You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, or which presumably there's always one side in the wrong and at least somebody is a victim, in different continents? — boethius

If a war effects for example your work, I think it's obviously more important for you than something that just notice every once in a while in the papers.

I honestly don't get what you're even trying to argue on this topic of the "little green men".

Are you saying if we catch the US or the Ukrainians in a lie then we can assume everything they say is a lie? — boethius

Of course not! In fact it seems that others have these kind of ideas.

What I'm saying is that one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy and most obvious lies. Because the fact is, which I remember quite vividly, was that the journalist covering the Crimean invasion didn't dare to say for days just who the forces were...because they didn't have the Russian flag and Putin said that they weren't Russian soldiers, but Crimean volunteers.

The idea that you cannot say anything, absolutely anything and you cannot use your head in these cases is a silly counterargument.

It's not off topic because the US are heavily involved in Ukraine, so their reputation is very relevant. — Isaac

Then make the revelant link by all means.

Just as I made the the link that the decision for Saudi-Arabia to intervene in the Yemen Civil War was as stupid and disastrous as the idea for Russia to invade Ukraine. MBS saw "the threat" of Yemen sliding into the "sphere of influence" of Iran as a reason to start a war against the Houthis, just like Putin saw "the threat" of Ukraine falling under the influence of the US a reason to enlarge a current war against "the nazis". Both cases a hypothetical arguments was given as a reason for war and colossal mistakes were made about how the war would go. For MBS the war didn't go by planned, ended up being bogged down, being very costly to the Saudi military and resulted in famine and utter destruction in Yemen.

If a war effects for example your work, I think it's obviously more important for you than something that just notice every once in a while in the papers. — ssu

Sure, but the comment was about Western nations generally, not individuals personally affected.

What I'm saying is that one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy lies. Because the fact is, which I remember quite vividly, was that the journalist covering the Crimean invasion didn't dare to say for days just who the forces were...because they didn't have the Russian flag and Putin said that they weren't Russian soldiers, but Crimean volunteers. — ssu

Again, can't say its clumsy lies without proof; and journalists not reporting what they can't prove is pretty usual.

You seem to believe there's some constituency denying the "little green men" ... it's more just doesn't seem to matter at all.

If stone cold proof dropped tomorrow that the picture is indeed of Russian soldiers on salary under the Russian chain of command ... what does that change? This just isn't the lie of the century and no one doubts Russian involvement and backing of the separation of Crimea.

Journalists didn't report things without proof (like they do now reporting war crimes and who's guilty before any investigation at all) ... which isn't some great crime journalists sticking to what's proven, isn't unusual, and isn't Russian appeasement of some sort, nor does anyone much care who these soldiers were "really working for" as it changes nothing, just frustrates anti-Russian parties wanting any accusation against Russia to be taken at face value.

Certainly Russia has done "bad things" and have "lied" ... well, like the US and like Ukraine, but it still matters what the actual facts, or to what extent they can be inferred, in understanding the world.

For example, it actually matters which war crimes exactly US committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, as it does Russia as does Ukraine.

However, that the US first denied torture and starting a war on fabricated evidence, and then got caught in that lie, doesn't mean absolutely every accusation against the US should be taken at face value, likewise for Russia and likewise for Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the great powers (in particular US, China and Russia) lie all the time, but for the purposes of analysis the facts still matter and also actual proof still matters.

And, in the case of the takeover / invasion of Crimea I don't think anyone reported that Russia was not backing it. However, Crimean's also have agency and many and I've seen no credible doubt cast on the legitimacy of the vote of Crimean's to leave Ukraine after the 2014 coup.

So, although I, and I don't think really anyone concerned about this topic, would doubt Russia involvement (they literally have a military base there and certainly have intelligence agents in and around it since decades), the idea absolutely everyone walking around must be Russian soldiers and to say otherwise is a lie, plays into the idea that Crimean agency and self determination can be just ignored.

Now, the counter argument is that it wasn't "legal" for Crimea to exit Ukraine ... but shouldn't Crimean's be able to have self-determination? Why does a law outside Crimea matter? Why doesn't what Crimean's want matter?

For, as far as I can tell, there's no credible claim that Crimea and the Dombas regions aren't genuinely pro Russian, but a narrative of "what they want" not mattering in the contest between the far larger powers they are between ... hmmm, starting to sound a bit familiar.

That being said, I have zero problem with the idea Russia backed Crimea separation and annexation and Dombas regions declaring independence. It's a sovereign country so, presumably, can do what it wants, and, presumably, can also have clandestine operations to protect it's interests just like the USA and Ukraine.

All of which underscores @Benkei's really good breakdowns of why legalism doesn't apply to international relations.

If Ukraine has a right to self determination and so Russia is wrong in invading, then Crimea and Dombas regions have a right to self determination and Ukraine is wrong in refusing to recognise that and then attacking those regions, which makes Russia right in intervening to protect the rights of self determination of those people if they request it, just as, if you disagree and Ukraine has original just cause because only their right to self determination matters, then NATO is justified in sending arms and sending advisors to help Ukraine if Ukraine requests it.

Legal reasoning simply breaks down because there is no state to enforce the law when the perpetrator is a state with hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons, or just a few, or indeed just a credible conventional deterrent, or then just no one cares to attack that particular country to enforce any rules anyways.

What does the delusion of legal reasoning applied to great power politics produce? Challenging the UN security council to fix the situation or "disband", kick Russia out because it's ... exactly like ISIS.

It's simply delusional and not how the world works. Normal people empathise because legal reasoning is relevant in normal life when one is effectively chaperoned by the state, and moral outrage can immediately translate to sympathy from friends if not cancelling the objects of dissatisfaction on social media or even the state doing something about it. More importantly, legalistic gripes are the only gripes anyone pays any real attention to for ordinary citizens, as maybe it is an issue of social concern according to society's own rules.

However, who's not listening to legalistic gripes are the great powers in complaining about each other.

Not if the EU is dominated economically, financially, politically, and militarily by America. — Apollodorus

Good thing it's not

guess my point is really that we're complaining about something that we think is "horrible" but we've done everything to normalise that in the past 60 odd years (and actually way before that). — Benkei

I think the situation is more complicated than that, but I'm thinking we probably can't discuss that.

So honestly I really can't bring myself to the level of condemnation the pro-NATO crowd levies at the Russians when it's really nothing different from what our own governments would do in exactly the same circumstance. — Benkei

Your government fought in Afghanistan for 20 years. In quite similar circumstances against many times the same enemy as the Russians had.

And what seems to irritate many here is that I point to the fact that the Russian way of war ended up killing far more civilians than the West, including the Dutch contingent. Otherwise a similarly futile war. So there's that issue of only difference in scale.

one can use common sense and notice the most clumsy and most obvious lies. — ssu

Yes, we get what you're saying. What's lacking is an argument. If you say "it's common sense that X is the case" and I say "its common sense that X isn't the case", then how has you're assertion that we can use common sense to determine whether X is the case, been shown to be anything other than false?

Then make the revelant link by all means. — ssu

I have been doing so.

I made the the link that the decision for Saudi-Arabia to intervene in the Yemen Civil War was as stupid and disastrous as the idea for Russia to invade Ukraine. — ssu

That's not what I meant by link. It's just a similarity. When I say 'link' I mean causal. The US's involvement in Yemen is to sell arms, with disastrous effect. We're seeing them trying to do the same in Ukraine. We should fear the same disastrous effect.

I point to the fact that the Russian way of war ended up killing far more civilians than the West — ssu

How are you measuring that?

Sure, but the comment was about Western nations generally, not individuals personally affected. — boethius

No, the question that Benkei assumed was that people would have more interest on the plight of Ukrainians because they are white than with the plight of black Africans.

When you are individually affected, even if it's nothing dramatic, you do notice that the events are quite real. Not just an article on page 5.

No, the question that Benkei assumed was that people would have more interest on the plight of Ukrainians because they are white than with the plight of black Africans. — ssu

Seems a true statement about Western nations and a majority of people in them to me.

When you are individually affected, even if it's nothing dramatic, you do notice that the events are quite real. Not just an article on page 5. — ssu

Again, most people in "Western countries" aren't personally affected, it is purely empathy driven to demand heaven and earth be moved to help the victims even at the risk of nuclear war and even if impulsive emotional driven policy is counter productive to helping the Ukrainians ... empathy that does not appear for black Africans, nor much outrage and concern, and much less any significant actions.

Another way to put it is why are these other issue on page 5?

We spend 20 years "rebuilding Afghanistan" and brining democracy, and then leave our "allies" to fall to their deaths from our planes as we GTFO, and then let them starve to death.

Why page 5 news?

How are you measuring that? — Isaac

By the looking at various estimates of those being killed in the separate wars.

Of course, for you I guess those are just propaganda and you cannot rely on anything what for example the UN says etc.

Seems a true statement about Western nations and a majority of people in them to me. — boethius

Add in that religion too, obviously. I would assume that people here wouldn't be racists.

Again, most people in "Western countries" aren't personally affected, it is purely empathy driven to demand heaven and earth be moved to help the victims even at the risk of nuclear war ... empathy that does not appear for black Africans — boethius

But the threat of war, even if still low, has increased.

That's not what I meant by link. It's just a similarity. When I say 'link' I mean causal. The US's involvement in Yemen is to sell arms, with disastrous effect. We're seeing them trying to do the same in Ukraine. We should fear the same disastrous effect. — Isaac

For those arms deliveries to happen (basically paid by the US taxpayer), you needed Putin to invade in the first place. Hence there's that slight problem in the causal link. Of course you can go with the line that Putin was forced to start a war with Ukraine... which I would disagree with.

If MBS was urged to intervene in Yemen by the US, you should inform me of that. The way it looks like is that the US itself was actually OK with the Houthis fighting Al Qaeda in Yemen, hence MBS didn't inform the US about it's warplans. But once the Saudis attacked, Obama did give him a lot of logistical support and then sold weapons the Saudis.

By the looking at various estimates of those being killed in the separate wars.

Of course, for you I guess those are just propaganda and you cannot rely on anything what for example the UN says etc. — ssu

Regardless of the reliability of the estimates, vim wondering why, after all that's been said, you'd think an argument based only on casualty figures would hold any water.

We've been talking for pages and pages about how the US and Europe's approach is far more economic than territorial, so the arguments against them are about the economic impacts.

In this case, you'd be measuring not just collateral damage, but damage from arms sales, regime support, economic sanctions, pecuniary loan terms, welfare cuts, resource theft, unfair trade deals...

I'm not saying how those figures would play out. Russia engages in no small amount of all that thuggery too. My point is that its no secret that 'the west' is the more sophisticated murderer. Comparing collateral damage in war is like comparing a violent criminal to a fraudster. The method by which they kill lends emotional, not rational weight to their crimes.

For those arms deliveries to happen (basically paid by the US taxpayer), you needed Putin to invade in the first place. Hence there's that slight problem in the causal link. — ssu

I'm talking about the link between calls for Ukraine to 'keep fighting' and US arms sales (not to mention 'reconstruction' loans and the like)

Add in that religion too, obviously. I would assume that people here wouldn't be racists. — ssu

You were responding to @Benkei observation about Western countries, not people on this forum.

But the threat of war, even if still low, has increased. — ssu

Again, no threat to USA, Australia, Germany or France of Italy and most Western nations, of the war spilling over.

More importantly, there's only increased the threat of war for countries neighbouring Russia and threat of nuclear war due to Western emotional reaction to Ukrainian "worthy victims" and that all actions by Ukrainians are just, none of their lies need be talked about and are "just and noble lies" anyways, and any and all actions against Russia are justified ... even if they are counter productive and even if they harm Ukrainians more rather than help them.

This sudden emotional upheaval—rather than page 5 "realist" news saying the war wherever it is, doesn't really matter, is unfortunate, lot's of people suffering but nothing we can do—by the entire West and NATO as a collective political body of some sort, is nearly 100% related to Ukrainians being white.

And, it's only this emotional upheaval that allows states to act impulsively and recklessly in their quest to assuage these emotions.

Which, if you step outside the emotional praxis of legalistic outrage that simply justifies any action that "feels like" it may help Ukrainians and "feels like" it may harm Russia, there are real questions about the wisdom of waging a proxi war and supporting Ukrainians "right to join NATO ... even if it can never actually join NATO".

If you remember back a month and a week, the outrage about Russia's invasion was "how dare they say Ukraine can't join NATO" ... and now we find out that Zelenskyy already asked when they'd be able to join NATO and NATO told him never!?!?

Likewise, now we discover the German Chancellor Scholz went to Ukraine before the war and brought Zelenskyy an offer of security guarantees by Russia and the US if they abandoned NATO aspirations and committed to neutrality?!?!

The only possible resolution of the conflict now agreed by all parties, including Zelenskyy; just far harder to negotiate now after acrimonious bloodshed, and, if reached, the exact same outcome but after insane levels of harms to Ukrainians.

Which, if Zelenskyy actually feared not getting at least billions in arms shipments and intelligence (I'm sure his emotional state would have changed if the US removed their intelligence briefings and the impending war felt less "controlled") and maybe even bait NATO into a no fly zone by handing out small arms to civilians and refusing to evacuate civilians from war zones and other stunts, or (god forbid) actually feared any weakening of anti-Russia policy and "information war", he'd of course maybe considered the offer of peace more seriously.

But who needs peace when you have NATO by your side.

We have been taken for a ride.

which I would disagree with. — ssu

You can disagree with it but that's the position Russia will take.

Chomsky:

As has been understood for a long time, decades in fact, for Ukraine to join NATO would be rather like Mexico joining a China-run military alliance, hosting joint maneuvers with the Chinese army and maintaining weapons aimed at Washington. To insist on Mexico’s sovereign right to do so would surpass idiocy (and, fortunately, no one brings this up). Washington’s insistence on Ukraine’s sovereign right to join NATO is even worse, since it sets up an insurmountable barrier to a peaceful resolution of a crisis that is already a shocking crime and will soon become much worse unless resolved — by the negotiations that Washington refuses to join.

That’s quite apart from the comical spectacle of the posturing about sovereignty by the world’s leader in brazen contempt for the doctrine, ridiculed all over the Global South though the U.S. and the West in general maintain their impressive discipline and take the posturing seriously, or at least pretend to do so.

...

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more. — Chomsky

I think it would be fruitful to ask why Ukraine wanted to join NATO.

Is there some path Russia could have taken that would have made Ukraine happy to continue a friendly relationship with them?

Plus, at this point, the real issue of concern is what the sanctions are about to do to the Russian society.

They're set to run Russia into the ground.

I think it would be fruitful to ask why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. — frank

No one disputes Ukraine, at least represented by Zelenskyy, wanted to join NATO.

The problem for Zelenskyy and Ukrainians is that NATO would not and has not let them join, what NATO could do overnight if it wanted ... but it doesn't want to.

Fighting for a right get something from people who have made it clear they won't give it to you anyways, is dumb.

Plus, at this point, the real issue of concern is what the sanctions are about to do to the Russian society.

They're set to run Russia into the ground. — frank

Sure, if you're goal is to use Ukraine as a proxi war to bleed the Russians, then fighting to the last Ukrainian for the "right to join NATO" and the sanctions are a good way to harm the Russians.

Does it help Ukrainians?

No one disputes Ukraine, at least represented by Zelenskyy, wanted to join NATO. — boethius

The NATO aspiration was written in the Ukrainian constitution before Zelenskyy was elected president. It seems he had nothing to do with it.

The NATO aspiration was written in the Ukrainian constitution before Zelenskyy was elected president. It seems he had nothing to do with it. — Olivier5

He could have put it to a referendum, after telling people that NATO already told him they would never be allowed to join NATO, so even if it's an aspiration in the constitution ... it's not happening so it's better not to be delusional about it, then also put it to a referendum.

And why was it put in the constitution? To make peace making (aka. statecraft) more difficult and so promote violence.

It's just denying political reality.

There's a faction in Ukraine that wanted this war, they call themselves Arians and they are on video literally saying they want war with Russia and that without them the 2014 protests would have been just a gay parade.

Maybe violent people simply got their violent wish.

Has it really brought "glory" to the average Ukrainians?

Plus, at this point, the real issue of concern is what the sanctions are about to do to the Russian society. — frank

I wish there was a clearer picture of what the sanctions are actually doing. Of course, gradually tightened sanctions are not going to have an over-night effect, but I hear mixed messages on their effectiveness.

wish there was a clearer picture of what the sanctions are actually doing. Of course, gradually tightened sanctions are not going to have an over-night effect, but I hear mixed messages on their effectiveness. — Bitter Crank

If the sanctions were supposed to undermine Putin's popularity, they don't seem to have done that. If anything, the Russian elite is more closely tied to Putin than before.

Russia did have a market economy in which westerners participated. Apparently that's gone. They will now have a command economy.

Here.

it's better not to be delusional about it, then also put it to a referendum. — boethius

That 's precisely Zelenskyy's line, I think.

And why was it put in the constitution? — boethius

Good question. I did some research (from wiki):


On November 22, 2018, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine green-lighted a presidential bill to amend Ukraine's Constitution regarding the strategic course of the state for obtaining full membership of Ukraine in the EU and NATO (No. 9037). The same day, the Verkhovna Rada adopted the bill in its first reading. A total of 334 deputies of 385 registered in the session hall supported the law.

The Verkhovna Rada is composed of 450 "deputies" in total. Some posts are vacant due to Russian occupation of Crimea and independentists in Dombass. A new crop of deputies were voted in in 2019.

The law voted by the previous legislature proposed that Ukraine's irreversible course toward European and Euro-Atlantic integration be stipulated in the preamble of the Fundamental Law along with the confirmation of European identity of the Ukrainian people; that Article 102 be supplemented with the provision that "the president of Ukraine is the guarantor of the implementation of the state's strategic course for obtaining Ukraine's full membership in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization"; and that Article 116 is amended with a new clause, according to which the Cabinet of Ministers "ensures the implementation of the state's strategic course for obtaining Ukraine's full membership in the [EU and NATO]."

These provisions effectively carved in constitutional marble a 'west-friendly' foreign policy orientation -- a very odd feature, possibly an overreaction to Yukashenko's efforts to cosy up with Moscow -- and forced any new administration to implement it.

Zelenskyy's hands were therefore tied.

So who voted for this law? Most deputies of the previous legislatute. It was a presidential bill, emanating from Petro Poroshenko, and voted by (among others) his party, then name the 'Petro Poroshenko Bloc' that had won 132 of the 423 contested seats in the 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary election, more than any other party.

Poroshenko's domestic policy promoted "the Ukrainian language, nationalism, inclusive capitalism, decommunization, and administrative decentralization."

In 2018, Poroshenko helped create the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, separating Ukrainian churches from the Moscow Patriarchate. His presidency was distilled into a three-word slogan, employed by both supporters and opponents: armiia, mova, vira (English: army, language, faith).

In the 2019 presidential elections, Poroshenko obtained 24.5% in the second round, being defeated by Volodymyr Zelensky. There was no true consensus in the expert community on why Poroshenko lost, with opinions ranging from opposition to intensifying nationalism, failure to stem corruption, dissatisfaction of overlooked Russian-speaking regions with his presidency [and other factors]. His loss apparently came as a big surprise to commentators.

Outside government, Poroshenko has been a prominent Ukrainian oligarch with a lucrative career in acquiring and building assets. His most recognized brands are Roshen, the large-scale confectionery company which has earned him the nickname of "Chocolate King", and, until its sale in November 2021, the TV news channel 5 kanal.

He is still a member of parliament. But a new crop of deputies was elected on 21 July 2019. Zelensky's totally new party (called Servant of the People... :-)) won a strong a majority, coming out of the blue.

So this constitutional amendment was done by a previous crop of leaders, rather nationalist and possibly quite corrupt. Those Zelenskyy ran against and defeated.

This means Zelenskyy has no legacy to defend here, and can propose new ideas eg the referendum one.

That 's precisely Zelenskyy's line, I think. — Olivier5

That's his line now, but if he was told Ukraine could never join NATO, why wasn't it his line before the war, which would have significantly reduced tensions.

Not only should be seriously question why it wasn't his line before the war after he was told by NATO that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO ... we should also seriously question why the "right to join NATO" was his line in the first tepid days of the war.

Zelenskyy's hands were therefore tied. — Olivier5

Obviously not, no matter what is said in the constitution or what Ukraine "wants", nothing prevented Zelenskyy from telling the truth that, despite what they want, NATO has told him they will never be allowed to join NATO ... or, if that would be too shocking for Ukrainians to here, then work out some diplomatic process that saves face for Ukraine and NATO .. and why not, I'm being generous, even Russia.

Someone who knows anything about anything about statecraft would interpret NATO literally stating that Ukraine would never be allowed to join but the door would be open publicly (i.e. NATO would not publicly humiliate Ukraine by saying closing the door) would know that's a pretty large and clear "big boy signal" from NATO that he's going to have to go make peace with Putin, if he wanted peace.

Sure, you can say he shouldn't need to make peace with Putin ... but then the expectation should be no peace with Putin.

These sorts of truth bombs at this stage in the game is honestly bewildering. Almost as bewildering as the biolabs fiasco (almost).

Diplomatic tightrope is what it means to be the neighbour of a great power that can reck your country on a whim. If Finland's so praiseworthy in their Russian relations, a famous deal with the Russians to keep Finland independent post-WWII and not be absorbed like other baltic nations (a time in which no one would come to Finland's aid and the Russian army was even bigger and more powerful than before and certainly more experienced after defeating the Nazi's) was worked out over a lot of vodka and sauna.

Indeed, the sauna (which always includes alcohol) statecraft tool, was described at length by Secretary of State Torstila famous 2010 speech to the XV International Sauna Congress.

Describing important high stakes diplomatic techniques such as:

President Kekkonen used to invite world leaders and other officials to his private sauna at the height of the Cold War. Formal discussions started around a normal negotiating table and were followed by a sauna sitting. New ideas emerged and many of them helped the Finns move towards notable political and economic successes and ultimately Finland becoming “the Nokia Land.”

During the days of the Cold War, the Finnish neutrality between East and West was constantly challenged by the Soviet Union. President Kekkonen used his sauna diplomacy to defend Finland’s integrity and membership in the Western community of nations countering the Soviet efforts. The Financial Times once claimed that Kekkonen sweated his Soviet guests into cooperation in his sauna. The true story is certainly richer in detail than that but the truth remains that the sauna was an important instrument for Kekkonen in building confidence and diffusing the mistrust of our eastern neighbor. — Sauna Diplomacy, the Finnish Recipe

The Finnish story is not just "fighting the Russians".

It is fighting the Russians, then mutually agreeing war is not a good thing, and burying the hatchet, and learning to live as neighbour's with mutual respect (at least for a time) and mutual benefit wherever possible. Finland even paid war reparations to the Soviet Union. That price for independence was also paid, yet I never see mentioned.

Notice the diplomatic nuance, the statecraft, even in this fun loving speech—cognisant that every word matters—in phrases like "The true story is certainly richer in detail than that but the truth remains that the sauna was an important instrument for Kekkonen in building confidence and diffusing the mistrust of our eastern neighbor."

Contrast that to geopolitical diplomacy of today ... which is basically reduced to an online flamewar.

why wasn't it his line before the war, which would have significantly reduced tensions. — boethius

I explained why: the constitutional amendment binds him from doing anything else than implement it. Now this is water under the bridge.

I explained why: the constitutional amendment binds him from doing anything else than implement it. Now this is water under the bridge. — Olivier5

Ah yes, just water under the bridge ... but not really.

Just because there is some law and some objective and some duty to implement the law, does not mean a politician must keep pretending the law can be implemented when he realises it is no longer possible.

His hands were not tied, he could have talked with other politicians, explained the situation and that NATO is not coming and they will need to deal with Russia largely alone, that it's a difficult situation and cool heads are required.

Even if his hands were "really tied" as president he could have resigned, told the truth, and thus forced a new election around this issue so Ukrainian's could decide on a new policy given that, even if they want to join NATO and have "a right to join NATO" that the reality is that they will never be joining NATO.

And the fact he's saying so now and saying a referendum would be needed to change the constitution ... clearly demonstrates his hands weren't tied and he could have called for such a referendum any time between being told by NATO that Ukraine won't be joining NATO and the start of the war.