| Sweden and Finland 07:30 - Apr 12 with 2052 views | Churchman |
Posted on the BBC website:
Responding to the news that the two Nordic neighbours could apply for Nato membership - Russia says any enlargement of the Western military alliance would not result in more stability.
"Further [Nato] expansion will not bring additional security to the European continent," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said to reporters.
So Russia is basically telling Finland and Sweden what to do or not to do. What additional security did not being part of Nato did Ukraine get? Oh sorry, I forgot, it’s not a sovereign country is it Mr Peskov. Tool.
The reality is that you should always do what your enemy don’t want you to do. As far as I’m concerned, if they want it Finland and Sweden should be brought into Nato by Good Friday and Mr Peskov and his master told to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Of course, Russia believes Finland doesn’t have a right to exist anyway so might well be on Putin’s shopping list. They proved that in the Winter War in 1940 where against a small army in winning, they managed to lose 400,000 men, not that Stalin cared. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 7:31]
|  | | |  |
| Sweden and Finland on 07:58 - Apr 12 with 1940 views | wrightsrightglove |
There just seems to be too much press around it at the moment. I can’t see any member objecting to them being brought into NATO given the current circumstances so surely get it all tied up behind closed doors and just announce it out of the blue. “As of this morning these countries have joined NATO, any aggression shown towards them will be seen as aggression towards all NATO members” something like that. Ongoing public conversations about it just allows and encourages the Russians to try and apply pressure in any way they can. |  | | |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:21 - Apr 12 with 1868 views | Guthrum |
| Sweden and Finland on 07:58 - Apr 12 by wrightsrightglove |
There just seems to be too much press around it at the moment. I can’t see any member objecting to them being brought into NATO given the current circumstances so surely get it all tied up behind closed doors and just announce it out of the blue. “As of this morning these countries have joined NATO, any aggression shown towards them will be seen as aggression towards all NATO members” something like that. Ongoing public conversations about it just allows and encourages the Russians to try and apply pressure in any way they can. |
Except those countries cannot carry out any kind of public debate or consultation (e.g. a referendum) on such a significant change of alignment, which may have serious consequences, in secret. |  |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:33 - Apr 12 with 1840 views | Churchman |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:21 - Apr 12 by Guthrum |
Except those countries cannot carry out any kind of public debate or consultation (e.g. a referendum) on such a significant change of alignment, which may have serious consequences, in secret. |
Governments are elected to govern. Given the urgency of the situation, if their gov thought it right, why not crack on and do it and let them be held accountable at the next election? They won’t of course.
I’ve never been a fan of referendums, and that’s before the farcical disaster of Brexit. | | | |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:41 - Apr 12 with 1822 views | Guthrum |
Worth noting that is, in fact, a dialling down of Russia's rhetoric on the subject. At the end of February, Peskov was threatening 'military consequences' should Finland or Sweden join (the same phrase used with respect to Ukraine). Now he merely bleats about reduced stability.
In reality, it was pretty obvious that - barring perhaps a stunning, near-unresisted Russian victory with little or no Western response - Putin pulling this sort of stunt would drive neutral neighbours into the arms of NATO rather than frightening them away.
On a side note, from Moscow's perspective in 1939, Finland had been part of Russia for over a century (and under Swedish rule for hundreds of years before that), only breaking away when pro-Soviet forces lost a civil war twenty years beforehand. Stalin saw the Winter War as round two of that latter event, much as he did the invasion of Poland being revenge for defeat at the gates of Warsaw in 1920. As an admirer of his, it isn't surprising if Putin takes a similar (if now far more anachronistic) viewpoint. | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:41 - Apr 12 with 1817 views | pointofblue |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:33 - Apr 12 by Churchman |
Governments are elected to govern. Given the urgency of the situation, if their gov thought it right, why not crack on and do it and let them be held accountable at the next election? They won’t of course.
I’ve never been a fan of referendums, and that’s before the farcical disaster of Brexit. |
If there is a next election and not a nuclear weapon caused crater where the capital used to be. This decision is basically deciding whether risking the start of World War III is the way forward. | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:53 - Apr 12 with 1793 views | Guthrum |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:33 - Apr 12 by Churchman |
Governments are elected to govern. Given the urgency of the situation, if their gov thought it right, why not crack on and do it and let them be held accountable at the next election? They won’t of course.
I’ve never been a fan of referendums, and that’s before the farcical disaster of Brexit. |
Later electoral correction is not much use when you're taking steps perhaps not easily revoked. Such as entering or leaving international treaties.
The Brexit Referendum might have been a bit of a shambles, but is that worse than a government of the day* unilaterally hauling us out of the EU? At least we had some say in the matter.
I also would say the situation is less urgent now than it was seven or eight weeks ago. There is little chance of Russia mounting a sudden attack upon Finland given the entanglement in Ukraine and the damage they've taken to their primary striking forces. Plus any build-up would take weeks and be spotted long before things were ready.
* Tho, of course, Cameron's administration was, officially, in favour of remaining in the EU. | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 09:17 - Apr 12 with 1734 views | Bent_double |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:53 - Apr 12 by Guthrum |
Later electoral correction is not much use when you're taking steps perhaps not easily revoked. Such as entering or leaving international treaties.
The Brexit Referendum might have been a bit of a shambles, but is that worse than a government of the day* unilaterally hauling us out of the EU? At least we had some say in the matter.
I also would say the situation is less urgent now than it was seven or eight weeks ago. There is little chance of Russia mounting a sudden attack upon Finland given the entanglement in Ukraine and the damage they've taken to their primary striking forces. Plus any build-up would take weeks and be spotted long before things were ready.
* Tho, of course, Cameron's administration was, officially, in favour of remaining in the EU. |
Any build up of Russian forces will just be dismissed as a "training exercise" though, I'm with the OP, just get these nations into NATO asap, let their politicians deal with any fallout with the population afterwards. |  |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 09:20 - Apr 12 with 1728 views | wrightsrightglove |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:33 - Apr 12 by Churchman |
Governments are elected to govern. Given the urgency of the situation, if their gov thought it right, why not crack on and do it and let them be held accountable at the next election? They won’t of course.
I’ve never been a fan of referendums, and that’s before the farcical disaster of Brexit. |
This is my thinking as well, if needs be join NATO immediately and then hold a referendum with the option of leaving NATO in a years time, which I can’t imagine anyone would vote to leave NATO but it gives them instant protection whilst also offering the choice to the people at a later date where it can be debated etc. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sweden and Finland on 09:30 - Apr 12 with 1679 views | Guthrum |
| Sweden and Finland on 09:17 - Apr 12 by Bent_double |
Any build up of Russian forces will just be dismissed as a "training exercise" though, I'm with the OP, just get these nations into NATO asap, let their politicians deal with any fallout with the population afterwards. |
The Ukraine buildup was claimed by Moscow as only excercises, but absolutely nobody took that seriously, even at the time. Much less so would they now. | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 09:48 - Apr 12 with 1631 views | Churchman |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:53 - Apr 12 by Guthrum |
Later electoral correction is not much use when you're taking steps perhaps not easily revoked. Such as entering or leaving international treaties.
The Brexit Referendum might have been a bit of a shambles, but is that worse than a government of the day* unilaterally hauling us out of the EU? At least we had some say in the matter.
I also would say the situation is less urgent now than it was seven or eight weeks ago. There is little chance of Russia mounting a sudden attack upon Finland given the entanglement in Ukraine and the damage they've taken to their primary striking forces. Plus any build-up would take weeks and be spotted long before things were ready.
* Tho, of course, Cameron's administration was, officially, in favour of remaining in the EU. |
I have to disagree. You elect a government based on their manifesto to govern. Get on an do it.
Had numbskull Cameron thought it as anything other than a cheap and easy publicity stunt where the response would be remain, he’d never have held it in the first place. That shows me how stupid referendums are, especially when it’s held on a subject literally nobody knew anything about and voters were presented with a plateful of lies. Ideally something like that part of your party policy or don’t go there if you can’t.
Sweden and Finland are different. They are being directly threatened by Russia, make no mistake. Given half a chance Putin will swallow both as ‘protective defensive measures’. It’s up to them but Putins objections are the last thing they should worry about. Let the madman fume and find the best defence available - unless you are happy under the benign Soviet umbrella as Hungary would be/possibly will be. | | | |
| Sweden and Finland on 09:55 - Apr 12 with 1603 views | Churchman |
| Sweden and Finland on 08:41 - Apr 12 by pointofblue |
If there is a next election and not a nuclear weapon caused crater where the capital used to be. This decision is basically deciding whether risking the start of World War III is the way forward. |
There will be no world war three or nuclear exchange. Oddly, the more you cave in and appease a’holes like Putin, the more likely you make that happen, if by mistake or by convincing him the opposition are weak.
Putin understands bullying and fear. Nothing else. He’s actually a rather simple creature. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 10:50]
| | | |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:08 - Apr 12 with 1572 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
I don't know whether Finland and Sweden (and Moldova) need to join NATO. A declaration from NATO that those peaceful democracies will be protected if attacked may dampen Putin's ambitions. Such declaration would need to be clear... that if those countries are attacked NATO will attack Russia. And NATO must follow through if Putin calls the bet.
Putin is the problem. He has played his hand with Ukraine and, personally, now has so much invested in Ukraine that he cannot simply retreat back to the motherland. There can be no resolution to the conflict while Russian troops remain in Ukraine. Putin will not give up; he must be toppled and peace sought with his successor and the peace must respect Ukrainian sovereign territory.
Armageddon beckons... |  |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:16 - Apr 12 with 1546 views | Darth_Koont |
Threatening Finland and certainly Sweden in any military sense would be significant steps beyond Ukraine for Putin. So I think that’s highly unlikely.
And fast-tracking membership during the Ukraine war might see an escalation.
The question is whether alliances like this prevent wars or make them inevitable by increasing tensions. In the Cold War and in a nuclear standoff then they defused direct attacks yet on the flip side they increase the likelihood of proxy wars which are fought with impunity elsewhere. Not to mention the world wars which were emboldened and made inevitable by alliances and pacts rather than independent diplomacy
In the current setup, Russia’s alliance with Belarus made the attack on Ukraine more likely rather than less likely. So I don’t think that we can have such a straightforward view that alliances increase security.
For me, de-escalation in Ukraine is still the priority. Then perhaps we can have the conversations that need to happen about where this is going and how we increase actual civilian security around the world and perhaps move away from an old-world sphere of influence perspective. |  |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:23 - Apr 12 with 1521 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:16 - Apr 12 by Darth_Koont |
Threatening Finland and certainly Sweden in any military sense would be significant steps beyond Ukraine for Putin. So I think that’s highly unlikely.
And fast-tracking membership during the Ukraine war might see an escalation.
The question is whether alliances like this prevent wars or make them inevitable by increasing tensions. In the Cold War and in a nuclear standoff then they defused direct attacks yet on the flip side they increase the likelihood of proxy wars which are fought with impunity elsewhere. Not to mention the world wars which were emboldened and made inevitable by alliances and pacts rather than independent diplomacy
In the current setup, Russia’s alliance with Belarus made the attack on Ukraine more likely rather than less likely. So I don’t think that we can have such a straightforward view that alliances increase security.
For me, de-escalation in Ukraine is still the priority. Then perhaps we can have the conversations that need to happen about where this is going and how we increase actual civilian security around the world and perhaps move away from an old-world sphere of influence perspective. |
“The question is whether alliances like this prevent wars or make them inevitable by increasing tensions. “
You are as hopelessly naive as Corbyn. Do you really think the likes of Putin wouldn’t be following his expansionist policies if NATO didn’t exist? He’s just another Hitler. If there was no defensive alliance he’d be all the way to Berlin in days.
You obviously have good ideals, I get it - but the world isn’t full of unicorns, it’s also full of steroid induced sociopaths. | | | |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:24 - Apr 12 with 1522 views | Guthrum |
| Sweden and Finland on 09:48 - Apr 12 by Churchman |
I have to disagree. You elect a government based on their manifesto to govern. Get on an do it.
Had numbskull Cameron thought it as anything other than a cheap and easy publicity stunt where the response would be remain, he’d never have held it in the first place. That shows me how stupid referendums are, especially when it’s held on a subject literally nobody knew anything about and voters were presented with a plateful of lies. Ideally something like that part of your party policy or don’t go there if you can’t.
Sweden and Finland are different. They are being directly threatened by Russia, make no mistake. Given half a chance Putin will swallow both as ‘protective defensive measures’. It’s up to them but Putins objections are the last thing they should worry about. Let the madman fume and find the best defence available - unless you are happy under the benign Soviet umbrella as Hungary would be/possibly will be. |
Tho neither the Swedish or Finnish government manifestoes included joining NATO. Before Ukraine happened, there was broad indifference or general opposition to the idea in those countries. Especially as both already had links to the alliance, including joint weapons development and military excercises, so there was no immediate need.
Now I think it's very likely to happen and there's not much Russia can do about it, other than complain and threaten. Public opinion has shifted. Demonstrable popular support only strengthens the case and counters any argument from Moscow that it is some kind of "conspiracy".
I see that Putin has gone on a visit to the Russian far east today. I wonder if he'll "decide" to stay there and "retire"? | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:26 - Apr 12 with 1509 views | Guthrum |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:08 - Apr 12 by Tangledupin_Blue |
I don't know whether Finland and Sweden (and Moldova) need to join NATO. A declaration from NATO that those peaceful democracies will be protected if attacked may dampen Putin's ambitions. Such declaration would need to be clear... that if those countries are attacked NATO will attack Russia. And NATO must follow through if Putin calls the bet.
Putin is the problem. He has played his hand with Ukraine and, personally, now has so much invested in Ukraine that he cannot simply retreat back to the motherland. There can be no resolution to the conflict while Russian troops remain in Ukraine. Putin will not give up; he must be toppled and peace sought with his successor and the peace must respect Ukrainian sovereign territory.
Armageddon beckons... |
But if NATO extends formal protection to those countries, then there is very little distinction left between that and full membership. | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:33 - Apr 12 with 1482 views | Darth_Koont |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:23 - Apr 12 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“The question is whether alliances like this prevent wars or make them inevitable by increasing tensions. “
You are as hopelessly naive as Corbyn. Do you really think the likes of Putin wouldn’t be following his expansionist policies if NATO didn’t exist? He’s just another Hitler. If there was no defensive alliance he’d be all the way to Berlin in days.
You obviously have good ideals, I get it - but the world isn’t full of unicorns, it’s also full of steroid induced sociopaths. |
I’m looking at the bigger picture, James. A world where nuclear stalemate between the bigger actors has led to decades of proxy involvement all around the globe and the death/suffering/oppression of millions.
From the UK’s perspective everything looks a lot rosier. Less so if you’re a civilian caught up in the proxy wars and regime change in Latin America, SouthEast Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
I certainly think we need to have a grown-up discussion about how we make peace more likely. But it seems to be, like many, many other issues still affecting the world in 2022 and beyond, a can we want to keep kicking down the road while our interests are still being served. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 10:35]
| |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:42 - Apr 12 with 1444 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:26 - Apr 12 by Guthrum |
But if NATO extends formal protection to those countries, then there is very little distinction left between that and full membership. |
Joining NATO requires various criteria to be met and cannot be done swiftly without potentially harming NATO integrity. A declaration that we will protect those buffer nations could be done pretty well straight away.
Edit... Also would be less likely to further antagonise Putin as it does not, quite, call his bluff. Would leave a little wiggle-room in future negotiations. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 10:45]
| |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:56 - Apr 12 with 1353 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:33 - Apr 12 by Darth_Koont |
I’m looking at the bigger picture, James. A world where nuclear stalemate between the bigger actors has led to decades of proxy involvement all around the globe and the death/suffering/oppression of millions.
From the UK’s perspective everything looks a lot rosier. Less so if you’re a civilian caught up in the proxy wars and regime change in Latin America, SouthEast Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
I certainly think we need to have a grown-up discussion about how we make peace more likely. But it seems to be, like many, many other issues still affecting the world in 2022 and beyond, a can we want to keep kicking down the road while our interests are still being served. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 10:35]
|
But these proxy wars have occurred due to the nuclear deterrent, with both sides unwilling to directly confront each other. Otherwise full scale continental warfare would have broker out like the last two world wars.
Unfortunately people like him can’t be reasoned with, so I don’t see what “grown up discussions” will achieve. Chamberlain had grown up discussions with Hitler, and look what happened there.
Where I do agree is there should be no direct NATO intervention at this stage, for risk of escalation. | | | |
| Sweden and Finland on 11:05 - Apr 12 with 1307 views | Darth_Koont |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:56 - Apr 12 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But these proxy wars have occurred due to the nuclear deterrent, with both sides unwilling to directly confront each other. Otherwise full scale continental warfare would have broker out like the last two world wars.
Unfortunately people like him can’t be reasoned with, so I don’t see what “grown up discussions” will achieve. Chamberlain had grown up discussions with Hitler, and look what happened there.
Where I do agree is there should be no direct NATO intervention at this stage, for risk of escalation. |
Which has certainly suited us but de-stabilised much of the rest of the world at different times.
I think we just need to recognise that alliances and nuclear deterrents have significant pros and cons. And these can have a massive negative effect on the peoples and countries on the edge of these spheres or who are drawn into proxy conflicts over them.
So by all means keep alliances and keep deterrents but let’s make sure we’re a lot less casual and cavalier with the side-effects that don’t directly affect us. Or indeed that we don’t get emboldened by these supposedly defensive positions to push our interests too far and act with impunity elsewhere. | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 11:19 - Apr 12 with 1262 views | Bent_double |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:42 - Apr 12 by Tangledupin_Blue |
Joining NATO requires various criteria to be met and cannot be done swiftly without potentially harming NATO integrity. A declaration that we will protect those buffer nations could be done pretty well straight away.
Edit... Also would be less likely to further antagonise Putin as it does not, quite, call his bluff. Would leave a little wiggle-room in future negotiations. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 10:45]
|
There have probably been discussions going on between these countries and NATO for several years though, so meeting the criteria shouldn't be a problem. It's not as if they have suddenly decided joining would be a good thing because Ukraine was invaded. | |
| |
| Sweden and Finland on 11:30 - Apr 12 with 1237 views | Churchman |
| Sweden and Finland on 10:24 - Apr 12 by Guthrum |
Tho neither the Swedish or Finnish government manifestoes included joining NATO. Before Ukraine happened, there was broad indifference or general opposition to the idea in those countries. Especially as both already had links to the alliance, including joint weapons development and military excercises, so there was no immediate need.
Now I think it's very likely to happen and there's not much Russia can do about it, other than complain and threaten. Public opinion has shifted. Demonstrable popular support only strengthens the case and counters any argument from Moscow that it is some kind of "conspiracy".
I see that Putin has gone on a visit to the Russian far east today. I wonder if he'll "decide" to stay there and "retire"? |
One can but hope. The trouble is that the kind of people that for some unearthly reason crave power never want to let go of it. Fear I suppose.
I see there’s a rumour that Russia has used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Propaganda? No idea, but given their track record, why not? Blame it on the Ukrainians. The town will surrender shortly anyway and I’ve no doubt the survivors will be killed, deported, gulaged, re-educated, replaced. | | | |
| Sweden and Finland on 12:14 - Apr 12 with 1140 views | Guthrum |
| Sweden and Finland on 11:30 - Apr 12 by Churchman |
One can but hope. The trouble is that the kind of people that for some unearthly reason crave power never want to let go of it. Fear I suppose.
I see there’s a rumour that Russia has used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Propaganda? No idea, but given their track record, why not? Blame it on the Ukrainians. The town will surrender shortly anyway and I’ve no doubt the survivors will be killed, deported, gulaged, re-educated, replaced. |
Very difficult to work out what happened in that incident. Even the initial reports claim only a small incident, possibly some caustic agent dropped from a drone, with short-term effects on a very few people (three is a figure I've seen mentioned). Official Ukrainian sources in Mariupol have not been able to confirm anything. Also the area is under fire and thus investigation is currently impossible.
Does not presently look like a concerted use of chemical weapons (one would expect that to be a much larger incident, with more serious casualties), nor is it clear who may have carried it out (Russia itself, Donbas forces, Chechens or whoever).
Doubtless Moscow will try to blame Ukraine, but who would use chemical weapons in one of their own cities with civilians present? Tho it may also turn out not to have happened, or to be something else (e.g. a leak of chemicals resulting from fighting).
I wasn't suggesting that Putin's retrement would be entirely voluntary. Think Kruschev in 1964, or what nearly happened to Gorbachev in 1991. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
