not pulling any punches.
I wonder what the Russian response will be to the following developments:While Biden has pledged not to send US troops to Ukraine, the US has sent additional troops and fighter jets to eastern European countries including Poland and Romania in recent weeks and on Thursday announced the deployment of 7,000 additional troops to Germany.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced Friday that the alliance has activated elements of the 40,000-troop NATO Response Force (NRF) for the first time, warning at a press conference: "The Kremlin's objectives are not limited to Ukraine."
HerePoland has shipped a convoy with ammunition to Ukraine, according to the country's Minister of Defense Mariusz Błaszczak, making it the first publicly acknowledged shipment of military aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began.
Here
It's blithely easy to for me to smugly proclaim about geopolitical developments an ocean away. I am protected from all but the most direly suicidal impulses by all but one man. Doesn't mean I won't do it. When I read between the lines on the proclamations of the voices I listen to, when I parse everything through the perspectives available to me, when I regard the information I have seen that I trust, I get a sense of the following: - Putin initially thought that a large show of presence would cow and intimidate Germany and the UN into a resolution locking Ukraine out of NATO in exchange for Nord Stream 2. It didn't. - Putin then thought that a shock and awe campaign by his limited number of Spetznaz and assault troops would be greeted as liberators and he could declare victory. He can't. - Putin now has a choice between a full saturation bombing campaign followed by marching a bunch of 1-year conscripts across DEARLY held territory or... finding some way to act like what he's already gotten is all he really wanted. It seems as if Putin relied on a number of assumptions that have proven to be false. He could presume that his regime can withstand the opprobrium brought on by unlimited warfare against a hardened target. How hard-core are they, really? No matter what, I haven't seen any people in-the-know assert that things have gone exactly as Putin planned.
Okay but what about the fact that Russia isn’t being allowed to participate in Eurovision this year???
I mean have you seen any of Russia's Eurovision entries? It's a fucking kindness.
Big question is whether this is a feeling out process for Putin. If no response, then he gets Ukraine. If there's a massive response, then he initiates talks. Either way he claims victory and walks away knowing where he stands. And all for the price of a few Russian conscripts and some nameless, faceless Ukrainians.
Finland now being threatened by Russia for (allegedly) reconsidering NATO membership. Finland's interpretation of the mutual defense clause of the EU is pretty much untested. Maybe orbat can give us a better sense of Finnish sentiments towards things. It's almost impossible to get good info right now, filtered through America's shite media. All I know is 25k Finnish signatures of the 50k required for a debate on joining NATO have been collected. Joining doesn't seem as popular as the US media wants to portray, but I don't know.
The situation here is unsurprisingly pretty complex. There's a lot of fairly well-substantiated anxiety that we're going to be next in line due to not being in NATO. Our Foreign Policy Institute said that it's fairly likely Russia will be using military force against us in the "next few years". This really hammers home the sort of anxiety we're talking about here. A couple of years ago the majority of Finns were against joining, in recent polls it's been about 50/50. It definitely says something that it's still only 50/50, though. The main argument against NATO seems to revolve around our supposed historical neutrality, but in all honestly it feels more like Finlandization than an actual argument; our "neutrality" has never been exactly neutral, starting with being allied with the Nazis (totally only for convenience, we swear, no ideological ties whatsoever, no sir). Another (and IMO more credible) argument is that we don't want to be dragged into a war by the US – people don't really trust the US especially after Trump, and the US's human rights abuses are often pointed out in NATO discussions. Some also feel a bit iffy about joining an alliance with Turkey, whose human rights record is also not exactly what you'd call stellar. Edit: many especially on the left (where most of the resistance to joining NATO is coming from, in addition to some of the ultranationalist nutballs who love Putin) also say that joining a military alliance makes no sense if you want peace. The debate you're referring to probably meant the various citizens' initiatives that popped up. We have an online initiative system where the parliament has to consider every initiative with over 50k signatures (done using an eID provider). They, however, aren't in any way compelled to do anything about them, and the majority of initiatives really don't lead to squat unless there was existing political will to do it in the first place. I'd give about 50-70% odds of us going for NATO membership, although the question is how do we do that without Russia eg. starting a border skirmish before the membership ratification round is done.
I think there will be an opportunity later this year or early next year. Unless Russia ceases their operation very soon, their economy is going to plunge deeply into depression. They can't handle one war, let alone two. And Ukraine may not be an ideal place to fight a war, but it beats the hell out of Finland. I don't think Putin is just going to throw in the towel, so when his economy really starts to feel the sanctions, there will be a lot of internal turmoil, and that's probably the best time for NATO expansion. It's true that the US is far from perfect, but in the big scheme, it's been the guarantor of peace in Europe since 1945. The whole of Europe would have become Soviet by 1950 and the US would have turned itself into a citadel had NATO not been formed. I wouldn't think of it as a deal with the devil, but rather with a friend who is always going to stand by you and has good intentions, but is imperfect like everyone else.
I have been to Finland a couple times, because I have family there. My Finn relatives all lament that they didn't join NATO after the fall of the USSR when they had a brief window where they could have done so. I don't know if that's a general sentiment or just them. My sense is that an attack on Finland would be another level from an attack on any former Soviet republic. Finland is part of the club of fully civilized nations. It's really shitty to say it, but I think we tend to care a lot more about people we see as our peers. Ukraine just isn't a peer state in way Finland is.
True about the perception of "peers", for better or worse. What incentive does Finland have to not join NATO if Putin has just demonstrated that membership is irrelevant and proven that NATO only has your back forrealzies if you're a member state? Neither does Finland's long history of Russian incursions do Putin any favors. I think Putin's off the deep end. This could end very, very poorly. I think the Finland/Sweden threats are probably hollow, but the uncertainty is killing me.