| HN Mirror

https://mobile.twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/149604763196923...

It is not about Nato I think. I think this Finnish guy writes it clearly:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

piva00 1575 days ago

I believe the take from John Mearsheimer after the Crimean crisis in 2015 [1] to be a bit more elucidating based on realpolitik than just the reductive take based off Russian imperialism, the issue is larger than just a madman trying to regain control of past territory.

newby 1575 days ago

I have to admit that this video made me extremely sad and angry. I grew up in one of those countries occupied by Russians that later joined NATO and what upsets me in this kind of argumentation is that it talks about countries like us as if we had no agency, no say in the matter, no right to decide about ourselves. Mr. Mearsheimer uses the same language ("expansion") as if there is no substantial difference between a country asking to join NATO and a country attacked and annexed by Russia. It seems to me that the logic he uses to argue that Ukraine is the West's fault is indistinguishable from "it is your fault that bully beats you up because you refuse to give him your lunch when he wants it".

Moru 1575 days ago

In Swedish schools you get free lunch as much as you want. Though that didn't stop the bullies from finding some other reason to bully you.

raxxorrax 1575 days ago

He is not correct though. I think it was 2003 when the US wanted to install a missile shield in Poland and Czechia. Obama did cancelled it again though.

rectang 1575 days ago

> What we see happening in #Ukraine right now is, to put it bluntly, Russian (or more precisely, the Kremlin's) imperialism.

I read that thread and found it very persuasive. I took his advice and read some of the translations of Putin's rhetoric, and I found his characterizations accurate.

throwaway_4ever 1575 days ago

That thread is the actual situation and it's a travesty we have so many on this very site and the American far right that are Kremlin war apologists.

We have fools believing the Kremlin is actually afraid of NATO, the defensive alliance, when Russia has NUKES. Kremlin isn't even afraid of NATO confrontation when they're invading another country, because of nukes. They're sure as hell not concerned about NATO confrontation in their own territory. The whole argument is schizophrenic.

Again, why would Russia be concerned about NATO imposing themselves on Russia, when NATO won't even defend a Ukrainian invasion?

sofixa 1575 days ago

You're missing a small thing - NATO had had various plans for antimissile defences in countries in Central and Eastern Europe ( Poland, Czechia, Romania if memory serves me right). Those defences would potentially invalidate Russia nukes, and that's scary. ( Which is why there was a treaty limiting antimissile defences during the Cold War, to avoid one side thinking they can win a nuclear exchange). So Russia has plenty to be scared of, and then there's the imperialism, exporting problems, having a cause for the people to rally around, etc.

War crimes and abhorrent nonetheless. I hope at least this time the responsible end up in The Hague.

Scea91 1575 days ago

I think the defences would be useful against countries will very limited nuke arsenal. For example Iran. The is probably no defence that would protect you against hundreds of nukes. In a real nuke strike the attacker would probably fire many simultaneously, accompanied with decoys.

nickpp 1575 days ago

That is BS. Russia has enough subs that can launch a nuclear apocalypse from the bottom of any ocean.

The only reason Putin hates NATO is that it stops him from invading any country he wishes.

sofixa 1575 days ago

The US has antimissile defenses on ships ( the Aegis system), and the whole thing started as ship-first, presumably against subs.

Regarding the last part, Putin is trying to find out. Nukes or not, if the "defensive" alliance, that used to be your sworn enemy for almost 5 decades (Putin used to be a KGB Colonel) sets up shop right across your border I understand why you might get worried a bit. Don't forget, that defensive alliance was invading countries as well since the 90s. Usually under the pretext of spreading democracy.

Does that justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine? No, absolutely not. Does it mean NATO could have been a tad more cautious when it comes to Russians security interests? Yes. Now it's to late for that so. And as usual it is innocent people, just wanting live their lives in peace, that pay the price.

throwaway_4ever 1575 days ago

> Regarding the last part, Putin is trying to find out.

Ok, so when Putin finds out NATO won't confront an invasion, then the Kremlin will back off their aggressions now, right? Now that they've found out there's no way NATO threatens the motherland? Does that sound right to you?

I'll make a guess. I've been on side "Russian invasion is imminent" for the past four months. I've been hearing a whole lot of "nothing to see here. Russia has no plans to invade. Just military drills. West should stop being threatening." for months. They were all dead wrong (sooo many on this site as of just days ago). So I'm inclined to believe I'm a bit more prescient on these issues.

Putin still won't back off, knowing Russia is safe from NATO, because that's not the issue.

Oh, you got me wrong. If Putin finds out NATO won't got to war over Ukraine, he will try again with other non-NATO countries. Or even smaller NATO countries like the Baltics. China might try too, with Taiwan. Just to name some of the more obvious candidates.

Good points.

But isn't the real threat against Putin that the ideas of democracy spread via word of mouth?

I think problem with Ukraine is that Ukrainians and Russians have close ties and if Ukraine succeeds in becoming a western country their relatives in Russia will want to do so to.

That sure plays a role. Not that this word of mouth spreading of democracy worked out so well lately. But yeah, if I were Putin I would prefer a war in Ukraine over a potential civil war over my rule in Russia any day of the week.

One cannot ignore the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in this whole mess so.

OJFord 1575 days ago

Or in blog form (same author): https://jmkorhonen.net/2022/02/23/on-the-kremlins-imperialis...

konart 1575 days ago

This is very simplistic view. People often try to shrug it off as if Putin (or Hitler) "just wanted to grab more land".

I don't really want to change anyone's mind and give a lecture. It's just that world is not as simple as it may seem.

You have to give it to the Finnish people that they have - what should I say - some institutional knowledge when it comes to Russia.

After all they still have around 200 000 Russian troops at their borders. (6 feet under the ground but still very alive in their memories.)

For anyone who isn't aware:

- The Finnish are the ones who said - as Kremlin sent a million poor troops towards them - we are only a small country, were should we bury them all?

- The "Molotov cocktails" started as a Finnish joke about their practical invention to stop Russian vehicles. Russian diplomat Молотов (Molotov) had started the wittiness by telling that their bombing raids were just friendly Russians dropping suppplies.

That was the USSR under Stalin. Quite different story. Not to forget, Finland was part of the Russian Empire before WW1. Doesn't justify the Russian attacks on Finland, context usually does matter so.

If you read the thread I linked to you'll see that if you think Putin means what he says, Finland is in danger.

Putin is clear that he wants to go back to 1917.

In 1917 Russia ruled in Finland.

Putin is, in many ways, among the most dangerous and skilled world leaders. And the most daring one. That none of his actions have been seriously checked by anyone since he came to power surely didn't help either. If Putin had his way, it would not just be Finland, the Baltics and most of Eastern Europe as well.

IMHO, appeasement never worked with people like Putin (or Bush sen. & jun. or Napoleon,...). Thing is that war seems to be the only alternative. And most don't want that. At least not a shooting war against an opponent that can actually shoot back immediately.

hdjjhhvvhga 1575 days ago

He doesn't really need to grab some land, physically. He only needs a puppet government like in Belarus, that's all. Once he knows he can control a country, he will leave it in peace.

Unfortunately, this means misery for the citizens, and nobody sane wants that. Ukrainians want to have an independent modern country, not to be Kremlin slaves.

mopsi 1575 days ago

> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.

NATO does not have "systems". NATO is a cooperation office between militaries of member countries, despite relentless Russian propaganda that makes it sound as if tanks and missiles magically pop up after signing the membership agreement.

throwaway894345 1575 days ago

Russia can’t respect other countries’ desire to join NATO while holding the position that they shouldn’t be allowed to join NATO. That’s patent nonsense.

CRConrad 1575 days ago

> Sure, but what Russia was constantly telling NATO is that while Russia respects other countries' desire to join NATO - Russia believes that NATO should not allow those countries to join.

It's funny how hard it is for Russia(ns) to get their head around the concept of self-determination: It's none of Russia's fricking business what alliances other countries join; and it's none of Russia's fricking business which countries other alliances accept as members.

See? It's not really all that hard.

> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.

Russia obviously does not care about anyone's self-determination except their own. (And even that only if "self" is defined along the "one man, one vote" principle: The dictator is The Man, and The Vote is his. The only people with any appreciable degree of "self-determination" are the dictator's cronies, and even that is fraught with risk.)