It happened 350 times in 2020 and 290 times in 2021 with respect to Russians testing air space alertness of NATO members, including the US but mostly the Baltic states. — Benkei

Very few intercepted flights entered allied airspace, though. The Swedes took the March 2 case very seriously. It was not just one plane and they entered over several kilometres.

Sweden and Finland have objective reasons to fear Russia. It'd be nice if posters wouldn't deny the glaringly obvious needs of fellow human beings.

Suppose NATO was to close up — thought experiment

Here's one hypothetical scenario:
Putin's Russia would roll over Ukraine at some point (after much destruction); install puppets (Kremlin); bring mercs and hunt Ukrainian resistance mercilessly (they'd now be "terrorists" especially in all Russian media); reinforce Moldovian efforts westward.
At some point (with the aid of infiltrators and propaganda), threaten/scare/bully other border nations; depending on feasibility (plausibility of propaganda/excuses), look into making them proxies, perhaps pick relatively smaller nations.
"♫ I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons // First we take [Ukraine], then we take Berlin ♬" ;)

That's just whataboutism. Nothing to see with Finland's and Sweden's reasons to fear Russian. Either you take the issue seriously, or you don't. — Olivier5

I'm trying to extract the reason why Finland and Sweden fear attack by Russia. So far I've been given...

Russia attacked another county (no good, since the US have done that too and they don't fear attack by them).

Russia will attack them if they're not in NATO (Russia have literally said the exact opposite).

Russia invaded their airspace (as @Benkei has said, this happens all the time)

Russia have raped, executed and tortured their victims (so have the US, but no one's fearing attack by them)

Sweden and Finland have objective reasons to fear Russia. It'd be nice if posters wouldn't deny the glaringly obvious needs of fellow human beings. — Olivier5

It's nothing to do with denying anything. I haven't (yet) denied that they have objective reasons to fear Russia. Its just that you haven't yet supplied any such reason that wouldn't also apply to America, so there's clearly some factor you're still missing.


Oh, and if you can't tell the difference between what's 'glaringly obvious' to you and what's glaringly obvious to anyone, then what you're after is a blog. This is a discussion platform.

So, Mario Draghi, Italian prime minister, is in Washington. The US media has not (yet?) reported it but he is saying something relevant to the present discussion. Translated from Sky.it:


Draghi: "An imposed peace would be a disaster. US and Russia should sit at a table"
May 11, 2022 - 18:03

The premier, after meeting with Joe Biden at the White House, met with reporters at a press conference in Washington: "You have to ask how to build peace," he said.

"The right peace will be the one Ukraine wants, not the one imposed by allies or others." said Prime Minister Mario Draghi. "I thank the U.S. president and the entire administration for the welcome, the meeting went very well. He thanked Italy for being a strong partner and a credible ally. We agree that we need to continue to support Ukraine, put pressure on Russia but also that we need to ask how to build peace. The negotiating path is difficult."

"Russia is no longer Goliath, it is not invincible. The war has changed its face, initially it was a war in which it was thought there was a Goliath and a David, essentially a desperate defense that also seemed to fail, but today the landscape has completely turned upside down."

The Prime Minister addressed various issues [in the press conference], from the food and energy crises caused by the conflict to inflation eroding the purchasing power of the weaker sections of the population.

It's nothing to do with denying anything. I haven't (yet) denied that they have objective reasons to fear Russia. Its just that you haven't yet supplied any reason that wouldn't also apply to America, so there's clearly some factor you're still missing. — Isaac

Which factor, pray tell?

Which factor, pray tell? — Olivier5

I don't know. You're the one claiming it's so obvious. I think it's just politically expedient because Russia are the bad guys and NATO are the good guys. You score votes if you snub the bad guys and join the good guys.

You (and @Christoffer and @ssu) are the ones saying that they have this glaringly obvious reason, but nothing you're providing makes sense because it all applies to America too.

Does being a brutal dictatorship apply to America too?

A bit peripheral here...

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-says-us-military-plane-violated-its-airspace-2021-07-23/ — Isaac

Two of my colleagues are Venezuelan; they fled with some of their family members.
Apparently, the situation there is catastrophic. :sad: (to the point that we're not asking one of them about it, we'll just hail The Beatles, their favorite band)
At the moment, all bets are off when it comes to Venezuela.

Does being a brutal dictatorship apply to America too? — Olivier5

Brutal does. America is without doubt responsible for more death and immiseration than any other nation.

As for dictatorship, no, but America has been at war for almost the entirety of the last 200 years, so it's hard to see how being a democracy is the deciding factor in which country one is most likely to be invaded by.

Yeah, America's history in South America is a disgrace. Quite something else to have first (or second) hand experience though.

Interesting to see what happens in Brazil if Lula comes to power.

Yeah, America's history in South America is a disgrace. Quite something else to have first (or second) hand experience though. — Isaac

Sure, but not in this case (Venezuela).

Personally, I'm quite happy that the US fought in WW2, and in WW1. But that's just me. If you see the US as equally dangerous to your own security as Russia, then you might indeed find support for NATO somewhat puzzling. The answer to that puzzle is once again simple: not all Finns and not all Swedes share your assessment of the respective threats posed to them by Russia and the US. Some of them might see the US as a more benevolent security partner (at least toward them) than Russia.

So Finland is joining NATO because something which no-one is even sure happened might happen to them and somehow NATO can stop it?

Yes, it is a defensive alliance. What it is defending against is all possible risks, not actual current risks.
In reality there will be intelligence which onlookers are not aware of as to what these risks are

I don't think it's why they want to join NATO either, I'm arguing against that position. I suspect they want to join NATO because it's newfound status as 'Good Guy' makes it politically expedient ally.

There’s always political expediency going on in a country. That is not the precursor to this development.

Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO is justification/reason enough for all current developments regarding NATO.

I mean, I think the paradox he points out makes sense. The bit about him going a bit senile or losing steam has been going on for well over ten years.

Either agree with him or disagree with him, that's fine. But I don't think attributing this to his brain power - or alleged lack thereof, is a good critique.

The paradox he points out is a good one. The western media (by and large, with exceptions) are simultaneously claiming that Russia is a ferocious enemy that will not stop at Ukraine, and then also saying how embarrassing the Russian army is. Those are contradictory views.

If you say that it is not, because now there is a "window of opportunity" to join NATO, and that this solves such paradoxes, OK. I think that's a post-hoc rationalization, because, regardless of how Russia did (and is doing) in Ukraine, the issue would have come up.

But, some of you think that there is no double speak and that this makes sense, well then OK. No point in me continuing to argue about something we won't be able to solve by going back on forth on the same points.

The western media (by and large, with exceptions) are simultaneously claiming that Russia is a ferocious enemy that will not stop at Ukraine, and then also saying how embarrassing the Russian army is. Those are contradictory views. — Manuel

Since when are western media supposed to be coherent? And what does that have to see with the Finns and their security? Does CNN make policy prescriptions to Finns now?

Vladimir Kazanevsky, Ukraine

Draghi:
We agree that we need to continue to support Ukraine, put pressure on Russia but also that we need to ask how to build peace. The negotiating path is difficult."

"Russia is no longer Goliath — Olivier5

Now Macron is ringing a similar bell:

"While suggesting the creation of a "European political community" likely to create closer bonds between the European Union (EU) the countries that aspire to join it, starting with Ukraine, the French president continues to plead, in the long term, for a "negotiated peace" with Moscow. This would follow a ceasefire that is still unattainable at this stage, with fighting still raging in the Donbas. For him, despite the delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv, there is no question of allowing the conflict to drag on with the idea of weakening Russia. The priority remains, if possible, to re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders, or at least within those of before February 24, the date of the Russian invasion.

Mr. Macron considers that it is up to the Ukrainians to determine their war aims and the conditions for a possible resumption of negotiations with Moscow, currently at an impasse. It is not up to their European or American allies. "It is solely up to Ukraine to define the conditions for negotiations with Russia," explained the head of state from Strasbourg. The idea, as seen from France, is to guarantee Ukrainian security, while restoring, in the longer term, that of the entire European continent. "Our responsibility is to achieve a ceasefire without the conflict spreading to the rest of Europe. (...) But tomorrow we will have to build peace. Let's never forget it," he said. "
(Le Monde)

More on the current French take from Le Monde in English (recently launched):

US gets caught up in the euphoria of a proxy war against Russia
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/09/us-caught-up-in-the-euphoria-of-a-proxy-war-against-russia_5982921_4.html

Nietzsche was no idiot and he is basically at the root of Nazism. — Olivier5

Wrong! Nietzsche's philosophy is not at the root of nazism. You probably think that because of how his racist cunt of a sister intentionally misinterpreted his works after he died. His philosophy actually represents a cry of the individual against the collective...and nazism is fundamentally collectivist. If any philosopher can be credited with inspiring the nazi ideology, it is Hegel.

Wrong! Richard Dawkins had a time machine and he did it. Because he's an asshole!

Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO is justification/reason enough for all current developments regarding NATO. — Punshhh

“Explicit nuclear threat against NATO”?

To my knowledge, he said:

“If someone intends to intervene in the ongoing events from the outside and create strategic threats for Russia that are unacceptable to us, they should know that our retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast.”

Putin threatens ‘lightning-fast’ strikes on anyone that intervenes in Ukraine war – American Military News

Substitute “America” for “Russia” in that statement and what you get is a pretty standard warning rather than an “explicit threat”. It says “do something that is unacceptable to us and you’ll pay for it”.

How else would you have formulated it?

IMO it all depends on how you define (a) “intervene”, (b) “unacceptable”, and (c) “retaliatory strikes”.

Also, is NATO’s jihad on Russia due to Russia’s “explicit nuclear threat” or due to Russia’s actions in Ukraine? As far as I am aware NATO’s jihad had already started before the alleged “threat”.

His philosophy actually.represents a cry of the individual against the collective... — Merkwurdichliebe

Good point. Hard to see Nietzsche as an advocate of mass culture. We mustn't forget that Nazism was a culture of the masses, similar to Socialism, hence the name (National Socialism):

Socialism itself can hope to exist only for brief periods here and there, and then only through the exercise of the extremest terrorism. For this reason it is secretly preparing itself for rule through fear and is driving the word “justice” into the heads of the half-educated masses like a nail so as to rob them of their reason… and to create in them a good conscience for the evil game they are to play.

― Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human

Incidentally, I'm not sure he would have agreed with NATOISM either.

What it is defending against is all possible risks — Punshhh

Clearly not. One possible risk is that its expansion decreases global security. It's not defending against that risk, is it?

Putin’s explicit nuclear threat against NATO — Punshhh

Wait, so now Russia is a threat to NATO? A minute ago Russia wouldn't dare strike against NATO. That's why Sweden and Finland were joining. If Russia are s threat to NATO, Sweden and Finland would be better off independent.

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: — Apollodorus

My incoherent rant?! If I find Zelensky credible but you don’t, and Zelensky has never claimed that “Crimea belongs to Russia”, once more, why on earth did you bring him up in support of your claim that “Crimea belongs to Russia”?! Where or earth is the logic and coherence in that?!

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. — Apollodorus

So you make not only strawman arguments but also preventive strawman arguments, now?!
And why on earth would I even need to question your article whose subtitle is: More than 90 per cent of Ukrainians approve of their leader, compared with just 31 per cent before the Russian invasion?! How on earth is that evidence supporting your questioning Zelensky’s credibility?!

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. — Apollodorus

“Plus”, “moreover”, “besides” what?! How on earth is the willingness to negotiate with Russia on the status of Crimea by Zelensky, even if confirmed by Western analysts, and despite the fact that you don’t find Zelensky credible anyways, supposed to support your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia as you argued based on your pre-conceived historical/ideological notions?!

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? — Apollodorus

I already answered that question: Making territorial concessions to Russia, doesn’t necessarily validate the pre-conception that those territories belong to Russia, it could just grant a legal status to an illegal status quo for the sake of ending a horrible war.
In other words, Russian demands could just be seen as a case of illegitimate political blackmailing that forces Ukrainian authorities to embrace the realpolitik of a gloomy yet necessary solution. Indeed if someone is forced to compromise on a ransom with kidnappers or cybercriminals or terrorists, does that imply that kidnappers, cybercriminals and terrorists have legitimate claims?! Hell no!

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. — Apollodorus

It “certainly seems” to whom?! Considering that there are 2 Russian-Ukrainian treaties where Russia acknowledged Ukrainian territorial integrity (and Crimea is considered integral part of Ukraine by Ukrainian constitution), and there is a UN resolution against the Russian annexation of Crimea, it “certainly seems” to me that Russia does NOT have more of a legitimate claim on Crimea than Ukraine.

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. — Apollodorus

By “Crimean independence” do you mean as a sovereign state separated from both Ukraine and Russia? Why on earth would I refuse to contemplate this possibility?! I didn’t say anything that states or implies or suggests that. In turn, would you contemplate the possibility to make Crimea a neutral state independent from Ukraine and Russia?
Besides are the 2 treaties about the Ukrainian territorial integrity that Russia and Ukraine signed CIA-NATO propaganda?! Are you crazy?!

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: — Apollodorus

On the contrary, you seem to have incomprehensibly (or conveniently) forgotten I explicitly questioned such claims of yours a while ago: “Unfortunately educated people can also see that “ownership”, as a juridical notion, presupposes an undisputed judicial authority ruling over those territories to assess ownership claims, while if the judicial authority ruling over those territories is disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, then… they are disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, so Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia depending on which competing party one sides with, and each competing party could accuse the other of violating the “rightful ownership” over their territory. And concerning the judicial dispute relevant in this war, take into account that there are 2 treaties between Russia and Ukraine (not “alleged” and arguably irrelevant promises made under the table) where Russia acknowledged the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine prior to the annexation of Crimea:
Belovezh Accords (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords
Budapest Memorandum (1994) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances"

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. — Apollodorus

I didn’t claim I know, on the contrary I asked you for your confirmation (“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?”). So do you have any evidence that they had a role? Was this role relevant? If so, how come they had this role and, despite that, Russia acknowledged with 2 treaties Ukrainian (Crimean included) territorial independence from Russia? Did they have this role only Ukraine or also on all other independence referendum in ex-Soviet Union states? Do you even have evidences of such any encouragement from CIA-NATO to independence from Russia to compare with the “encouraged NATO membership” you are talking about?
In other words, until you prove me wrong about the legitimacy of Ukrainian/Crimean independence referendum results, raising self-serving vague doubts against their legitimacy despite they weren’t officially questioned by the involved parties in the first place, just because I wasn’t there or something, far from being rationally compelling, “certainly seems” a biased conspiracy speculation that I would leave to pro-Russian trolls. And you aren’t one, right?

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

On one side, I never questioned that ordinary Western citizens can decide whom they would politically side with among the relevant parties in this war. I just questioned some of your ideological criteria and certainties: “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”. On the other side, my decision is based on a wider set of criteria than yours (including e.g. treaties, international and Western resolutions, defense&economic consequences, etc.), despite inherent doubts (e.g. given the dilemma between increasing the risks of a nuclear escalation and containing Russian terroristic expansionism, between supporting and questioning/counterbalancing the US hegemony in Western foreign politics ).

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. — Apollodorus

You are trying to infer from my claims more than what they actually support. Since there are differences in democratic “representativeness”, “cohesion”, and “influence” across Western and non-Western elites, I may exercise my skepticism about their declared views according to such differences (e.g. I can suspect a lot about American self-interest in this war as much as I can do for Putin’s ambitions to expand Russian sphere of influence behind both narratives, yet I doubt that Putin didn’t have any other alternative that were more palatable for everybody except for the US, than going to war against Ukraine, while the US&Ukraine didn't do anything to Russia comparatively as aggressive as Russia did against Ukraine).
Moreover, as I already pointed out, I’m also skeptical about the popular “populist” dichotomy (evil elites vs innocent&fooled people) and the same goes with your dichotomy between “ordinary (and real) people” narrative and “elite narrative”, also because ordinary people can believe in all kinds of deranged conspiracy theories to fight some “evil” elites while being unaware of serving other and maybe more “evil” elites.

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 — Apollodorus

What?! I’ve been talking about the West from my first comment up until now: Dude, Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. You can continue your intellectual masturbation over the hypocrisy of the West all you want, but at this point the West should not tolerate a terrorist state that big that aggressive that close. "Very simple and easy to understand”.
Besides have I ever said anything at all about what you should or shouldn’t mention wrt the war in Ukraine?! Hell no. I just criticised your claims as much as you criticised mine and others’. In other words, questioned their rationality. And criticising is not suppressing other people’s opinions, right? So what on earth are you complaining about?!

Incidentally, I'm not sure he would have agreed with NATOISM either. — Apollodorus

I'm sure he would have criticized it in his special way for its derived morality and general collectivism.

Wrong! Richard Dawkins had a time machine and he did it. Because he's an asshole! — frank

He is an asshole. The time machine couldn't help him, he was born that way.

What can be learnt from this thread: Countries are evil. Organizations are abominable (well, military ones at least). People are fassholes. Or just stupid. @schopenhauer1 is vindicated. :up: :smile:

Yes, EU countries are starting to signal to the US that a protracted war is in their view not an option and that they need to pursue peace and not "bleeding Russians". Macron's comment on security guarantees is interesting though because so far Ukraine asked for that and every county refused. They do not want to commit to another "article 5" promise and NATO says "no". I haven't given it much thought yet but I'm not sure how such security guarantees would look like.

At the same time, Russia would pursue some negative security guarantees. So the interests seem to be opposed but that's what negotiations are for, figuring out a win-win.

What do you think a solution would look like?

Clearly not. One possible risk is that its expansion decreases global security. It's not defending against that risk, is it?

Oh, I forgot to mention that it’s move to defend against threats doesn’t necessarily include its threat to itself.

Wait, so now Russia is a threat to NATO? A minute ago Russia wouldn't dare strike against NATO. That's why Sweden and Finland were joining. If Russia are s threat to NATO, Sweden and Finland would be better off independent.

I was talking about Putin, you know the autocrat with his finger on the button. Oh and also there is the rhetoric from Lavrov on the issue of nuclear war. As I say, here is justification enough for these developments in NATO.

And Lavrov’s comments?

As I say, here is justification enough for these developments in NATO. — Punshhh

But that's the very matter in polarised debate among the experts. You can't reasonably claim it is justification enough. It very clearly isn't.

The question is whether an expanding NATO will act as deterrent or provocation for the aforementioned autocrat. If you answer 'yes' then joining NATO is a reckless and self-defeating move. If you answer 'no', then it's either sensible, or pointless (depending on your assessment of non-nato related risks).

In no case is it simply a settled matter that joining is justified because Putin's an autocrat with nuclear weapons.

One cannot declare peace if another declares war. One can engage either way. Peace is gone with one assailant. The (logical) structure is akin to war taking one, and peace taking all. Simple enough, though not heartening when(ever) peace is preferable over war.

Russia shelling Ukraine is like that. Presently, peace (and less suffering) requires Putin making such a decision, giving such a command. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in sight right now.

how such security guarantees would look like. — Benkei

I imagine a mutual protection treaty.