's actions are reprehensible and cannot be excused I don't really know what else you want to discuss. — Isaac

Good question, I probably should ignore your suspicion-based conspiracy arguments. But you ask so nicely.

The point is you don't. You expend virtually all of your efforts here on stamping out discussion of the extent to which the US/NATO might be to blame. — Isaac

No, I'm trying to move on in the discussion. In order to move on to more valid geopolitical talk, we have to establish if NATO is to blame or not. People say they are, I ask in what way... and people cannot provide a logical and rational argument for why that is, other than suspicions and speculations and a general anti-US anti-NATO opinion rant.

So I ask again for any clear sign of guilt so that we can establish that as truth.

Perhaps you could explain the link you made above in "...makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening". How does expert speculation make it harder to dissect what is happening? — Isaac

Because if we can establish that NATO is guilty, have equal blame for the actions Russia takes, be it the invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Sweden/Finland, or a nuclear strike, then that changes the discussion entirely compared to if Putin acts alone and "feels threatened" by the west. Those are two extremely different baselines for this conflict.

Have you concrete evidence that NATO weren't to blame in any way? — Isaac

Can you prove that God doesn't exist, is the same kind of argument and that kind of fallacy-driven argument belongs in the theist section.

You make the claim of NATO's guilt, I ask for evidence to that. Burden of proof applies. You can't counter that by asking for proof of its non-existence. You can't prove there isn't a teapot floating between mercury and the sun, therefore there is a teapot floating there, that is your logic.

This is kindergarten philosophy.

Have you concrete evidence that, of all the things Putin has said about his motives, the ones you've picked out are his 'true' motives? Not just informed speculation, concrete evidence. — Isaac

Has nothing to do with establishing the guilt of NATO. The evidence for his aggressions can be seen in the actions right now, bombing and invading Ukraine, killing civilians. What his motives are in regard to NATO's guilt, is relevant. It's another discussion.

If you want that discussion, I'm more than happy trying to speculate on that, as long as speculation is the goal. I've already shared the most likely source for establishing his motives. Beyond expert comments, this is the closest we've gotten so far to see his motives: Brave new world of Putin

Well hang on. For this analogy to hold Poland would have to have been threatened with invasion by Russia to motivate it to join NATO back in 1997. A real concrete threat by your standards. — Isaac

Ugh... seriously how is this confusing? If someone feels threatened by Russia and they go into an alliance with others who also feel threatened by Russia, in order to have better security against any potential Russian attack. THIS IS NOT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST RUSSIA. This is an act of protection, affecting only the ones in that alliance. They have done NOTHING against Russia.

In your analogy - who's the criminal and what concrete evidence did the countries joining NATO have that he wanted to 'break into their houses' — Isaac

Are you serious? This is kind of the least complex analogy possible. Ok I'll try and make it clearer:

1. You own a house. It's your house, you own it, no one else.
2. You realize that your house is very close to criminal activity, maybe even organized crime. Maybe even hearing about attacks and home invasions that have been done close to you.
3. You realize that many other homes in your surroundings and close neighbors have started a security firm that together helps each other if there was an invasion in one of the homes.
4. The criminals don't like this, because it makes it harder for them to invade and claim people's homes for their activities. So they say to everyone that this security thing needs to "fuck off" or else.
5. You realize that "fucking off" will just make you open to invasion once more, but there are still people with homes that really want to join this collectively owned security firm. So you and the other try to balance what the right thing is to do. Should we just abandon them to their fate, as requested by the criminals? Or should we include them as well, which would also make the security stronger?
6. At no time have you taken the security firm into the territory of the criminals. You have respected their place, to do whatever they want over there.
7. But the criminals then attack one home that wasn't part of the security firm, they murder half the family and say that if anyone tries to help them, they're gonna do the same to them, or they'll just attack everyone, regardless of the consequences to the entire place.
8. You and the others know that you can't help them without drawing everyone into a conflict so you hold your ground, saying that you can't do anything, but you will collectively defend the ones present in the security firm.

9. You debate online with someone saying that this security firm thing is guilty of the criminals' actions against you. You ask how that is logical and he answers that you should have just listened to them and not protected yourself with defense.

Explain the logic in point 9.

It literally doesn't matter. Not one bit. Not one iota. Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that — StreetlightX

What right have Russia to tell them to fuck off if they expand in collaboration with independent nations in Europe. Russia doesn't own Europe's independent nations or have the right to make their decisions affecting the security of their own nations.

How the hell is Russia's feelings, in any shape or form, NATO's fault? What the hell kind of logic is this?

in full cognizance of multiple people in the West telling them that this is a terrible, awful, war-engendering move and lo and behold, and now there's a war. — StreetlightX

Increasing the risk of a reaction from Russia does not make Europe or NATO responsible for those actions. You can argue that it's dangerous because Russia could act aggressively, but it is still Russia's fault if they invade and wage war. The only situation where the actions of Russia would be warranted was if NATO actively attacked Russia, pushing over their borders. Has this happend? No.

This isn't an issue of morality or law or principle, it's a simple calculation - do you do the thing that the weaponized aggressor literally just told you to not do, on pain of war, yes or no? — StreetlightX

So we are to blame for Russia's actions because we don't allow them to control our independent choices as nations? Are you serious?

Putin's war is unjutified and unjustifiable. But acting in full cognizance of the deadly results of an unjustified demand does not let you off the hook. — StreetlightX

So, basically, victim blaming? Because someone doesn't comply to the demands of an aggressive person, who demands something they have no right to demand, therefore the victim is to blame if they get attacked by that aggressive person? Back off and look at your logic for one reason.

You have two arguments that you confused together. You have one that talks about how rapid expansion of NATO is dangerous because Russia could act aggressively. And then one that talks of NATO's guilt for Russia's war and murders. Those aren't connected, one is about the dangers of an irrational state, about balancing actions against the risk of that irrational state to attack. The other one is wether there's an actual guilt on NATO for the actions Russia takes.

But you've confused them together thinking unintentional provocation is the same as having actual guilt.

Eisenhower, early on in his administration, made a not-so-veiled threat to use the atomic bomb to bring the Communists to the table, and they came to the table and he and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, concluded from that the usefulness of what they came to call atomic brinksmanship, which was part of what fueled the massive build up of the atomic and nuclear arsenal in the fifties.

Works with people who can conduct diplomacy. Reading the manifesto of the new world order however, makes you question the ability of Putin to be a rational part of a cold war 2. This is the true danger of Putin. No one knows if he's crazy enough to take the world with him if he falls.

Åland islands is a de-militarized zone. It's a really interesting question when Finland would send forces there.

The only Finnish forces there are the local police and the border guard. And Russia has an consulate there, which is described as more of a forward intelligence gathering post. At the height of the Cold War it had 140 personnel. That's a huge consulate workforce for Islands with a population of 30 000. And Russian helicopters do have the ability fly directly from Russia to the Islands. The military history is interesting, and a great example of two countries accepting a third party international solution. The decision on the Åland Islands is one of the few things the League of Nations succeeded in solving. — ssu

If Russia invades our nations, Åland would probably be a joint effort defense with both Swedish and Finnish forces working together. The Russian consulate would be a target for us, leverage of sorts.

I do not blame NATO for Putin's actions, I blame the practice of using military force to settle conflict. Nuclear war is a last resort. Any war should be a last resort, but nothing we can do about this unless we convince our governments to enter into some sort of peace treaty with everyone. There is the United Nations also, and their Charter.. lets see...so they all signed it .. were forced to sign it.. — FreeEmotion

Putin doesn't care. Does it look like he cares for any kind of diplomacy, peace or collaboration with the world?

I need do nothing of the sort. If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. It's neither our job to excuse them, nor is it our job to judge them as a court of law might. They excuse themselves and we actually have courts of law to judge them as a court of law might, so there's no need for us to do so. Our job is to hold them to account. — Isaac

The problem becomes when suspicion is used as facts. When NATO gets "equal blame" for what is happening in Ukraine and any further action by Putin. Or are you just using this conflict as an excuse to further criticize US and NATO through suspicion?

Nor will you. NATO are not stupid. They're hardly going to issue a concrete threat to a sovereign nation are they? Yet the threats are legitimate nonetheless. As Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said...

[quoteThere are some concerns on the Russian side that are legitimate — Isaac

[/quote]

This still doesn't excuse blaming NATO for Putin's actions. It's just more speculation. I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate what is going on both in US and within NATO, but that doesn't mean there are actual threats that have been done against Russia. NATO has only warned Russia from attacking NATO members, they've condemned the actions Putin takes, but nothing of that is a threat to Russia, not if you accept Putin's ideology of the new world empire. It is pretty simple, you need to accept Putin's imaginary empire borders as truth, ignore that these neighboring nations are independent and then see NATO's troops within those nations as a threat. But all of that is just Putin's imagination and feelings, they do not exist in the real world.

So what's your point? We're not allowed to hold NATO to account without the bloodied dagger in our hand? Why are you insisting on that level of evidence, what does it gain? — Isaac

Hold NATO account... for what? You still haven't answered what to actually blame them for other than saying:

If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. — Isaac

So we should blame them... because we have a suspicion that there might be malpractice and threats under the table. This is not a foundation for any conclusions. You blame them first, before having any premises to support that conclusion.

Suspicion should lead to an investigation, to finding evidence, to build a case so that we can blame them. But I see no such thing, not even in rational philosophical practices and proper arguments on this forum. It's all just speculation, a feeling, suspicion. In essence, conspiracy theories.

If you want me to take any of your conclusions seriously, you need more than conspiracy. I'm interested in rational arguments, not opinions, suspicions and speculations.

NATO, the US and Europe are completely blameless in all this. What harm comes from discussing the perceived blame? They're all big boys, I'm sure they can handle being blamed for something they didn't do. So what exactly drives you with such passion to ensure that all discussion of their role in this is stamped on? — Isaac

Because it floods the discussion with distractions from the actual conflict, it muddies the waters with irrelevant nonsense that makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening and what could be happening. Why bother using this conflict, this war, as an excuse to ventilate emotional suspicions about the US and NATO just because that's your preference?

In my opinion, it becomes a disgusting way of turning this war into a discussion of your preferred subject, rather than truth.

No of course not. You can be guilty of attacking and you can be also guilty of not preventing an attack, for example leaving your door wide open. Or if you provoke them in some way.

My personal view is that provoking an attack only gives NATO more ammunition to continue 'containing' Russia. — FreeEmotion

Did NATO provoke Putin? When and how? The expansion itself can be provoking, but not in any sense that warrants guilt and blame on NATO. You also bring up a good point of guilt by not doing anything. If Sweden and Finland could prevent a Russian attack on our nations, would we be guilty of letting that happen if we don't join NATO?

I agree mostly with the article by John J. Mearsheimer. But he is out there in the cuckoo land of international politics when he suggests:

"The United States and its allies should abandon their
plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer"
— John H. Mearsheimer — FreeEmotion

I also think it's arrogant to speak about the US "westernizing" whenever a nation, themselves, try to replicate standards seen in western nations. It argues that nations cannot act independently, by themselves, to adopt any style of living that they choose. It's like, if they choose a more western standard, then it automatically becomes US enforcing this onto them. This criticism against the US gives them more credit than they deserve. "The west" is more than the US.

Your demand for explicit threats is inane. — Benkei

Why is it inane? Because you say so? Because it doesn't matter? Who decided that it doesn't matter if NATO threatened directly or not? If someone attacks you and the police ask you if you threatened the person and you just say... "that question for explicit threats is inane", do you think this is rational?

Why did NATO expand towards Russia, as opposed to say, Iran or China? There's your answer and the implicit threat it included. — Benkei

Is an expansion of a defensive alliance, through the will of each nation joining, an act of threat against Russia? "Perceived threat" in Russia does not mean anything, as per my house analogy.

For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international relations this is obvious, which is why every expansion by NATO has been critised every step of the way in every Western country with independent policy institutes. — Benkei

Isn't this just a misunderstanding of all of it? Isn't it that the critique is about how fast expansion could trigger a response from Russia? Which is obvious both back with the Soviet Union and today's Russia. But that still isn't a threat to Russia. You can't blame NATO for "threatening" Russia because there have been no threats. The expansion itself is not a threat, you are just speaking of the perceived threat that Russia feels about the expansion. It's not the same thing.

During my studies I wrote an essay on how to create an economic interdependence between Russia and Europe ensuring lasting peace and true independence from US, creating a much safer European space than we have now. — Benkei

You mean like Germany tried and now failed through their Nordstream project? How does this comply with Putin's ideals? Can you ensure stability when Putin's ambitions come into conflict with Europe's?

The US and NATO decided precisely otherwise even though there were plenty of political scientists arguing for what I did. So we should ask, what benefit is there to the US having an insecure Europe? An excuse for military bases? A continued use for NATO? — Benkei

The US is part of NATO. How do you conclude that NATO, today, is being run by the US? Do you have a clear example of how NATO is being run with the US as the leader? This would mean that Jens Stoltenberg is just a puppet, that all other nations have no real say in the actions of NATO. All of this you have to provide some evidence for.

Otherwise, it just becomes your opinion. I understand the underlining geopolitical speculation, but if you can't connect that speculation to actual practices by these entities, it's just speculation.

And it's still impossible to blame NATO for Putin's actions. You can't just dismiss this as "inane" because it doesn't comply with your speculation. I take Sweden and Finland as an example again. We are both starting to gravitate towards joining NATO, not because of some vague US imperial and economic interest that we've been hypnotized by the evil villain of capitalism, but because of Putin's threats and the risk of Russia invading. Just yesterday Sweden announced a large increase in military spending and both nations are now putting the NATO option on the table.

So if we join NATO because we seek that security against Russia - Does that mean that NATO is actively threatening Russia?

The question is about blame and guilt. Is NATO to blame for Putin's actions? You say that asking for any clear threats or actions that are direct threats to Russia is inane, because that makes it easier to fit it in your narrative. I'm saying that it's not inane, because acts of increasing security against a perceived and now active threat do not equal guilt of threat to be on the part of those seeking security, regardless of speculations of intentions on the US part.

If you were in court, how would you prove NATO has guilt for Putin's actions? Why can't anyone answer this question? If Russia "feels" threatened by something that is not, in itself, an active threat, then there is no guilt or blame on NATO's part.

Russia's "feelings" do not matter in this.

Once again my house invasion analogy:

Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? — Christoffer

I personally think he felt threatened by NATO when a country close to him wants to be part of the alliance. This exactly happens with Georgia in 2008. It is true that expressly there is not a clear threat against Russia. But they feel like that because NATO is the western and for Russia these are always the enemies so they will never let satellite countries be part of it. It is sad but for Russia, countries like Ukraine or Georgia are just puppets to play with. They do not see it as sovereign states.
As we shared previously, Soviet nostalgia — javi2541997

And this is my point exactly. His feelings of a threat do not equal NATO actually threatening. Expanding security for nations, them joining to seek security for their nation, is not an active act of threatening Russia. Just as my house invasion analogy.

I think the issue here is the model of NATO. Sometimes it seems to be only related towards USA. This is why some countries as Finland was sceptical about joining. We, the Western, do not have anything against the NATO but it is true they tend to use, hmm... propaganda about empowering the Western block.
As the European Commissioner Josep Borell said: "it is time to build an European army. But this principle is not necessary against NATO alliance," — javi2541997

"It seems", but is it? I'm specifically asking for examples of operational practices that prove that NATO can be blamed for Putin's aggressive acts and killings. Even if the US sits in the background smiling an evil smile like a villain in shadows, what has NATO actually done to warrant being blamed for Putin's actions?

Almost every discussion in this thread boils down to NATO having guilt and the US having control over NATO. But I can't recall any direct link or evidence for any of that. If that can't be established first, then NATO can't be blamed in the way they're blamed. If Putin feels threatened, that does not warrant true guilt.

So the argument so far seems to be that we need to blame NATO because we all know that the US is bad and push evil capitalism so therefore NATO is bad and has guilt for Putin's actions. Essentially, we need to criticize NATO because we can't trust capitalism, we can't trust the US, and since the US is part of NATO, then we can't trust NATO, we can't trust anything they do, governments are corrupt, bad, everything is bad in the west... it all sounds like conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Stoned hippie circle jerk... "it's all caaaaapitalisms fault maaaaan".

How and when did NATO threaten Putin and Russia? A clear-cut question for all to answer. We need to establish that first.

Yup. It was a self fulfilling prophecy. Treat Russia as the enemy for decades and surprise surprise, we get war. I'm putting as much blame on the US and NATO as on Putin. — Benkei

What threats has NATO done to Russia? As in my answer to Isaac above, how would you argue for NATO's guilt in all of this, like if we were in court, how would you, in defense of Russia, argue for NATO's guilt? What did they do? Be specific

For you (and@Christoffer if you like) with the unique interests and distance from US//NATO you so eloquently explained, why is it so important that the US/NATO be exculpated? — Isaac

First, separate NATO and US. The US is part of NATO, but NATO is its own entity. Otherwise you need to prove that NATO is being run by the US and not as an alliance, like UN, EU etc.

Second, I'm still waiting to hear what NATO's fault in all of this is. What is the actual threat to Russia? Through pages and pages of posts, I've yet to hear any concrete example of NATO actually threatening Russia. Free independent nations joining NATO who are close to Russia is not a threat. Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? And if not that as a "threat", then what? Have you any examples of when NATO threatened Russia and Putin? Because his feelings of being threatened can be valid for explaining his actions, but that doesn't mean there's valid guilt on NATO's part in any of Putin's actions.

Well, if it's just Gotland and not Åland, I hope we do the same for you and come to help!

The unfortunate fact is that after few months, assuming the war takes so long, war in Ukraine will be "the new normal". After all, we just experienced a world wide pandemic. How scary would that have sounded before? Now it's not so scary anymore. — ssu

I think Åland and Gotland would be attacked first with ground troops under a heavy barrage of air strikes along the coast. I would really like to see Putin try and cross the eastern part of Finland, if he has logistical problems just driving on a normal road to Kiev, imagine going through the same parts of Finland that decimated the Soviet Union's attempts.

Also, our prime minister had a speech to the nation yesterday. We've already been increasing our military since 2015, but now we're pumping even more into it. I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. Technology is there and if we handle it smart we'll have an anti-air system that automatically recognizes foreign threats including missiles. With such a defense, it's next to impossible for Putin to invade since most of his effective strikes are long-range missiles and airstrikes. If he can't do that, he needs to send in troops, which are already proven to have low morale and being treated like shit, imagine them moving over eastern Finland and trying to manage a sea assault while we have our sub-marines (who single-handedly beat both NATO and the US in joint military exercises at sea)

If we get a defense up to high-tech standards, I'd like to see the fucker try.

I'd be a bit sceptical about a hypothetical "victory article" published by one side. Things that are reported by several different sources that don't rely on the same source usually can be trusted and the real details surface only later. Things that are true usually leave a large trail behind them. — ssu

Yes, this is why I'm careful about it. But if it's state media, by order of Putin as the declaration of victory over Ukraine as it reads, then the reasoning might very well be in line with Putin's reasoning. It reads very much like parts reasonable thinking against the west and partially totally bonkers delusional empire dreaming. And this kind of weird back and forth seems exactly what to expect from a seasoned political figure who's become a narcissistic delusional authoritarian despot.

But I think that since no one has accurately been able to confirm its validity as being a kind of manifesto from Putin's perspective, we haven't seen it being used in news reports yet. And I don't know how if it's possible to conclude how accurate it is without more sources.

But if it is... it's pretty telling.

Well, For me and Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. Our countries are in a severe diplomatic crisis. Not at war like Ukraine, but still in a crisis. We haven't been part of that West you refer to. My country is the only country on Russia's Western border that a) isn't a NATO member and b) doesn't have Russian troops in it. And @Christoffer's country has a small patch of water between Russia. Both aren't in NATO, so both know how hostile Russia can be even when we don't pose a threat, that "springboard" to it. Just being a "potential" one creates the same tension. Also I can see the consequences of this crisis in my puny life too. — ssu

Yeah, and everytime I hear anything about NATO "forcing" people to join I just cringe. But when I mention that Sweden and Finland are considering it and that there's no force involved, only considerations of our safety towards the threats from Putin and Russia, it's like... "well, not Sweden and Finland, but everyone else is forced by US imperialism". Ugh... Understanding that geopolitics is complex does not equal forcing a point of view onto every topic available. The US might have secondary agendas with NATO, but NATO doesn't operate by the US alone and it's not even close to a priority for NATO to do any of that. It is a defensive alliance, it's about security for members not able to stand up against unstable nations or leaders who have superior military power. It also doesn't matter what NATO did decades ago compared to how it operates today. It's almost like saying that Sweden might have a different agenda with joining NATO because we had a vast empire a few hundred years ago. What I'm interested in is the current operation and agendas of nations, leaders and people today. Because agendas and people can change, for the better or for the worse over the course of history. Not taking into account the historical aspect when making arguments creates a situation where people can just make whatever argument possible or dismiss arguments however they want with just picking something random from history to "support" their argument. Like dismissing everything I said because Sweden was questionably "neutral" during WWII by sending iron to nazi Germany's war machine. It becomes a maelstrom of bullshit.

The only thing that matters is where we are today and the only historical aspect that matters is how we got here, but that's not what we are today. Ukraine is for example not the same nation today as it was just five years ago, but people create arguments like this, jumping back and forth between how they are today and how they were in 2014, based on what fits their argument for the moment. It's a frustratingly stupid angle to discuss from.

Just to give one example, I just spent my children's school holidays last week next to the Russian border as our summerplace is only 10km from the border. We went up to the border to a small shopping center that was intended to serve Russian tourists. There naturally weren't any tourists, as the ruble has collapsed. Nor are there the vast amounts of Russian trucks that few years ago crossed the border coming and going and made huge lines on the border (because Russian border control is, let's say, bureaucratic). Now it was all as silent as it was when there was the Soviet Union. Even then there was the odd Soviet truck crossing the border. Now nothing. You literally can see what the term "sanctions" really mean in reality. Now the government is advising people to avoid any kind of travelling to Russia.

Now in our countries likely the discussion of joining NATO will start at earnest. Especially Finns have tried to push it away and thought that all is well with the eastern neighbor relations. But we've been just fooling ourselves. So this crisis isn't over and hopefully you understand that just what Vlad decides to do or how he react does matter here. — ssu

Yes, the relations with Russia were "good" in terms of its people and the cities etc. I've been thinking of vacation going to Russia and it has felt like things are pretty good, even if I've always thought Putin was unstable. But now things are in the toilet. There have been worries about how jets, submarines and ships have broken our sea borders many times and the political relations have been worsening for many years, but I'd never believed Putin to be this fucking stupid, with this increase in tensions. I was never in favor of NATO, but Putin has pushed me to be pretty much pro NATO. There's no United States influencing me or convincing me of forcing me to rethink joining NATO, it is all Putin's stupidity and dreams of empire informing me that his mental health is in the toilet and you cannot defend rationally against a delusional narcissistic despot who threatens with nuclear weapons. You need a good defense alliance and you need a plan to take that fucker out, just like it was with any other dictator in the 20th century who people today think about like: "why didn't people see what was coming? Why didn't anyone kill them early on?" Well, this is it and if something serious happens, if his "New World Order" doesn't come to pass and he snaps and want to take the world with him, that could very well be the moment people ask that question again. At least I thought that thought and can be proud that I didn't bend over to his propaganda or treated him as a rational person.

Of course, I hope neither of that happens. But he has stepped over a line where the contingency plan is clear. And the crimes he commits in Ukraine at the moment and the severity of his threats should be enough foundation for the removal of his existential right. If he literally could take the world with him as a fuck you for his own failures, that is enough to warrant an extreme solution to Putin.

Until then, I gladly joining NATO as well as @ssu. If war hits our borders, this time, you will not be alone, this time we will fight side by side against the fucker. But hopefully some random, unknown security guard close to Putin realize what is happening to the world and just ends him.

Which is precisely why I argued to "sacrifice" Ukraine at an earlier stage, e.g. repeal earlier promises and overtures for it to join the EU and NATO. I also wondered why trustworthiness was so low on the list of priorities for NATO and particularly the US. I can only think of two answers, incompetence or another goal. If it's another goal, then finding grounds for more extreme sanctions seems the only reliable one. In which case the US provoked a war for entirely economic reasons.

That, or we are to accept that the Ukraine has a strategic military purpose but then I question why it's not actually defended. So I ain't buy that, particularly because Turkey, a NATO member, can close access to the Mediterranean. — Benkei

Or it's just the delusional empire ideas by Putin as is present in the paper that got leaked.

It's easy to dismiss a simple solution to the reasons Putin have, because we all focus on complex questions and gravitate to complex answers, i.e complex geopolitical multi-actor answers. But even if the paper mentions all the actors we've all mentioned, it's very clear, if the paper is a truly leaked paper, that all of this is Putin's delusional dreams of a new Russian empire.

I really would like to know if that paper is real. Hard to verify things during propaganda machines on both sides during a conflict.

This would be the craziest thing ever. So a country, that has had no hostile intentions against Ukraine, no animosity, has had not long ago major popular demonstrations against the ruling regime, would then go an participate in a war that their President has until now said that they aren't part of. Wouldn't make sense. I'd wait for real confirmation on this. — ssu

Read the publication of the paper that were supposed to be released when Russia won the war in Ukraine. It's clear what Putin promised Lukashenko. If Ukraine and Belarus would be part of the new Russia in the new world order, then Lukashenko would be very powerful as part of this union, at least, in his eyes. It's pretty clear what's going on here, Lukashenko became a puppet, Putin managed to install someone he could control and who could be part of the new Russia. But he didn't manage to do the same with Ukraine, so he's forced to invade Ukraine to achieve his new world order goal.

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/