[fsloth]

Russia is bullshitting - they are not afraid NATO would invade them.

The balance of fear due to nuclear weapons if nothing else guarantees this.

Russia is opposed to the fact it can't bully it's weaker neighbours on a whim if they are in NATO. That is the cause for their irritation.

[klawcode]

I trust Finland and Sweden's analysis. That more than anything else solidified my trust in the NATO position on Ukraine.

If Finland and Sweden remained neutral throughout the entire cold war and yet now are openly considering NATO membership, it means something.

[fsloth]

Well, Finland was basically Sweden's shield, and Finland was yielding to Kremlin, so there was very little risk of conflict.

Now Russia has more or less proclaimed it's "back to the empire" agenda which implies subjugation of all of the former states of the russian empire.

Which includes Finland.

The weird thing is, even though Russians lie constantly, when they declare foreign policy targets, they are surprisingly honest and consistent about that.

This implies 1) Finland needs to join NATO asap.

2) After that sweden would be the only weak target left. Gotland is an obvious, concrete military goal that would be feasible target for a RU invasion from Kaliningrad.

[gerikson]

Sweden is not a "weak" target just because it's not part of NATO.

Invading, defending, and holding Gotland is not an easy task, especially as the Ukraine invasion has exposed the glaring deficiencies of the Russian armed forces. And Sweden's defense, attenuated as it might be from decades of budget cuts, is focused on defending Gotland.

[klawcode]

I'm pretty sure Finland and Sweden are basically inseparable in terms of foreign policy... where one goes the other will go, and they'll discuss with each other in depth prior to any decision.

They may still forgo NATO, its absolutely their choice, and every NATO member respects that, being the primary difference between NATO and Russia. They can leave at any time too.

What disturbs me is that there is a lot of appeasement rhetoric floating around in the comment sections.

If people want to let Russia get away with wrecking Ukraine because Russia has nukes, then we may as well drop the bombs now - once you legitimize that strategy you are going to have massive nuclear proliferation, and even if appeasement worked (it simply doesn't), every other aggressor is going to view nukes as an easy win.

[crateless]

As long as they go into it fully informed, that is the best one could hope for.

[crateless]

Well, they have been bullshitting for loooong time if that is the case. I recall watching a video of Gorbachev talking to the US Congress and warning about NATO/US expansion. This was in 1997.

There is no credible threat of a NATO invasion but there is the First-Strike issue now that hypersonic missiles are being developed. Putin has been moaning about this for a while now. A security-conscious/pragmatic state models "what is possible" vs "what is probable". If it seems likely that future Finland could host hypersonic missiles pointed at St.Petersburg, well it becomes incumbent on Moscow to attempt to prevent that. It seems unwise to dismiss their concerns if said dismissal would lead to Ukraine 2.0.

Lots of people seem to think that the Russian unwillingness to flatten Kiev means they could not do it.

How many people have to die for Finns to feel like they stood up to a bully?

[doikor]

And yet somehow it is fine for Russia to develop its own hypersonic missiles (well at least try to) and deploy them to kalingrad where they are just as close most Central European capitals as such weapons in Finland would be to Petersburg. Also Estonia is already part of nato and the distance from its borders to Petersburg is pretty much the same so the first strike nuclear risk does not really change at all if Finland joins nato.

For some weird reason Russia is the only country in Europe that must have buffer states protecting its lands and be allowed to use force the enforce this.

It would be helpful if everyone stopped this lying and just said it how it is. Russia wants weak buffer states around its borders that it can abuse however it wants. There really is no actual military reason for any of this as nato is a defense alliance by definition and thus it will not attack first and the current situation in Ukraine has proven this to be true.

[fsloth]

"It would be helpful if everyone stopped this lying and just said it how it is. Russia wants weak buffer states around its borders that it can abuse however it wants."

This 100%

[klawcode]

I honestly don't get this whole nuke placement argument.

Both Russia and the US have nukes that reach around the entire planet, and vehicles to keep nukes moving and hidden so that second strike capability is always present. Russia can hide its nukes in Siberia if its worried about a first strike to remove MAD. The nukes would work just as well. Its also been bragging about its super cavitating torpedo... although I get the Russian position a bit more if its all been a bluff like what appears to be the case in Ukraine.

Hypersonic missiles aren't going to be a huge game changer here (how much of those heavy elements can you cram into them), interception technologies just aren't there yet, and by the time they really come into full swing the US won't be Russia's real problem (demographics are destiny... this applies to everyone)

In addition, I doubt Finland would allow nukes placed on its territory. NATO is a fully voluntary organization. There is no command structure that supersedes national authority.

Also fyi, no one outside of Russia believes that Russia was wasn't trying to level Kiev. They are happily continuing to level Mariupol, so its not like they had humanitarian thoughts in mind. You don't send a massive column of armor for a quick strike smart bomb operation. It boggles my mind that even Russians can believe that.

[fsloth]

I believe the most prescient military analysis we can make is that Ukraine got invaded because it was not in NATO.

Until Russia invades any NATO country I have a hard time to dismiss this analysis.

If NATO fails to defend any of it's members then it is nullified. Hence I have a quite high trust to the security instilled by the alliance to any of it's members.

You are pretty good at repeating Russian talking points, by the way ;)