I respect your point of view. I think there are ways the Russians could have won Ukraine's friendship if that's what they wanted. I think there were ways other than invading repeatedly to establish close ties. Don't you agree?

Except that is not what you are advocating.

You believe NATO should get to expand and interfere all it wants because they're "the good guys", and when another nation reacts you cry foul. — Tzeentch

Thanks for the laugh; that was a ridiculous straw man.

Whatever your position is, it's hopelessly confused.

You don't know what my position is because you don't care about it. And you are so easily confused... :-)

My position is that NATO will react to what the Russians do. If Russia invades a friendly European country, of course NATO will gear up its presence in Europe. That is to be expected, and entirely natural. To expect something else is to be delusional.

Yes, yes. And you then apply that standard one-sidedly and cry foul when other nations react negatively. That's is indeed exactly your position and it's hopelessly confused.

Voluntariness is not a factor in this. — Tzeentch

What?

That a country joins voluntarily a treaty or it's forced by military force (occupation etc.) to have foreign troops and bases is the same for you? So in your idea Sweden and Finland joining NATO is the same thing as the US invading Iraq? I think they are not.

Your genuinely saying that voluntariness of joining organizations by independent countries isn't a factor?

Cuba also voluntarily joined a USSR-led military alliance. It made no difference to the United States. — Tzeentch

Actually Cuba didn't join the Warsaw Pact.

And it did make the difference that the US didn't and hasn't invaded Cuba. The US has Guantanamo Bay base since in 1903 newly independent Cuba and the US made lease agreement, which has no fixed expiration date. Yet Cuba hasn't been invaded by the US. It surely has tried all kinds of ways to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro, yet Cuban deterrence has worked.

You seem to be using a different definition of the term than what I found.

By that definition Europe is essentially Finlandized by the United States. — Tzeentch

Really, Tzeentch, really?

So you copy paste what wikipedia says Finlandization and then say I have opposing views about Finlandization? As a Finn and an history I think I genuinely know the history and politics of my shitty country far more than you.

If you really think that the US and the Soviet Union treated the same way European countries, I think you are seriously ignorant about history. And the basic issue is that even Great Powers treat very differently different countries. For example France treats quite differently Mali compared to Luxembourg, even if both countries have been part of France. Just as Russia now treats Finland and Ukraine quite differently. Even Putin has said that:

Russia has "no problem" if Finland and Sweden join NATO, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday. "We don't have problems with Sweden and Finland like we do with Ukraine," Putin told a news conference in the Turkmenistan capital of Ashgabat.

(see here)

Which above simply undermines this idea that the most important factor which lead to Russia invading Ukraine was the enlargement of NATO. NATO enlargement is only a minor reason, the real reasons are quite old style Russian thinking about Ukraine.

You are only confused to the extent that you want to be confused. I won't cry foul if Russia expands its diplomatic and military alliances, the way NATO has been expanding, in a voluntary manner. It's only when they kill the masses and enslave people that I do object.

Your genuinely saying that voluntariness of joining organizations by independent countries isn't a factor? — ssu

Yep. In geopolitics power, not our personal fancies, is what matters. That's the realist point of view - not because a realist likes it that way, but because a realist recognizes that's how geopolitics works.

Actually Cuba didn't join the Warsaw Pact.

And it did make the difference that the US didn't and hasn't invaded Cuba. The US has Guantanamo Bay base since in 1903 newly independent Cuba and the US made lease agreement, which has no fixed expiration date. Yet Cuba hasn't been invaded by the US. It surely has tried all kinds of ways to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro, yet Cuban deterrence has worked. — ssu

It threatened nuclear war, and as a result the USSR and the US came to an agreement about Cuba.

Cuba is under sanctions to this very day, over half a century later.

And are you aware of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion?

I also hope you're not trying to make the point that the United States would never do something like invade another country whenever their foreign or economic policy doesn't suit them. The list is too long to mention.

So you copy paste what wikipedia says Finlandization and then say I have opposing views about Finlandization? — ssu

Your use of the term "Finlandization" seemed contradictory to what I believe the term means. Tell me then, what definition of the term are you going by?

And you haven't answered my question.

What is the problem with "Finlandization"?

That small countries adjust their foreign policy to appease their more powerful neighbor in exchange for maintaining a degree of political independence seems no more than the logical thing to do.

Do you think European countries, being part of NATO, are free to pursue their own foreign policy if it conflicts with United States' interests? I can assure you they're not.

Yep. In geopolitics power, not our personal fancies, is what matters. That's the realist point of view - not because a realist likes it that way, but because a realist recognizes that's how geopolitics works. — Tzeentch

Yet if you argue to be a realist, you should observe that the tactics that the Soviet Union held to it's part of Europe didn't work so well. The Warsaw Pact collapsed. You can make a throne from bayonets, but it's difficult to sit on them. The only actual operations the Warsaw pact did was to attack and occupy one of it's members. That's not a "personal fancie".

Whereas the US empire by listening to Europeans themselves and favoring for example European integration has worked well: Europeans like to have the US here.

Your use of the term "Finlandization" seemed contradictory to what I believe the term means. — Tzeentch

It really isn't at all contradictory. What I described was just facts what was included with the Soviet Union in "refraining from opposing the former's foreign policy rules". That's what they did, hence there's no contradiction.

For some reason you think that it's equivalent to be under US spehere of influence and under Russian / Soviet sphere of influence. I've established the fact that how nations treat others is quite different (for example Russia and Ukraine compared to Finland), but the fact is that in general being under the Russian sphere of influence simply sucks big time. Doesn't work, and hence Russia has to then use military force.

Do you think European countries, being part of NATO, are free to pursue their own foreign policy if it conflicts with United States' interests? I can assure you they're not. — Tzeentch

They have quite a lot more to say than with being under Russian sphere of influence, that's for sure.

Just look at TurkTürkiye.

Hasn't it? I don't think NATO has attacked Russia at any point. — ssu

Who actually fires the first bullet has only symbolic value. When a party makes it clear it wants to destroy the other, it's irrelevant who actually started shooting.

Yet if you argue to be a realist, you should observe that the tactics that the Soviet Union held to it's part of Europe didn't work so well. The Warsaw Pact collapsed. You can make a throne from bayonets, but it's difficult to sit on them. The only actual operations the Warsaw pact did was to attack and occupy one of it's members. That's not a "personal fancie". — ssu

I agree, but that's not what we're debating here. I'm not making a judgement about whether Russia's policies are effective or not.

Whereas the US empire by listening to Europeans themselves and favoring for example European integration has worked well: Europeans like to have the US here. — ssu

I think the Europeans mainly like not having to spend much on defense.

But I suppose your point is that US - European relations have been more cooperative, and thus better. That's a moral judgement, and realists don't deal in moral judgements.

The question is what conclusions does one draw from such a moral judgement?

Is the US/NATO better than other states and therefore gets to ignore other states' strategic interests in line with "American exceptionalism" or "Idealism"?

You're free to hold such a view, but we can see where it leads: war.

What I described was just facts what was included with the Soviet Union in "refraining from opposing the former's foreign policy rules". — ssu

You framed it as something highly undesirable. I don't think "Finlandization" is undesirable. It seems to me a very rational way in which small nations interact with big nations.

And I'm waiting for you to share a definition of 'Finlandization' that shows why it is so undesirable in your view.

For some reason you think that it's equivalent to be under US spehere of influence and under Russian / Soviet sphere of influence. — ssu

I don't think that.

But suppose we say it's better to be under the US sphere of influence than it is to be under the Russian sphere of influence. (A moral judgement)

Does the US now gain a right to incorporate every nation that is under the Russian sphere of influence?

We know where that leads: war.

They have quite a lot more to say than with being under Russian sphere of influence, that's for sure.

Just look at Türkiye. — ssu

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence.

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence. — Tzeentch

Apparently Ukraine is not in the Russian Federation's sphere of influence either.

It turns out that Finnish people are not quite the irredeemable cowards and supporters of Kurdish genocide that their government is:

"According to a recent survey in Finland, only 14 percent of the Finns agree that legislative changes ought to be made in order to get Turkey’s support for accession to the NATO alliance. 70 percent of respondents said that they do not support making concessions to Turkey.

The results of the survey, conducted by Helsingin Sanomat, have been released on Monday, one day before the leaders of Finland and Sweden are set to meet with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to convince him to drop his objections to their membership of NATO."

https://www.nuceciwan107.xyz/en/2022/06/30/70-percent-of-finns-oppose-concessions-to-turkey-in-exchange-for-nato-membership/

The thread having established that everyone is evil, maybe we should include some positive things as well?

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instructed the Finance Ministry to initiate an agreement on providing financial assistance to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. — Russian government will conclude an agreement on financial aid with Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Mar 2, 2009)

Abkhazia to receive 2.36 billion rubles ($68 million) from the Russian federal budget and South Ossetia 2.8 billion rubles ($81 million)
[...]
South Ossetia would also receive 8.5 billion rubles ($246 million) to rebuild — Russia signs financial aid deals with Abkhazia, South Ossetia-2 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mainwhile ...

I think the Europeans mainly like not having to spend much on defense. — Tzeentch

Yes. That's a really good point, Tzeentch. By working for other countries even a bit, guess what, those countries do value the effort!

But if you basically are just the colonizer, in some way or another, that does not bring anything to others, of course the people will hate you.

But I suppose your point is that US - European relations have been more cooperative, and thus better. That's a moral judgement, and realists don't deal in moral judgements. — Tzeentch

Yeah.

Cooperation is better.

And just why do you think it's a moral judgemenent? I think it's quite rational judgement, not moral. Which ally would you want? The "ally" that steals, dominates and screws you, or the one that can listen to you and cooperate, even does something for you? Something like when the opposing Great Power blockades a large city of yours that is separated from you, your ally creates an airlift to feed your city.



Those kind of actions are noted. Thus it's a rational choice, not a moral one. And that rationality brings it down to the realpolitik approach.

The fact is, Sweden and Finland joining NATO was a rational choice, not a moral one. Especially for the Swedes and their 200 year neutrality, it really came down to a rational choice. For Finland it was far more obvious, because we Finns know we are an expendable.

After all, Nazi Germany partly saved us (Finland) in the summer of '44 from the Russian offensive with arms shipments and military assistance. And how did we Finns repay that assistance? By enacting a separate peace with Russia and then attacking our former ally, our Waffenbrüder in Northern Finland. For Finns it's hasn't been about a moral right or wrong, even if we believe in democracy. It has been all the time about simply survival. Hence in WW2 there was no "liberation date" for us: we weren't liberated from ourselves.

Hence only a minority of Finns thought before February 24th that joining NATO would be a good thing, because the simple fact was that many Finns didn't believe that NATO was a genuine European defense organization, but a puppet of the US and really hoped to have good relations with Russia, just as we have with the Swedes. But then February 24th happened, which basically gave the flashback of 1939 for the entire nation: our Eastern neighbor was back into it's old ways of behaving.

****

It turns out that Finnish people are not quite the irredeemable cowards and supporters of Kurdish genocide that their government is:

"According to a recent survey in Finland, only 14 percent of the Finns agree that legislative changes ought to be made in order to get Turkey’s support for accession to the NATO alliance. 70 percent of respondents said that they do not support making concessions to Turkey.

The results of the survey, conducted by Helsingin Sanomat, have been released on Monday, one day before the leaders of Finland and Sweden are set to meet with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to convince him to drop his objections to their membership of NATO." — Streetlight

Actually the government is fully aware what the people think. Hope the media follows just what happens later. I think they will do that.

But as for the surveys: You know Streetlight, there are many Finns that think just like you. And if I would start a conversation with them about politics, you bet they would disagree with me. Yet I know that when the shit really hits the fan, I can trust them. They never will be my enemy. That's why I really believe in democracy. That's the wonderful thing living in a tiny nation: social cohesion.

In fact I would not support giving any concessions to Turkey, so I'm in that 70 percent. We already got the promises from the US, the UK (and from Poland and Italy) that they'll give us security guarantees during the membership progress, so FUCK ERDOGAN!!! So if NATO doesn't take us to join because of Erdogan, that's NATO's problem, not ours.

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence. — Tzeentch

Umm...but isn't in a NATO country?

The thread having established that everyone is evil, maybe we should include some positive things as well?

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instructed the Finance Ministry to initiate an agreement on providing financial assistance to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
— Russian government will conclude an agreement on financial aid with Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Mar 2, 2009)
Abkhazia to receive 2.36 billion rubles ($68 million) from the Russian federal budget and South Ossetia 2.8 billion rubles ($81 million)
[...]
South Ossetia would also receive 8.5 billion rubles ($246 million) to rebuild
— Russia signs financial aid deals with Abkhazia, South Ossetia-2 (Mar 17, 2009) — jorndoe

Protecting and helping all those Russians in other countries is a burden, but a burden which Putin's gallantly takes on, right?

I think that Hitler also gave some money to the Sudetenland Germans also...

Now you are confusing several things.

My point has always been that from a realist perspective Russia's actions were entirely predictable, that the United States were aware of this and provoked Russia intentionally, perhaps thinking they were bluffing.

You are making a moral argument, that the United States is better than Russia, and therefore should have the priviledge to pursue its foreign policies whereas Russia does not. Or that it is preferable that the United States lords over countries instead of Russia.

To that I say, one's moral judgement is completely irrelevant. All the moral indignation in the world didn't stop Russia from invading Ukraine, did it?

That's because moral judgements don't matter. What matters is power, and states will do whatever is in their power to pursue their interests, and moral judgements only matter to the extent that they're backed up by power. That's realism.

Your preference for the United States is clear. However, if states behave on the basis of their own moral judgements and completely disregard other states' power and interests, it's a highway to trouble.

Ukraine preferred the United States, and chose to ignore Russia's interests and power, and now it's being devastated. Regrettable, to be sure. But also predictable.

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence. — Tzeentch

Umm...but isn't in a NATO country? — ssu

The United States has no real means to unilaterally influence Türkiye, that is to say, it has no power to force Türkiye to do anything, shy of a military invasion.

My point has always been that from a realist perspective Russia's actions were entirely predictable, that the United States were aware of this and provoked Russia intentionally, perhaps thinking they were bluffing. — Tzeentch

From your realist perspective, this would be a smart strategy to follow, don't you think? Draw Russia into a costly conflict, and bleed it.

From your realist perspective, this would be a smart strategy to follow, don't you think? Draw Russia into a costly conflict, and bleed it. — Olivier5

It's absolutely foolish, from a European perspective and from an American perspective.

The United States needs to shift its focus to China, which is an actual peer competitor that can challenge the United States' position as hegemon. Not Russia.

What the United States has done by provoking conflict in Eastern Europe is not only guarantee years of conflict and tensions that benefits no one (not to mention the risk of large-scale/nuclear war), it has also bound itself to the protection of Eastern Europe because no other country in NATO is able to stand up against Russia.

And that's not all. This conflict and the reaction by NATO / EU have driven the Russians straight into the arms of the Chinese and given them even more incentive to create a balancing coalition against the US / NATO - something which the Russians were not keen on before this conflict. The Russians and the Chinese have never been fond of each other, but United States meddling have given them a common enemy.

This conflict is disastrous from any perspective, but especially from a western perspective. China is the laughing third.

It's absolutely foolish, from a European perspective and from an American perspective.

The United States needs to shift its focus to China, which is an actual peer competitor that can challenge the United States' position as hegemon. Not Russia. ... — Tzeentch

This scenatio seems too pessimistic to me. China has historically been a peaceful nation, and they will if anything be deterred from invading Taiwan (the only immediate risk they may pose) by watching Russia 'bleed' in Ukraine.

This scenatio seems too pessimistic to me. China has historically been a peaceful nation, ... — Olivier5

Regardless of the validity of this statement, China does not need war to become the world's most powerful nation, and thus deprive the United States of its hegemon status.

In fact, a serious argument could be made that unless it goes to war it will surpass the United States economically and rise to become the world's most powerful nation. If one accepts that premise, it's not unthinkable the United States will seek to drag China into some kind of conflict and force China's hand.


And the question is also whether China will remain peaceful once its rise to the world's leading power gets stifled by nations like the United States and US allies in East Asia. Tensions and flashpoints aplenty in East Asia.


However, none of this changes the fact that China is a peer competitor to the United States and Russia is not. Pushing the Russians into the arms of the Chinese may prove to be a costly strategic blunder.

Historically, China has waged war almost continuously in what are now China's borders. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles

But don't let not knowing what you're talking about stop you from having an opinion. Carry on. I've decided this thread is much more fun as a spectator any way.

China does not need war to become the world's most powerful nation — Tzeentch

Well, in this case, 'pivoting to China' would be useless gesticulation.

Explain.

Historically, China has waged war almost continuously in what are now China's borders. — Benkei

Long gone history is irrelevant. This particular regime has not been waging wars let right and center. They have been prudent. The idea of US focussing to a greater extent on the security threats posed by a newly assertive China may have some merit but not at Europe's expense; it's not like the Chinese are an immediate threat to anyone.

If China poses no immediate security threat, if they are not going to invade anyone militarily, why 'pivot to China'? You are saying they are becoming a significant power, and that is true. But so far their power is mainly economic. NATO or the US army can't do anything about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes

That's ongoing. And there was the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979, current brutal treatment of Uighurs and the recent annexation of Tibet. Totally peaceful. But keep cherry picking the facts that best suit your pre-conceived judgments. Carry on!

If China poses no immediate security threat, if they are not going to invade anyone militarily, why 'pivot to China'? — Olivier5

A pivot to China doesn't simply mean a military pivot, since the United States does not have only military means. It would mean the United States would shift it's entire focus away from Europe towards Asia, military, economic, political, etc.

Those things are connected. Having to fund Ukraine with armament, billions of dollars and potentially future troops means all of those resources can't be spent in Asia, not to mention that domestic politics can only handle so much conflict. Money spent on military means cannot be spent to secure Eurasian, Oceanian and African markets, etc.

But so far their power is mainly economic. — Olivier5

The power they've been using is mainly economic. China has the largest army in the world by active personnel, so clearly their power is also military. Also the number of aircraft carriers the PLAN has been producing suggests it has overseas ambitions, because that's what aircraft carriers are for - overseas power projection.


You could say something like: if China rises to hegemony peacefully, what's the problem?

To which I would answer: what makes you think the United States is willing to peacefully give up its position as hegemon?

A pivot to China doesn't simply mean a military pivot, since the United States does not have only military means. It would mean the United States would shift it's entire focus away from Europe towards Asia, military, economic, political, etc. — Tzeentch

There's no reason to 'pivot' anywhere. The US is perfectly capable of chewing gum and walk at the same time. They have the means to deal with several situations in parallel. Europe remains an important continent and Russia remains a threat.

You could say something like: if China rises to hegemony peacefully, what's the problem?

To which I would answer: what makes you think the United States is willing to peacefully give up its position as hegemon? — Tzeentch

Unlike you, I don't have a crystal ball.

The Himalayas skirmishes are of very low intensity, though near continuous. They could potentially blow off into a full scale war because both India and China have used the tension for nationalist posturing in national politics. But every time the situation heats up a bit too much, there's a head of state meeting and they remember that they are brothers.

Anyway, do you think the US should 'pivot to China'?

, hmm, dang, well at least it was little bit positive. :)

Some ramblings and goings-on in the trenches...

Five killed, 22 injured in Ukrainian artillery attacks in Donetsk, Russian-backed separatists say (Jun 14, 2022)
The Ukrainians are shooting back. Civilian (and whatever) casualties are bad whoever does the shooting.

Ukraine: Russian warplanes pound Kyiv after weeks of calm (Jun 26, 2022)

Revenge?

The Kremlin claimed it is possible to end the war by the end of today and suggests capitulation (Jun 28, 2022)
^{(has link to original Russian source)}

Peskov says: Ukraine, just give up, and no more bombs (with a smile). :D Doesn't seem like the Ukrainians want to lie down and die, or kneel to Putin, though. (Who would?) Suppose Ukraine was to all-out capitulate. Realistically, what then? A number of resistance groups would likely form (to be labeled "terrorists" by Kremlin of course), and shooting would change some, but not quite cease. Anyone speaking of freeing Ukraine or suggesting resistance would be "dealt with". Kremlin would seek as many collaborators as needed/feasible, place puppets in strategic positions, happily collect weaponry supplied by foreigners, the usual. Would take time, but Putin's ambitions would be (at least partially) satisfied, and other neighbors of Putin's Russia would likely get (additionally) worried.

Russian missiles kill at least 21 in Ukraine’s Odesa region (Jul 1, 2022)

^{Losing sight of the simplest of facts can lose sight of things that (also) matter.
Ukraine was interested in joining NATO - protection against Putin's ambitions was as good a reason as any - and they sought membership (Sweden and Finland followed). With Putin's threats (and rattling the nuclear weaponry), Ukraine and NATO dropped such a membership. Threats worked. Bombing ongoing. Hopefully, we won't see the same with the Baltics (already NATO members), Sweden, Finland.
Ukraine is interested in joining EU, and closer trade relations. Still on the table. (Hey, UK's spot became vacant, though they still seem to argue about that on the isles. :smile:) Could be a win for Ukraine, more cooperation, import/export/exchanges, improving internal matters.
Ukraine seemed to be on a trajectory towards internal improvements, even if slowly in some areas. Political, social, open enough with international peers to consider internal changes. The materialization of Putin's ambitions put a halt to such likes, a setback.
Ukraine didn't choose Russia over others, but looked elsewhere, and also didn't threaten Russia. Putin chose bombs, potential friendship apparently off the table.}