As labor demands higher wages, capital has a choice: raise prices or take a hit. So they raise prices. — frank

Poor capitalists, being forced by circumstances to raise prices...

For an alternative view for anyone wanting to keep their tounges free of boot polish...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inflation-market-power-america-antitrust-robert-reich

Jesus, you're in a lot of pain, aren't you?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/11/us-inflation-market-power-america-antitrust-robert-reich — Isaac

... collaborative monopolization for mutual benefit?
So, this is where capitalist enterprises can overcome competition that's advantageous to consumers.
I think it's an old faultline of capitalism, that can become more pronounced the larger the enterprises.
Where it becomes a wicked nuisance, is when a societal dependency on the product has been reached.
A bit peripheral in this thread I guess.

Hard to tell how much Old Joe Knows. His age is reportedly starting to show. — jorndoe

Biden is way past his pull date. The Biden Administration, however, has to know what a dangerous game they're playing wrt Ukraine and Russia. If Russia was giving intel to one of our enemies that resulted in deaths of many senior officers (and they were still doing it!), we would want some payback.

:fire:

What a shithole country

Good article, part of the inevitable covid shock. An economic Tsunami caused by a supply crisis. Those countries with a more libertarian/free market exploitation model are more exposed to corporate dominance.

The Biden Administration, however, has to know what a dangerous game they're playing wrt Ukraine and Russia. If Russia was giving intel to one of our enemies that resulted in deaths of many senior officers (and they were still doing it!), we would want some payback. — RogueAI

The US media commentators surely wanted payback during the Trump era when an Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan. Of course the Taleban weren't as successful as the Ukrainians have been with the intel. But then again, if you use Ukrainian mobile phone network, you're asking for it. Ukrainian military intelligence is far more capable than the Taleban could be, even with the help of Pakistani ISI.

Yet the Cold War gave both sides guidelines how to act in these kind of situations when one side in engaging in a war where the other side is sending vast amounts of material to the fight. During the Vietnam War, roughly about 3 000 Soviet military advisors were in North Vietnam assisting with the Soviet material given in huge quantities. Of them 16 Soviet advisors died during the war. Hence both countries know how this war of "assisting your side" is done.

The notable point is that Putin is still fighting the "special military operation" and hasn't taken steps to enlargen the conflict. And that the Biden administration is getting the jitters when Ukrainian military successes are directly linked to US assistance tells something. Both sides aren't actually opting to ante up the situation. The fight is still being fought on the Ukrainian battlefields.

That was already happening before the oil shock. Doesn't that situation look unstable to you?

Not in terms of hyper inflation. These trends will stabilise and the economies in question are quite healthy.

Not in terms of hyper inflation. These trends will stabilise and the economies in question are quite healthy. — Punshhh

Ok :up:

Dude, if I’m a “deranged Putinist” to you, you are a “deranged NATO Nazi” to me. So, basically, we have nothing to say to each other. But this thread seems to be about the Ukraine business, not about you and me. — Apollodorus

Dude, if I never called you “deranged Putinist”, there are reasons: the main is that your dialectic approach is the problem, not the content. You would look deranged to me even if you were pro-NATO, or pro-America, or pro-Ukraine.

The fact is that I’ve criticized Russia extensively on other threads, including the crimes it has committed against its own people, the oligarchs, its collaboration with criminal dictatorships like Turkey, etc., etc. So, I think people who label me “pro-Russian” or “pro-Putin” are knowingly telling lies. — Apollodorus

Then that’s not my case, because I don’t know about your contributions in other threads. Besides I find it arguably irrelevant (see below).

Moreover, as I said, this thread is about the Ukraine crisis or conflict. Like all conflicts, there are two sides to it. On one side there is Russia, on the other side is America (+ UK, NATO, EU, G7, etc.). If some criticize one side, others are entitled to criticize the other. Otherwise, the discussion becomes one-sided and, ultimately, no discussion at all. — Apollodorus

Sure, and they also entitled to identify one another by which side they are criticising: pro-America or pro-Russia, given the way you framed the conflict (BTW you oddly forgot to mention Ukraine). Don’t you like it? anti-America or anti-Russia, is it better? That’s just a linguistic dispute: what is substantial is that you are not just criticising America/NATO, but providing legitimacy claims for the unilateral annexation of Crimea, independently from America/NATO. Indeed if Crimea belongs to Russia, as you claim, this has nothing to do with America/NATO, since America/NATO didn’t play any role in the declaration of independence of Ukraine and Crimea from Russia, at the end of the Soviet Union, right?
Certainly you could claim that you are not pro-Russian in the sense that you do not want Russia to rule over the world, you are for a multipolar world, so there should be no hegemonic superpower as the US is now. But this understanding (which I acknowledged a while ago by myself, despite your ineptitude to clarify this point) presupposes your ideological views, others could say that they are not pro-America/NATO they want just Ukraine sovereign, others could say that they are not pro-America/NATO but pro-Europe, etc. and for that reason they are more anti-Russian than anti-American/NATO. And the latter views can be combined with a multipolar or unipolar views, so your ideological position is just one among others. The point is still that if the war in Ukraine is framed as a war between America and Russia, it makes perfect sense to identify someone as pro-Russian or pro-America/NATO based on what party one sides with, and not on their ideological reasons, whatever they are, to side with one party or the other.

Maybe that’s what you’re aiming at because despite calling yourself “philosopher”, you clearly see this as a “political discussion” (your own phrase!) and you sound very much like a political activist and not so much like a philosopher. — Apollodorus

Dude, that’s a philosophy forum, so I guess it’s normal that we can discuss on political subjects with a philosophical attitude. That has nothing to do with how I call myself. And philosophers can also be political activists (see Sartre or Chomsky or Dugin or Bernard-Henri Lévy). You are desperately trying to make me look as some “unthinking” “political activist” (As for you being a “philosopher”, if you are one, you must be of the unthinking type because all you seem to be doing is recycle the infantile CIA agitprop spouted by the NATO Troll and his alter ego, From what I see, you seem to be some kind of Nazi who thinks people should shut up unless they think and speak exactly like you), while serving me mainly straw man arguments or fatuous objections, looping through your propaganda speech, and raving about me wanting to suppress your criticisms (which are completely missing the target), and I am the political activist?! If you do not fully realise how projective and self-defeating this approach of yours is, then there is definitely something off with you.

I think my proposal that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners is pretty reasonable in a philosophical context. Yet you inexplicably react to it by cursing and getting mad:
no, I don’t have to be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, etc., (whatever the fuck that means) — neomac — Apollodorus

I’m not questioning that you might find this principle reasonable and worth discussing in a thread about the war in Ukraine in a philosophy forum. I’m questioning its meaning (mapping territorial claims with “rightful owners” is not only difficult but highly controversial because there are conflicting ideological and normative principles at stake), its normative force (I don’t feel unconditionally committed to it) , and its application conditions (what kind of political action is this being “prepared to give Tibet back to Tibetans” supposed to correspond? What priority should it have wrt the war in Ukraine?). Add to that your polemical and deeply flawed dialectical attitude. All that explains the reaction you quoted.

There is nothing “Putinist” or “deranged” about suggesting that Tibet should be returned to the ethnic Tibetans to whom it rightfully belongs. Nor is there anything unclear about the facts. — Apollodorus

Yet, unsuprisingly, I never ever claimed that it is deranged or Putinist suggesting that Tibet should be returned to the ethnic Tibetans to whom it rightfully belongs. “Deranged” is arguing with me as if I made such a claim while ignoring my actual claims, and your asking me to “be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans”, where that expresses your ideological views, not mine!
Besides I strongly doubt that you (or anybody else for that matter) are really capable of an effective and impartial mapping of ethnic groups over territories to define sovereign states. But if you want to prove me wrong, then you could start with the map of the ethnic groups in Russia and China:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg/1200px-Map_of_the_ethnic_groups_living_in_the_Soviet_Union.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.png
And tell me what territory should be returned to whom? BTW are sovereign states free to ally for their defense with other sovereign states once you have done all your mapping?

5. Historically, except for the very brief Khrushchev-instigated episode whose legitimacy is contested (1991-2014, i.e., 23 years to be precise), Crimea NEVER belonged to Ukraine. — Apollodorus

You are incomprehensibly ignoring the declaration of independence from Russia, and that there are 2 treaties between Ukraine and Russia where Russia recognised the Ukraine territorial sovereignty prior to the annexation of Crimea (tell me more about analogous treatises between China and Tibet). Besides if Crimea did already “belong” to Russia and not Ukraine, then Russia didn’t have to “annexe” anything.

That was the point I was making, I never said Russia should invade the Baltic or Scandinavian countries and even less England or America. If that’s what you’re saying, then you’re making it up. — Apollodorus

If I really said such things you could quote me, but you can’t quote me because I didn’t make such claims. So you really are making straw man arguments, without if.

As for Zelensky, he seems to be another nutjob who's either confused or a liar. First he said everyone “should calm down as there wasn’t going to be any invasion”, then he said “WW3 has started” and later that “the end of the world has come”! One minute he says he “is ready to negotiate”, next minute he says he “will fight to the end”. One minute he says Ukrainian troops hiding in Mariupol “will never surrender”, next minute he says “Russia should let them go”. He accuses Germany of “financing Russia’s war” when many other countries have been and still are doing business with Russia. He accuses Russia of trying to “exterminate the Ukrainian people” when so far only a few thousand got killed out of 40 million (compare 150,000+ killed by America’s Iraq War), etc. — Apollodorus

If you don't find Zelensky credible why did you bring him up in support of your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia? Not to mention that, to your surprise I suppose, Zelensky was at least consistent in never affirming that Crimea belongs to Russia (so far).

Incidentally, the Ukraine issue here seems to be approached exclusively from a Western-NATO, i.e., minority-interest angle. This is unacceptable because the West is a minority in the world. The overwhelming majority of the world population – Russia, China, India, Africa, the Arab World, Latin America – do NOT see the conflict the same way the West does. I see no logical reason why non-Western views should be suppressed on a discussion forum! — Apollodorus

First of all, there are plenty of active contributors (including moderators) in this thread that are critical toward NATO and the US. Besides, posts expressing non-Western views can not be suppressed by ordinary users of this forum. So why on earth are you talking about suppression of non-Western views on a discussion forum?!
Second, it’s disputable that non-Western views represent the views of the overwhelming majority of the world population according to Western democratic standards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#/media/File:Democracy_Index_2020.svg). So, until we settle this issue, I would find more cautious to claim that non-Western views are more likely a loose collection of non-Western dominant elites’ views, each with their interest angles, but likely still unable of competing against Western dominant elites in terms of cohesion and influence.

In sum, I really don’t know — Apollodorus

I thought so, dude.

Kremlin critic Vladimir Kara-Murza detained in Russia (MSNBC; May 5, 2022)

At least Chomsky hasn't been stuffed into a jail cell (or poisoned) only to be heard from via his wife.

Life and death of a Russian tank (David Attenborough spoof)

This is quite interesting, especially the first 15-20 minutes, made faster if one chooses 1.5 or x2 speed.

Interesting. I think there might be a simple solution to the 'contradiction' Chomsky keeps pointing at, between on the one hand the representation of the Russian army as a paper tiger and on the other hand the present apparent change of mind of Sweden and Finland re. joining NATO. He is asking in essence: Why join NATO now, if the Russian army is so weak?

Maybe now is a good time to join NATO precisely because the Russian army is unlikely to present an immediate threat, because Russia is having its army tied up in Ukraine right now, and is therefore less able than before (and after) the war to retaliate against Finland and Sweden, were they to join NATO.

For Finland and Sweden, it may be now or never.

Irrespective of their poor performance in the first month of the war, and of the continued capacity of the Ukrainians to rebut them, the Russians can still pack a big punch. They can and have learnt. They also have a lot of nukes. So they are no paper tiger, and it is quite natural to fear them.

I think Chomsky fears them as well, from what he says, but he fears NATO too.

I mean yes, you can think about it this way, and you are right that Russia (if things don't escalate badly), will learn from this.

But the idea of joining NATO now, would arise much more quickly if Russia did manage to control Ukraine. They're struggling to control cities, which is why they're now pulverizing some of them. And it may continue.

On the other hand, to think that Russia will ever consider developing an army capable of controlling, not only Ukraine, but both Sweden and Finland is crazy. Heck, the US couldn't even deal with Afghanistan, much weaker than Ukraine.

The issue is, by joining having them join NATO, Russia will be forced to put nukes on the borders with Finland, making the situation much more delicate.

And sure, one should fear countries and organizations that have nukes, especially if they tend to be aggressive, as Russia and the US/Europe have shown.

On the other hand, to think that Russia will ever consider developing an army capable of controlling, not only Ukraine, but both Sweden and Finland is crazy. Heck, the US couldn't even deal with Afghanistan, much weaker than Ukraine.

The issue is, by joining having them join NATO, Russia will be forced to put nukes on the borders with Finland, making the situation much more delicate. — Manuel

Nowadays, it doesn't matter where the missiles are launched from.

Russia cannot 'control' Finland (or Sweden) but it could still destroy it. I think joining NATO is a logical step, under the circumstances.

If you don't find Zelensky credible why did you bring him up in support of your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia? — neomac

Dude, as with the rest of your incoherent rant, there is no logic whatsoever to your question. Of course I don't find Zelensky credible! He's a professional actor and comedian, isn't he? If YOU find him credible, it doesn't mean that everyone else must find him credible! :grin:

I've said many times before that (like most other politicians) he doesn't seem credible. Of course, Ukrainians, CIA, and NATO tend to rally around him in the current war situation but his approval ratings were down to about 30% before the war, which suggests that he wasn't credible even to his own electorate.

The latest polling shows that Zelensky’s approval ratings have almost tripled since December 2021, when just 31 per cent of Ukrainians supported him.

How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - The New Statesman

I know you're gonna say that the Statesman is owned by Putin or the KGB, but I think you can spare yourself the trouble because no one is going to believe that, maybe not even yourself.

Plus, he has repeatedly made statements that turned out to be contrary to fact. You have yourself admitted that there is a propaganda and info war going on, so why should I blindly believe what Zelensky says?

Moreover, even if he isn't credible, he still reportedly said he is "willing to negotiate with Russia". Besides, my statement referred to the opinion of Western analysts who interpreted Zelensky's comments as indicating that he is prepared to negotiate on the status of Crimea, and possibly on Donbas.

Even non-Western analysts have interpreted his statements in the same way:

Ukraine could declare neutrality, offer security guarantees to Russia and potentially accept a compromise on contested areas in the country’s east to secure peace “without delay,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said ahead of another planned round of talks ....
While saying “Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are beyond doubt,” Zelensky also suggested compromise might be possible over “the complex question of Donbas.”
It was not clear how the two goals could be squared. Russia and Ukraine also remain far apart on other issues ....

Zelensky says he’s willing to make concessions to achieve peace ‘without delay’ - Times of Israel

Note that the writer points out that "it is not clear how the two goals could be squared". This is one reason why Zelensky doesn't seem credible to me on many points.

See also:

Ukraine’s government is willing to make big concessions to end the war - The Economist

In any case, if even Zelensky says that a compromise is possible, this shows that he thinks Russia may have a legitimate claim, otherwise why compromise?

The fact is that if two countries claim that a certain territory belongs to them, they can't both be right. Russia certainly seems to have more of a legitimate claim on Crimea than Ukraine.

And, of course, if Ukraine has a right to be independent from the Soviet Union, Crimea also has a right to be independent from Ukraine. You seem to have incomprehensibly (or conveniently) forgotten this, just as you "forgot" that Crimea was never Ukrainian! :grin:

Unfortunately, you refuse to even contemplate Crimean independence and blindly believe your own CIA-NATO propaganda according to which Crimea MUST belong to Ukraine, Tibet MUST belong to China, Cyprus MUST belong to Turkey, etc.

How do you know America/NATO "didn’t play any role in the declaration of independence of Ukraine"? Where you there or something?

America/NATO could perfectly well have encouraged that. It certainly encouraged NATO membership. And to become a member, a country needs to be independent. Very simple and easy to understand IMO.

If you can't decide which countries should belong to whom, then on what basis do you think you can decide on Crimea?

If, according to you, non-Western views are the views of "dominant elites that are unable of competing against Western dominant elites", then surely this shows that the dominant views are the views of elites. And this is precisely why we shouldn't stay fixated on elite narratives like those peddled by CIA-NATO trolls and bots, and consider the views of ordinary (and real) people from both sides.

Furthermore, considering that NATO is clearly involved in this conflict by supplying training, arms, cash, intelligence, propaganda, etc., to Ukraine while at the same time waging economic, financial, and information jihad on Russia, I think it is perfectly legitimate to discuss NATO, its US and UK leaders, their motives, and their aims.

You obviously think people shouldn't even mention NATO, America, England, EU, because, God forbid, it might expose the West's true imperialist agenda. And that's exactly what CIA-NATO bots are programmed to avoid at all costs. Not very successfully, though .... :rofl:

Russia cannot 'control' Finland but it could destroy it. — Olivier5

Yep. Destroying Finland has always been Russia's dream. Right at the top of Putin's agenda. As if there was anything to destroy there .... :smile:

This is quite interesting, especially the first 15-20 minutes, made faster if one chooses 1.5 or x2 speed — Manuel

At least Chomsky is honest that he doesn't have much to say when it comes to Sweden and Finland, and is puzzled. When it comes to Russia, perhaps Chomsky ought to know the famous line that "Russia is never as strong as she looks at her best, but also Russia never as weak as she looks at her weakest." Russia isn't a "floundering paper-tiger" as Chomsky puts it. It still has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

For Chomsky to say that Russia has never hinted of invading Finland is a bit thick, because there's a whole term, Finlandization, to describe how the Soviet Union pressured the country. And Putin's Russia has used some similar rhetoric towards Finland as it has done for Ukraine (although no talk of us having to be denazified yet, at least).

Perhaps it's hard for an American to understand that security policy can be about the survival and existence of your country, as Finland and the Baltic States are quite expendable. In rare American maps from the Cold War you can see that the US didn't accept the annexation of the Baltic States by Russia, but the vast majority of countries took it as de facto realpolitik. So we know that people wouldn't give a damn if Finland would be independent or a satellite state of Russia. Or would have been annexed by it in 1940 as the Baltic States were.

Hence in this case you move when your potential adversary is weakest. Finland got it's independence only because the Russian empire collapsed. The Baltic States regained their independence only because the Soviet Union collapsed. You would make any moves when your potential adversary is the strongest. Now the only Russian troops on the other side of the border are in Ala-Kurtti garrison where they are training new recruits.

And still, we know that there is a possibility, not a big one, but still a possibility, that Russia's response to a NATO application is a military response. The armed forces understand that this possibility exists.

On the other hand, to think that Russia will ever consider developing an army capable of controlling, not only Ukraine, but both Sweden and Finland is crazy. Heck, the US couldn't even deal with Afghanistan, much weaker than Ukraine.

The issue is, by joining having them join NATO, Russia will be forced to put nukes on the borders with Finland, making the situation much more delicate. — Manuel

OK this doesn't make sense. Russia has nukes in Russia. Russia has already nukes in Kaliningrad. Russia's nuclear bombers can launch their cruise missiles well within deep in Russian aerospace out of the reach of Finnish air defenses or Hornet fighters and hit targets allover Finland.

Second, Russia doesn't have to try to do what it tried in Ukraine. Finland (luckily) isn't so crucial to Russia as Ukraine is. It doesn't have to invade and occupy the country, doesn't have to get tangled fighting a large mobilized wartime reservist army, that even Chomsky mentioned. It can for example just declare a blockade of the maritime routes. Over 90% of Finnish exports and imports go by sea, so have some mysterious sea mines cause accidents that sink a few merchant ships and Finland is economically on it's knees.

There's a myriad of things that Russia could do. But likely, and I hope it's likely, there wouldn't be much they will do.

Yep. Destroying Finland has always been Russia's dream. — Apollodorus

Having the Soviet air defence shield in Finland and a coastal defense on both sides of the Gulf of Finland was the dream of the Soviet Union. Leningrad's (later again St. Peterburgs) defense and the defense of Murmansk would need this "defense in depth". Last time Soviets proposed to the Finnish leadership to have Soviet Air Defense units taking care of Finnish aerospace happened in the 1970's. Along with demands Finland joining the Warsaw Pact. The suggestions were politely refused, but not forgotten.

Russian imperialist aspirations are always veiled in defensive arguments.

Russia isn't a "floundering paper-tiger" as Chomsky puts it. — ssu

He's quoting what he's read in the press, that's not his belief.

Perhaps it's hard for an American to understand that security policy can be about the survival and existence of your country, as Finland and the Baltic States are quite expendable — ssu

I don't think it's hard for him to understand that concept at all.

For instance, he's spoken about the Palestinian issue, and was worried about the problem, before Israel came into existence as a state.

That's a very clear situation in with "security policy can be about the survival and existence of your country". Or the further decimation of what's left of your country in the case of Palestinians.

Sure, Finland has rational security concerns, that makes total sense.

And still, we know that there is a possibility, not a big one, but still a possibility, that Russia's response to a NATO application is a military response. The armed forces understand that this possibility exists. — ssu

Yes, this possibility will always be there. Nevertheless, I think Finland would be put - arguably - in a more delicate situation if it joins NATO, because any small incident in the border, would be a direct confrontation between two nuclear armed organizations.

OK this doesn't make sense. Russia has nukes in Russia. Russia has already nukes in Kaliningrad. Russia's nuclear bombers can launch their cruise missiles well within deep in Russian aerospace out of the reach of Finnish air defenses or Hornet fighters and hit targets allover Finland. — ssu

Again, a small skirmish in the border would be drastically different if NATO were involved, it seems to me.

Nukes would always be a last resort, but between two countries armed with such weapons, they would not wait long to use them. Especially of the militaries between such countries aren't symmetrical.

I don't think it's hard for him to understand that concept at all.

For instance, he's spoken about the Palestinian issue, and was worried about the problem, before Israel came into existence as a state. — Manuel

So before he was 20 years, he was talking about it? OK, if you say so...

But Chomsky refers only to those instances where it's either the US or an ally of the US that shows aggression. Chomsky doesn't see it being his role to comment on the aggression of Russia. If Russia does something bad, he doesn't see it's his role to comment it. Russian opposition (that is, those likely outside of the country) are according to Chomsky the people to talk about Russia. Well sorry, but we have that over 1000 km border with Russia, not Israel or the US.

Again, a small skirmish in the border would be drastically different if NATO were involved, it seems to me. — Manuel

As both Sweden and Finland have now at least gotten spoken promises that during the time when they admit their application and when they are accepted as members (which will take time), they will be supported, I think the probability of a Russian response like in Ukraine or Georgia won't happen.

How does this work? Let's take a hypothetical:

What if Putin would have been victorious and Ukraine would have collapsed faster than Afghanistan crumbled? That the fighting would have been over in a couple of days. And now Putin would be pondering what to do with Ukraine. And it seemed there wouldn't be any serious opposition to his forces in Ukraine.

You think Sweden and Finland would be joining NATO? I'm not so sure. If Russia's attack on Ukraine changed dramatically the populations views about NATO both in Finland and Sweden, then the success of Ukrainian defense has pushed it also forward. Now there is a window of opportunity.

But Chomsky refers only to those instances where it's either the US or an ally of the US that shows aggression. Chomsky doesn't see it's his role to comment on the aggression of Russia. If Russia does something bad, he doesn't see it's his role to comment it. Well sorry, but we have that over 1000 km border with Russia, not Israel or the US. — ssu

There's no need for him to condemn Russia, which he has actually, several times. There's an abundance of criticism already readily available everywhere in Western media.

Of course what you say about a conflict will depend on where you live, and what the circumstances are like for your country.

So, I do see your concern and I would be concerned too, if I were Finnish.



I don't see the point to these hypotheticals, but, my guess would be that if Ukraine had completely fallen, then, Finland and Sweden would be even more enthusiastic about joining NATO.

But since that hasn't happened and likely won't, it doesn't matter much. Either joining NATO makes Finland and Sweden more safe, or it does not. I'll entertain agnosticism about Finland and Sweden.

I would not be agnostic about the issue of the world being safer if such a move takes place. Of course, I could be wrong, as I was about this war even happening.

But I'm seeing too much confidence, when the stakes are so high. I think this is a mistake.

but, my guess would be that if Ukraine had completely fallen, then, Finland and Sweden would be even more enthusiastic about joining NATO. — Manuel

The fact is that Russia has shown enough recklessness and that it's untrustworthy with also having it's hands tied in Ukraine. If Ukraine was now under control of Russia, it could draw back it's troops for example to the Finnish border. So now you both have a) an obvious reason to join and b) a window of opportunity to join.

Now think about the situation in 1949, when NATO was formed. The Iron Curtain had fallen between the East and West. Wasn't this the time when Finland had to be really worried about what Stalin would do? Sure thing! Stalin had already back then put Communists to run the Finnish "secret police" VALPO, and some Finnish Communists had declared that "The way of Czechoslovakia will be the way of Finland". And Russian troops were in a military base west of Helsinki in Porkkala, where they were in artillery range from the Capitol. So the situation was reminiscent of how it was in Eastern European countries. With the exception that Finland did have an army, which wasn't infiltrated by Finnish communists. And a lot of war veterans that likely would have taken up arms, if the Soviets would have attacked. And the Soviets had just this one military base in Finland.

In that kind of situation, you don't apply for NATO. Heck, Finland didn't even dare to apply for Marshall aid. We had to be reaally good friends with Russia, yet the Finnish army had hidden weapons for an insurgency, if the Soviet Army would have invaded the country.

(Former NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen explains the "window of opportunity" for the two countries)

But Russia hasn't and will not be able to control Ukraine.

Why would Russia want to invade Finland and Sweden? Again, as far as we've seen, Russia's military has been quite bad at war. Why then go after these countries?

I don't see any benefit, from any perspective, that would justify such actions, maybe there's some crazy person in the military or some extreme right-winger in the Kremlin that wants Russia to invade all Europe.

It can't.

If you think joining NATO will be good for Finland's security, then this is a positive move - a good window as the NATO chief explains.

I don't think it is, but, as I said, I could be wrong. The only "contribution" I want to make here is that it seems to me that there is too much confidence in the belief that things cannot possibly go wrong in terms of nukes.

That attitude is just a mistake.

Russian imperialist aspirations are always veiled in defensive arguments. — ssu

Well, I think you can safely substitute "Western" for "Russian". The world still hasn't forgotten the West's fabricated excuses for "defensively" invading Iraq and other imperialist adventures.

Last time Soviets proposed to the Finnish leadership to have Soviet Air Defense units taking care of Finnish aerospace happened in the 1970's. — ssu

And if the Soviets proposed something to Finland "in the 1970's" that's supposed to somehow show that Putin is dreaming of "destroying Finland". Of course. Makes perfect sense ....

I don't see any benefit, from any perspective, that would justify such actions, maybe there's some crazy person in the military or some extreme right-winger in the Kremlin that wants Russia to invade all of Eastern Europe. — Manuel

NATO Nazis need an excuse for launching all-out jihad on Russia. And what better excuse than claiming that Putin is about to invade Finland or Poland?

Plus, don't forget that NATO's plan has always been to contain Russia so, getting Finland and Sweden to join would be a step in that direction. Even if Finland doesn't join, Boris is going to make some kind of military arrangement with its government.

Gen. Richard Shirreff has said:

There is a possibility that we as a nation will soon be at war with Russia. We in this country must recognise that our security starts not on the white cliffs of Dover - it starts in the forests of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Boris Johnson has openly announced that “the UK is leading the global response to Russian aggression”.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-warns-putin-ukraine_uk_61eea2a8e4b087281f86dc4b

And the EU has proposed the founding of an European Security Council headed by Britain.

EU hands Britain post-Brexit olive branch – an offer to lead new security council – The Telegraph

What do you think Johnson is doing in Finland and Sweden? Just follow Johnson and his defense secretary, and you'll know what the West is up to ....

Well, Putin certainly gave the Hawks in NATO the biggest gift he could possibly offer, and they will take it, as they have been.

We will see how Russia reacts to this, it won't be pretty. It will likely cause Russia and China to become really close allies now.

It's an excellent opportunity for politicians to bloviate about the dangers to democracy and international order, when they gladly wipe their arses with these things whenever they wish.

It doesn't offer any justification for the invasion Russia launched, we may disagree here, but, it's total hypocrisy. And dangerous.

, NATO is (Muslim) Nazis?