Don't forget he also raised awareness for Europe's dependency on Russian fossil fuels and accelerated there move to green energy across the world. What a guy!
It's KGB, they are the MBAs of the east. If they would capture something innovative in the wild, they would shoot the team and put the thing in a "palace of innovation" in mocowardia.
I think it would be much better if people focused downvoting on comments that go against HN guidelines rather than questions or comments they disagree with.
How would you propose a method of limiting the downvoting of comments that are salient and relevant but otherwise elicit a knee-jerk emotionally disagreeable response? Or do you consider that ability a feature? It seems to me to erode curious debate.
The question relates to how can you create a system that helps align peoples incentives with the goal of the forum.
Imagine if you could allow users to delete comments they don’t agree with. That would create the antithesis of a curious discussion, so that feature isn’t available. So, yes, a good system can constrain what users are allowed to do with intelligent guardrails.
I don't mean to kill the joke further but I think Hitler was already a dead man walking before Hitler killed Hitler, so I think his enemies (Allied Forces plus Russians) deserve most of the credit.
I don't mean to kill the joke but I think Hitler was already dead before Hitler killed Hitler, so I think his enemies (Allied Forces plus Russians) deserve most of the credit.
It's crazy how there wasn't really ANY desire to join NATO before Russia showed, once again, that you can not trust them. The full scale of Ukraine really was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sweden has been using Nato standards and running occasional exercises with Nato for a while now. They didn’t want to be officially part of it because of their unique perspective on War and Peace (see Olof Palme, sending Blue helmets in Cyprus), but there wasn’t a lack of desire to join. I’d compare it to Switzerland and the EU: the de-facto alliance is obviously beneficial, but principles have kept things separated on paper.
Finland, that’s more complicated: unlike Baltic countries and the Kaliningrad exclave, they were not in the Soviet Union. That meant a lot of pressure to remain neutral, translated until last year into “Finlandization”: a refusal to take either side. That pressure ended with the Fall of the Berlin Wall, but Finland (like Sweden) saw no reason to change their official neutral position.
When Russia started to mess with Estonia, the need to ally with Nato, in particular on cyber-defense questions, became a lot more present for everyone nearby. I suspect that Finland wanted to be ready, adopt Nato standards, training, methods, etc., and pick the right moment to join officially. Like the Baltic trio, the Russian presence looms high in the East, and I’d be surprised if there were not regular overtures and unofficial promises of support. The USA and Canada care a lot about the Arctic, and it’s not hard to count the allies there.
So, I don’t think it was a major shift—like Italy changing sides at the end of WW2. It’s more a gradual rapprochement, matching Putin’s increasingly concerning policies, that hit a very good reason to accelerate. The process has been mostly political and official. Neither Sweden nor Finland had to change guns, tactics, or radio signals.
Finland realized that Finlandization does not work any more, by observing what happened to another country that tried to Finlandize for the last 3 decades: Ukraine.
They presumably meant in terms of popular opinion, which was always going to be de facto necessary to join (even if in the end it happened without a referendum). See the list of polls enumerated here:
The Swiss position on joining the EU follows a similar trajectory: the decision is negative, but that’s not because they think joining the alliance is a bad thing or that relations are strife, but because they thought, or think, that making things official would betray principles.
Maybe compare it to a couple who live together but aren’t married and are opposed to it because one of them sees it as an encroachment of religion.
Honestly I can understand the previous sentiment, joining would have come across as an act against Putin as that's how he always frames NATO. So keeping the status quo was fine for everyone. But then he showed he doesn't respect the status quo. Just my opinion of course.
Its funny with Hungary, Orban is such an incompetent ruler that currently Hungary is paying way above market prices for gas from Russia. So much for being friends with benefits with russia. You can see how it all is a series of really not that smart moves for Hungary for a long time, borderline treason.
And one point generally - please lets stop calling whats happening in Ukraine in any other way than War. putin's war - its a perfect name I'll keep repeating till it sticks around, or I'll die trying.
Its relatively personal to me, my home country (former Czechoslovakia) was basically enslaved by russian cough cough soviet forces for decades, people shot or electrocuted when trying to escape (around 500 recorded officially), tens of thousands murdered in other indirect ways (gulags or uranium mines with no ticket back, or just beaten to death in some cold dungeon). I see basically 0 change from that russia to modern one and how it values things like human life, freedom etc.
It looked briefly better, much better, but those times are over for good and russia is firmly back at cold/not so cold war with whole western world. Currently trying to subvert quite a few places in Africa. I hope western 3-letter agencies are few steps ahead.
This comment really illustrates the hollowness of the "NATO expanded too aggressively" claim. NATO didn't force any of these ex-Soviet countries to join. They ran to join NATO as soon as they could. They'd experienced living with the Russian boot on their neck, and they were eager to join a collective security organization to prevent it from ever happening again.
I have a different perspective. If NATO hadn't expanded to Turkey, Sweden and Finland would have had a much easier time not being blackmailed. NATO expanding to essentially-dictatorship countries was too eager.
And yes, I understand Turkey's geographical position giving it power over sea routes, and why that was desirable to NATO. But choosing to include a fickle ruler in a unanimous-decisions-only organization is just asking for trouble.
(The Baltics wanted in on NATO, and it's good that they got in. They're largely decently run small countries in a tough spot, not world stage bullies.)
To be clear, Turkey has been undergoing pretty decisive democratic backsliding since the mid 2000s. It was added to NATO at the same time as Greece, and at that time, Turkey was the more democratic of the two countries (see, e.g., the electoral democracy index for 1952 on https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/ ).
edit: note if you're trying to find Turkey by searching on that site, it uses the endonym Türkiye
Türkiye is probably the first western country to not secure its demographic dividends, with maybe Greece (hard to say because the EU mess things up with free movement of people and stuff). It did not fail hopefully, but the infrastructure gains are small compared to even ex-USSR countries. I fear the same is happening in slow motion in India (we'll see in 15 years i guess).
Turkey brings more value to NATO then Sweden and Finland combined. It has a standing army (2nd biggest after US in NATO) with combat experience, defense sector with proven capabilities. Not to mention 11th economy in the world by GDP PPP and growing.
It's better for Turkey and NATO, that Turkey is in NATO. I would say it's far more important than Sweden or Finland being in NATO.
Good lord. I was not aware of this guy before, but his position seems to be akin to suggesting a woman deserved to be raped because of how she was dressed.
Even people pretty forgiving of his essays acknowledge he's habitually at odds with basic facts and history.
Not a wingnut, per se, but on the same spectrum of people divorced from reality. It's too bad as well, because US foreign policy is deserving of more scrutiny than it gets, and it gets a fair amount.
I have mixed feelings on him. On the one hand it is a bit - woman should expect to be raped because of how she was dressed. On the other hand he's predicted Putin/Russia's action quite accurately.
I think he errs a bit in suggesting such behaviour is normal for all great powers. The Americans and Chinese while imperfect aren't that bad. And the EU if you can call it a great power does nothing like that - the rape pillage invade stuff. Though of course a couple of centuries ago Europe was invading all over the place. It goes to show these things can change. Probably with Russia we need to make things enough of a pain the the neck for them that they'll see the wisdom of changing eventually also.
He's said in a few different pieces that Putin 100% does not want to ingest Ukraine into Russia, that he's only interested in "lopping off its limbs" and keeping it out of NATO.
Which is at odds with what Putin has said many times, that Ukraine is not a real nation, but a part of Russia, and Kyiv historically was central to the Russian empire. It's really clear that Putin wants all of Ukraine, not just bits of it. Putin has almost (but not quite) come out and said it. It's an open question on whether Putin would stop with Ukraine (we'll find out only if he takes Ukraine), but there's things he's said which hint that he won't.
> On the other hand he's predicted Putin/Russia's action quite accurately.
So far. At some point, he's going to have to reckon with all the stuff Putin has said about his ambitions that he ignored.
I really never understood how this statement and "NATO expanded to aggressively" were seen as contradictory. Putin's government wants to put the boot on Russia's neighbors, and NATO was in the process of taking that option away from them, and that's why they committed to war. They're not lying about their motivations, they are phrasing them in head-of-state speak. The same goes for denazification, which is thinly veiled code for intervening in who's allowed to govern Ukraine.
This a standard Russian talking point. It's a red herring and a fairly weak justification for Russian aggression in Ukraine.
The US can make demands and so can anyone. In the case of Cuba they were met by the Soviets willingly who withdrew their missiles and made a deal with the US.
Russia objects to NATO membership because it makes bullying and invasion of those with NATO membership impractical. It doesn't threaten Russia but rather it weakens Russia's hand and that is its main complaint. It didn't have a basis for a deal with NATO or the US. Russia has had nukes adjacent to NATO countries for a long time.
There is no moral justification for invasion unless you've already been invaded by that party.
Let me do something similar to you what you did with this comment: allowing Russia to develop nukes shouldn't have been tolerated, the morally correct course of action was to prevent it.
I think the argument is, if its okay for eastern European nations to run to NATO (and we defend it as self determination), it should be fine when countries decided to run the opposite way (toward the USSR in this case). I will be honest, I agree.I believe Ukraine has the right to self determine their own relationships on the international stage, and I also believe Cuba does too. Although to me, the biggest fuck is, we didn't have like Cuba, we just needed a relationship sufficient enough for Cuba to side with us instead of the USSR. And I think that was a mistake. We do this Saudi Arabia, we should not be on as good of terms with Saudi Arabia as we are. But the reality is, if we are not, some other heavily influential country on the international stage will.
Orban and his team don't work for Hungary. They work for themselves (for a small group around Orban's family), trying to take out as much money and power from every opportunity as they can. This might explain purchasing the gas on higher price (and a huge amount of other controversial deals) and preferring partnerships with corrupt governments and politicians. It's all about business and power.
There are good meticulously researched articles about their businesses here (one of the few remaining independent, reliable sources in Hungary): https://www.direkt36.hu/en/
It is clear from listening to the podcast that Russia has always been nightmare to live in (unless you perhaps belonged to a tiny elite) or have as a neighbour. Serfdom wasn't abolished until 1861.
Putin's war isn't a useful term though, because there are so many of them.
Regarding change from "that Russia" to the modern one, I'm afraid there has been change, to the worse. The Soviet incarnation of the empire was at least nominally bound to the progressive ideas of socialism (which is completely orthogonal to wether those ideas are workable or not), whereas the current incarnation is openly worshipping the fascist ideas of strength and domination, and the struggle to get there.
When Russians claim that they don't understand why someone would willingly ally with others who don't prove worthy by actively coercing them, chances are it's genuine, they really don't understand. Sometimes I wonder if their language even has a word for friendship based on equality that is separate from an asymmetric allegiance based on status gradient. Perhaps all the non-gradient terminology was gobbled up by socialist ideology and now the very idea of peers is out, except where seeing it through the socialist lense still fits?
No, people supported them, but that is because democracy was hacked. Hungary is not a democracy anymore (it's a hibrid regime[1]).
The biggest issue is that the majority of the media is controlled by the government. Also they own jurisdiction and have been gradually rewritten the constitution. Most people who support this regime do that because they believe the propaganda. Many people I know have been bitterly trying to tell their family members that they are watching / listening propaganda (unsuccessfully, for years). Most of Orban's supporters don't know much about politics, they just want to live their lives, so they believe whatever is on TV, radio, online media, posters, etc. For many it is very hard to see what is true and what is lie.
But there are many, many people here who don't like this and want a change. The country is in a state where positive change towards democracy is really hard at the moment, many of us still want to believe it is possible.
By the way, we could see this madness around the world in the past years: Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro… many people can be led by their nose. Not just in Hungary. I really whish if people would learn from Hungary's mistakes, and don't let the same thing to happen in their countries.
Do you mean, some people just consciously agree with being used and lied to and their taxes being stolen so that the leaders can be richer and more powerful while schooling, health care and economy is in decay? I don't think so.
> Do you mean, some people just consciously agree with being used and lied to and their taxes being stolen so that the leaders can be richer and more powerful while schooling, health care and economy is in decay? I don't think so.
Many people actually do that, because in their minds alternative is "left" that will do the same but with added bonus of supporting LGBT, fight against climate change, unrestricted immigration and such. And getting traditional true patriot of country X rich is preferred to fattening this dirty commies traitors on the "left".
Also, there is 1/3 of population that don't believe in politics at all and ignore it as much as possible, because artificial culture war just distracts them.
Yes, however those people also have right to vote (in democracies) and many of them vote without being sure what they vote for. Democracies can be hacked because too many people are either not interested or not informed well enough to vote for what's really best for them and the country.
Why would they participate in system that they don't believe? Also, you need to be populist to win in democracy, which brings another pathological behavior into game by definition of system.
When Fidesz won their first election in 2010, they changed voting laws and even the constitution; now elections in Hungary are heavily gerrymandered and Fidesz routinely wins super-majorities with less than 50% of the votes.
Nonetheless, in 2014, five center-left parties formed the Unity Alliance. One center-left party (LMP) refused to join, splitting the center-left opposition vote. This cut in half the number of constituencies that the opposition would have won that year, allowing Fidesz to capture 91 percent of the constituencies with just 45 percent of the vote. Still plagued by infighting, the opposition remained fragmented in 2018, even as it gained strength in Budapest. With 49 percent of the vote in 2018, Orbán won 86 percent of the constituencies, losing in Budapest but winning almost everywhere else. The 2014 and 2018 results showed that only a unified opposition that spanned the political spectrum could defeat Orbán’s system.
Note that “Ukraine” is now preferred to “the Ukraine”; the latter term was used in Soviet times to diminish its autonomy by implying it was just a region of the USSR.
This is widely believed, and of course Ukrainians prefer no article, and I'm happy to accede to their preferences, just as with their preferred transliteration of Kyiv.
But the theory that this has any impact on how English speakers view sovereignty is also completely bunk. While English does indeed use "the" for some geographical regions and features (but not universally; English rarely is so simple), in international contexts and sub-regions, that's swamped by more salient examples. Look right there at your use of "the" USSR. We don't talk about "the Scotland" and "the England" as part of "United Kingdom", nor about "the California" and "the Texas" as purely internal regions of "United States", but quite the reverse, reserving. In keeping with groups of smaller units, there's also the EU. There are also many examples of full names that include qualifying adjectives that take "the" -- i.e. the Central African Republic, the Dominican Republic, and historically the Czech Republic (now Czechia is preferred, of course).
There are also, of course, countries named after geographical features that traditionally do have the definite article, but this is rarely taken as a slight against their sovereignty or an accusation that they're not a real country: the Ivory Coast, The Netherlands, many, many island nations.
And why would the Russians even think to use articles to make this distinction? Neither language even has a definite article! There is a history of using different prepositions in these languages ("in" vs "on", roughly) which does have this suggestion, but it really doesn't parallel English usage of articles.
Sweden and Finland came as a pack so lets talk about both of them.
Benefits:
It completely neutralizes the Russian Baltic Fleet.
The only railway line supporting Murmansk is less than 200km beyond the finnish border, which means the Nordic Fleet is also compromised.
Potential disadvantages of additional members are added political instability as can be seen with Hungary and Turkey. There is little chance of this with both countries.
Basically you dont defend members, you defend borders and adding Finland and Sweden to the pact makes for a far easier and better developed front. The Finns have been building bunkers and training their population for the next Russian invasion since WW2.
Having Finland as a member strengthens the position of the Baltics, who are threatened by the Suwalki corridor.
Basically it strengthens and stabilizes the northern border to Russia/Belarus.
EDIT: since other commenters don't know, yes it was signed into law, Sec 1250A of the 2024 NDAA:
>The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
If the commander in chief says that Russia can do 'whatever the hell they want' with NATO countries, it doesn't really matter if the US is still officially in NATO.
They made it illegal for him to do so, but Trump has made it clear that he does not view himself as accountable to the law, especially for any acts while President, so...
Maybe. Countries can leave the treaty. Congress and the Senate are trying to make it impossible for the president to unilaterally do this, but I don't know if that bill has passed yet. It's a bipartisan effort believe it or not, because even the most politic Republicans are not stupid. I expect it should pass before January 2025.
But who knows, maybe he can sabotage the alliance in other ways, or find some other way out.
There is no all else equal here. If your new member is the Democratic Republic of Congo the number would go up considerably. With Sweden/Finland it might very well go down since the border is far more defensible. But the US has a global footprint and those troops in Europe are nearer to potential conflicts in the middle east and northern Afrika, so it might make logistical sense to park them there anyway.
IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland. Many NATO countries will have sizeable factions of their electorate saying to not get involved.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't been easy for him makes it less likely that Putin will attempt that, but it's clearly been on his mind.
> IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland.
There is a reason forces of core NATO states farther from the Eastern flank are deployed to Poland and the Baltic states; it is practically impossible for Russia to attack them without attacking the forces of core NATO states, not just in a "legally, under Article 5, we must treat this as an attack" way, but in a "Russian troops are killing troops of those states" way.
Yep, Putin will absolutely try to grab new land whenever he thinks he can get away with it, no matter how many young Russian men die in the process. To him it's just a game to fulfill his fantasies of being a great conquering czar, and for that reason credibility of NATO's article 5 is vital.
Even the good relations between EU and Russia pre-2014 were just theater on Russia's part. Here in Finland during those years shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. They have never acted in good faith.
> shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations.
AFAICT this topic has been mostly avoided by the Finnish media. I guess everyone just kinda trusts that the government is on top of the situation.
I think Putin would not invade Poland, it's just as strong or even stronger than Ukraine, with less corruption, better economy and defense treaties.
Baltics have always been the biggest risk. They are very small population-wise and can be "easily" cut off (Suwalki gap). But the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance will significantly improve the defense posture (airfields, maritime logistics).
I think if he is successful in Ukraine, Transnistra/Moldowa are the logical next step. Then he most likely would use his stooges like Orban and radicalized Russian minorities to create problems and wait for an opportunity.
But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend.
For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen.
It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.
NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action.
NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of.
NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US.
NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.
The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade).
In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.
>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.
So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?
From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.
>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?
Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
>Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.
1 That was not an Article 5 thing,
2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?
3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
>3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.
The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.
And that strategy was somehow altruistic ? Explain? And explain why waiting to defend "Europe"
Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor
This history on this is well documented. The US was helping the allies before entering the war by providing weapons and resources. Before being attacked the US was isolationist (like “Trumpists”). It took getting punched in the mouth to muster the resolve to join the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the UK to war with Japan and solidified allied resolve.
A deterrence, to make war too difficult to undertake.
Adding additional countries around the edge of NATO does two things for the countries currently in the pact, even if they aren't economic or military powerhouses. First, those countries are less likely to be attacked, and not having your neighbors be embroiled in war is good. Germany is much happier if there is no land war going on next door in Poland, bombs occasionally falling on the wrong side of the border, civilian refugees looking to them for safety.
Second, adding someone else to the pact puts someone else on the front lines to test the defense provided by the pact, if shit hits the fan. Sure, if Russia wanted to, they could try to bypass Poland on the way to Germany, but practically speaking with Poland in NATO, Germany will get to see how NATO responds to an invasion of Poland, rather than finding out how they respond to an invasion of Germany. Poland, likewise, would be much happier seeing how NATO responded to the invasion of Ukraine-the-NATO-member, rather than watching the invasion of Ukraine and wondering how NATO will respond to the invasion of Poland if Ukraine falls.
Sweden is a country that makes their own military related stuff: https://youtu.be/d8x8ITwd4Vg?si=ye6-_fe7EJMuqdIg Archer can deploy fire and retreat so quickly, can also fire multiple rounds and have them land on the same target at the same time.
As opposed to countries that do not design and manufacture such things themselves.
It's easier to defend Denmark, Norway and Finland if Sweden is not in the way. With this, Sweden is more likely to become completely "open" to NATO operations in any conflict that involves defending those three NATO members.
By having to jump through fewer hoops to get the intelligence they already got before, and likely further restricting the field of operation for Russian forces in that area.
I wonder if they're tastier than the average MRE? Sure, you can always make better food with some effort, but next to Costco chicken bakes, Ikea meatballs probably have one of the world's highest convenience-to-deliciousness ratios.
As a kid, I used to loooooove spending the day at Ikea, bouncing around all the beds and hiding in the fake rooms, but mostly just because we'd end up at the food court at the end... mmmm.
Correction: NLAWs are only Swedish designed(SAAB defense) but are production of Thales(a French company) manufactured in Belfast, Northern Ireland(UK), using warheads made by a subsidiary of SAAB in Switzerland.
Ah yes, it's NATO that wants war, it's certainly not NATO countries being reasonably concerned about a certain neighbor that keeps invading neighboring democracies.
I'm sure without being in NATO or the EU, Estonia and Latvia would be left completely alone and unharmed by Russia, just like Ukraine! They certainly wouldn't have been a smaller and easier target.
I guess this is a reference to the joke, "no, what we know is that there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."
Unless we disbelieve what the guy said: we do know that they have at least the concept of a tank. He didn't actually say that they had any. That would have been a conversation-ending question for me to ask him.
I don't know what those sheep statisticians would say if they hadn't seen the "black sheep" themselves and had to rely on the testimony of other people. You can't only believe what you've seen for yourself.
As for all the people downvoting that: lighten up. It's a joke. Welcome to NATO.
> and had to rely on the testimony of other people
The sheep joke is not about believing people's reports or not, but about what may or may not be deduced from a report, given that it is accurate and true.
The cold war was the largest project undertaken by any civilization in human history in terms of spending. With Sweden on board with NATO, defence contractors and other NATO adjacent public private partnerships can be assured that they won't interfere with that flow of funds.
>Remember, the year before invasion all what Russian diplomacy wanted - it is to give guaranties that Ukraine won't join NATO?
"The year before the invasion" - 2013, right? That's the year you're referring to? The year in which he got a 30 year lease on Sevastopol, thereby keeping Ukraine out of NATO for decades? Because Yanukovich was still in power, and doing everything to appease him?
Why is it that the medal Shoigu got for the Crimea takeover commemorates a date a week prior to Maidan, and two weeks prior to the "official" start of the invasion? Why is it that despite the "diplomacy" they never even attempted to abide by the Minsk agreements (and if you feel like disputing this, refresh yourself on article 10 and the timeline of events at Donetsk Airport)?
Do you or do you not agree that "the invasion" started in 2014, not in 2022.
This is relevant. You said "before the invasion, all Putin wanted was diplomatic agreements to not join NATO". But that's obviously not true, was it? Because before 2022, he had already annexed Crimea. Before 2022, he had already been delivering massive supplies of weapons and "separatist volunteers" to Donetsk and Luhansk. Before 2022, he had already published "On the Historical Unity of Russia and Ukraine". Before 2022, there was already zero chance of Ukraine being accepted into NATO.
Those are not mere diplomatic tools, that is active aggression and denying their right to exist as a nation at an ideological level. How do you negotiate with "you are Russians, your identity is fake, your language is fake, your land is Russian, prepare to be absorbed".
Watch the recent Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin.
There is a literally 2 hours long historical lecture from Putin, explaining in great detail why (to his opinion) Ukraine doesn't and shouldn't exist as a sovereign state and "in fact" never was, since the beginning of the history, LMAO. This is what really concerns him, if you listen. In his reality, Ukraine is a Russian province, not an independent state.
He goes as far as justifying Hitler's attack on Poland ("they made him to attack by not voluntarily giving away their territory, it was Poland's fault") — sic. You see where he goes?
So it seems that NATO didn't bother him very much, it is just a red herring or "diplomatic speak" to express his true concerns. The real issue is Ukraine's sovereignty / independence. Joining NATO is just an act of that sovereignty, that couldn't be tolerated.
>> He goes as far as justifying Hitler's attack on Poland
And why wouldn't he. We should not forget that it was russians and nazi's that started the world war 2[0][1]. It's just that the rusians got lucky, and Germany bore all the guilt.
Since then, russians of course have been actively trying to rewrite history.
My grandfather fought russia and later its ideology in battles across the world. I did forget for a while, but his words now shine brightly in front of me: NEVER trust a russian.
Rewriting history is pretty much real — there is a head of Ministry of Culture in Russia that openly states that "our history books for students should serve the national interests" (and he is a co-author of those books), implying that the truth can be manipulated to indoctrinate young people.
> NEVER trust a russian
P.S. I am myself Russian — not saying you should trust me... (just kidding). Its just not every Russian out there likes what Russia does.
> Why isn't there a NATO base in the US where German military etc. "hang out"?
The reason there is a large US presence in Germany is that Germany lost WWII. You can make all kinds of other justifications for it like "Germany invited the US", but it all comes back to the Allies created the current German government, and all of them had troops continuously stationed in Germany from WWII until well after the cold war ended. France and the UK have withdrawn most of theirs, the US is the one that still has a sizable presence and the reason is that Germany is afraid of Russia and wants them to stay.
No? Just because Sweden is a member of NATO doesn't meant they have to just let the US do whatever they want. IF Sweden so chooses to allow US troops to be stationed there, it will be for their own benefit.
> Why isn't there a NATO base in the US where German military etc. "hang out"?
The same reason that within NATO, German troops are forward deployed to Lithuania and not vice versa; it doesn't contribute to defensive strategy to backward-deploy forces from the countries closer to the large conventional threat to the ones farther from it.
It is NATO that is fighting in Ukraine. It is they who have been active in Ukraine since 2008. Without NATO’s active involvement so many Ukrainians would not be dead.
Canada joining Warsaw pact with the prospect of Russian missiles and troops stationed there and KGB organising a coup to remove their PM to install a puppet will elicit a similar (or perhaps worse given the track record) response from the US.
Without NATO's involvement, far more Ukrainians would be dead, their children kidnapped, their possessions stolen by Putin's thugs.
If the KGB did achieve a coup in Canada, we probably would invade to put it down. The differences are 1) Euromaidan was a popular uprising, not a coup, and 2) the whole thing would have been over in a week, instead of bogging down into a stalemate and humiliating our army.
Your link is just quoting Putin complaining that Bush wouldn't help him with his coup in Georgia.
Before war in Georgia, Putin had a pretty good image in the West. Back then Putin was nowhere near bad as in the recent years. Power corrupts, long time rulers get crazier with time...
Hello, dear account dedicating all their two posts to repeating Russian talking points.
Georgia was indeed dumb enough to let themselves get provoked to fire the first rounds. It's very strange though that the peace loving defensive-only Russian forces ended up permanently occupying even more Georgian territory than before the war. That's the Russian history, Russia never attacks, it only defends itself, by advancing and annexing enemy territory.
That part of the report has been widely panned. Russia had brokered a ceasefire with separatists in that region in 1992, then placed its own troops there to act as peacekeepers. Putin's gaze lands on Georgia, and he moves more troops border, the separatists blow up a police car two days after joint American-Georgian military exercises, Georgia's military responds, and within hours, Russian tanks are rolling into Georgia. The EU report was clear that Russia's response was out of line.
> The report found no evidence to support Russian allegations that Georgia was carrying out genocide against the South Ossetian population.
> But it said there were "serious indications" of ethnic cleaning against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia and found Russian forces "would not or could not" stop atrocities by armed groups in areas they controlled.
> We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?!
There's nothing inherently wrong with an administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators – but in this instance I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the United States "put [Putin into power]", assuming you're referring to the United States' inaction after the FSB apartment bombings?
> Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?
Time's Person of the Year Award is specifically scoped to not be an endorsement or celebration of the winner. Think of it more as a measure of outsized impact on the world in a given year.
> administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators
You know. It would be fine if it was a few times thing. But US has a long history of putting dictators into power, calling them allies, then turning against them and invading/killing them. Which only seems to benefit the military and cause chaos everywhere else.
> That the United States "put [Putin into power]" assuming you're referring to the United States' inaction after the FSB apartment bombings?
Ah, so you mean the United States' inaction in providing aid to Russia after Yeltsin and the IMF began to aggressively reform Russia's economy?
Your logic is that the United States installed Putin by not interfering more?
> You know. It would be fine if it was a few times thing. But US has a long history of putting dictators into power, calling them allies, then turning against them and invading/killing them. Which only seems to benefit the military and cause chaos everywhere else.
It's notable that your own cartoonish straw man bears no resemblance whatsoever to the specific case you're trying to illustrate, unless I'm missing the part where the US installed Putin, allied with him, and then invaded/killed him.
How many dictators has the United States installed, allied with, and then invaded or killed in your lifetime?
> US is largest contributor to IMF it would be a joke to suggest their opinion has no sway.
Russia was pursuing this strategy prior to IMF involvement. The membership of the IMF was supportive of the strategy. The United States' Treasury Department did not intervene. Tell me again how this had anything to do with Putin? You make it sound as if the US was providing weapons to Putin or something.
> Saddam in Iraq
I think you have some reading to do if you believe the United States "installed" Saddam. It was the Ba’athists.
> Russia was pursuing this strategy prior to IMF involvement.
> Yeltsin turned to the Russian economists Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais, who, with the aid of Western advisers, hammered out the details.
Jeez, wonder who gave them that idea.
> I think you have some reading to do if you believe the United States "installed" Saddam. It was the Ba’athists.
Think you are placing too much weight on installed. Installed in as in supported materially, financially, or militarily. Helped get into power or remain there.
Whilst I'm impressed with the speed of your climbdown, you have now broadened your definition of "installed" to the point where it is utterly meaningless.
Other notable winners include Hitler, Stalin (twice!), Khrushchev and Trump.
I don't think it's an indication that the west likes them. Even in recent times, I'm not sure it's even an indication that time magazine likes them (see Trump)
The exercise in team work has not been going great so far. It doesn't look like their is a path to victory in Ukraine and Europe is hesitant to commit any troops. There are some rumblings from Macron but most of Europe would prefer to send just enough weapons so Putin can't move forward and Ukraine can't push them out.
Most of Europe is in NATO. NATO nations committing troops would likely drag all of NATO into war with Russia, increasing the chance of a nuclear war. That's not something NATO wants.
1. It's really doubtful Russia will commit to nuclear war.
2. If it does, it will do that regardless of whether or not NATO enters the war or not. Russia has signalled it has no intentions of stopping its war of conquest
I'd be curious what details you're drawing on to make those conclusions.
Regarding #1, do you think this is the case if Ukraine, for example, gains enough traction to attack Russian border cities as a means of preventing a Russian regrouping and counter-attack? Or is the word "commit" doing a lot of heavy lifting here?
Regarding #2, I've heard two scenarios that would counter this. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they likely have an interest in further expansion. If they think NATO isn't really as committed as they claim, a nuclear exchange into someplace like Poland would prove that, as well as giving the US a plausible way to back out of NATO commitments. That's a huge win for Russia. The previous statement about Ukrainian success provides the other example. Both cases are conditional on NATO activities.
Too much in Russia depends on the West. I'm not even talking about its industrial capacity which can't even produce military equipment without foreign components.
Their children study and live in Europe and the US. Their families live in Europe. Their business interests are in Europe.
I really doubt any of them will risk a nuclear war.
> Regarding #2
They've been quite vocal about this for a long time: they will continue war until stopped. At least until they claim all/most of the former USSR territories. Some of those territories (the Baltic states) are in NATO.
Describing it as "convenient" does not make also make it any less true or accurate, which are the true metrics a framework should be evaluated by. We can't disregard frameworks just because we don't want one side to benefit, we must evaluate frameworks on whether they represent reality.
It has been going better than the last 30 years. Military cooperation in Europe broke down with the last Reforger of '93. It is great that Europe cooperates more, the view of the US public on NATO can be seen in any US TV series or Hollywood film - it does not exist.
> the view of the US public on NATO can be seen in any US TV series or Hollywood film - it does not exist.
I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. To me, it's always more of that "we'll let you guys muck about until it's totally obvious you're not going to fix it, then we'll ride in to save the day" attitude. Not saying that's accurate, but that's how it's portrayed by Hollywood
Other than WWII films, I can't think of any Hollywood that actively promotes NATO in anything other than a joke. Even the more common cop shows, once an investigation goes international and INTERPOL has to be brought it, it's always a big sigh as if "oh boy, here's where the wheels fall off the bus" as the member agencies that make up INTERPOL are definitely looked down upon.
The flip side of this is watching European shows, and they all feel like US law enforcement is just a bunch of gung ho gun toting cowboys. Neither view is entirely accurate, nor are they inaccurate as they are just stereotypes
I've heard that a us tv show about marines or whatever used to include European, Mexican and south American special forces as allies regularly, to add realism in conflict they're not alone in.
There's a difference between member states pulling their weight and the org itself pulling itself together to behave as a coherent entity. If Turkey (or any member) decides to veto or drags its feet prevent any action at all from occurring, it doesn't matter. In the mean time, the aggressor is taking advantage and ransacking its way through Europe. The whole time, the individual members are waiting for the Yanks to get off their arses to unilaterally come to action. Then they can later point at how the Yanks are always doing things unilaterally and turn them into the whipping boy.
The non-US members of NATO combined are larger economically, demographically and geographically than the US is. If they all pulled their weight NATO would have (slightly) more contribution from non-US countries than from the US.
The non-US members all have different views that must reach a consensus before any action which is precisely where the machine grinds to a halt. Which means a consensus is rarely reached. Contrasting that to the US which can bring all of its might with the whims of one leader and possible brow beating of congress to agree.
In this way, NATO/UN is interchangeable from the US point of view.
Because NATO (for most key decisions) works by full consensus, adding new members (a process which involved Turkey and Hungary using their leverage for concessions, especially Turkey) does not substantially reduce the leverage of existing members (this is also why Russia's bid to move to the front of the line and be admitted ahead of other Easter European applicants, without a readiness process--the real root, not the fact of expansion into Eastern Europe, of Putin's resentment against NATO--was rejected.)
Can you explain what project is unwinding? It looks to me like Europe is still coming together to resist the danger of Russian invasion. For Nuland, it looks like she had a long career, she had many good roles, she championed protecting Ukraine and there was only one other position for to be promoted to and they promoted someone else. So that seems like a perfect time to leave after a successful career.
If you think anything is defeated, you should look at the facts ( eg. Airplanes downed in the last weeks). Which seems to be more significant to me while f16's are on the way.
Oh boy, by that account Russia should be in rubbles a year ago. Putin even had to kill off his caterer turned warlord, who staged a mutiny and marched with 5k mercenaries on Moscow and the rest of the country just stood by and watched the show.
Victoria Nuland is a red flag. Conspiracy theorists are obsessed with her for some reason. Whenever she is brought up, I stop listening. She's not that important.
Depends what you call "victory". The western priority is preserving sovereign Ukraine, even if it has to concede some land. There is a path to achieve such goal.
