[leto_ii]

Like a lot of Romanians, I have a very dim view of Mircea Geoană as a statesman or diplomat. The fact that he somehow became NATO Deputy Secretary General only reinforces my suspicion that NATO is quasi-irrelevant as an institution distinct of American interests.

NATO (Stoltenberg, Geoană etc.) will act strictly the way America wants them to act. For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on...

[libertine]

>For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on...

I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?

Russia will invade more countries? Russia will start a war with NATO?

[pessimizer]

> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?

It's find to support turning a border conflict into WWIII, but pretending like sending $40 billion of arms to Ukraine isn't an escalation is beyond the pale. Russia's yearly military budget is only $70 billion.

[ethanbond]

A failed incursion to a peaceful country's capital, failed assassination attempts of that country's leader - that's not a border dispute, it's just a war of aggression that has been extremely poorly executed.

[libertine]

>turning a border conflict into WWIII

I think you're either being naive or acting like one.

First you need to define what border are you talking about? Ukraine and Russia Border? Ukraine, Belarus, Russia border? Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Russia border? EU and Russia border?

You can pick any of them and it'll be a right answer.

Second, this aggression of Russia destroyed many treaties, violated international laws, and acted on a basis of deceive - remember Russia was just doing military exercises closer to the Ukraine border and any claim of invasion was just a provocation from the west.

So let's not pretend that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the country that was supposed to secure Ukraine safety after they gave their nukes away, isn't an international conflict.

This is what we know so far, apparently international laws mean nothing to Russia, they act differently from their words, and they're willing to be aggressive - how can Russia be trusted at this point in time?

[mcv]

The only party that's escalating the war here is Russia. NATO is doing everything it can to not escalate it, but to contain it. If Russia had its way, the war would have spread over a far larger part of Ukraine, and Russia has made it clear that if they're successful, other countries will be next.

To contain this war, it's vital that Russia fails. But it's also vital that it doesn't turn into a large-scale NATO vs Russia war, because that increases the chance that it will turn nuclear. It's a tightrope, but supplying Ukraine with everything it needs to contain the Russian invasion is probably the best way to do it. If that doesn't work, expect direct NATO involvement.

[guerrilla]

Do you not agree that self-defense is always justified? It would seem matching a significant portion of Russia's budget would be necessary for that.

Are you also aware that today the US refused to give Ukraine long-range missiles that would be able to strike within Russia? And do you also know that the US has consistently refused to give Ukraine targeting information on Russia?

[OrvalWintermute]

> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?

Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known.

The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE

The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo

You were saying?

[sorokod]

Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?

[OrvalWintermute]

If Ukraine (Borderland) is NATO controlled, it could have missiles within seconds (not minutes) of Moscow. This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction. It also enables NATO to bring to bear superior numbers, and greater technology advantages. It also eliminates a key port for Russia.

If Ukraine is split into Eastern (New Russia) and Western Ukraine, they will have avoided the worst possible outcome, but at significant cost.

If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep.

This game is merely about avoidance of the worst outcome at this point for the Russians

[credit_guy]

> This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction.

No it doesn't. The US can position Ohio-class submarines in the Baltic, or in the Black Sea, or in the Arctic Ocean. Their Trident missiles, even now 30 years after they were introduced, are still unparalleled. But they can’t strike every missile that Russia has, and in any case, not in just seconds, or even minutes. Russia is a big country; it has lots of road-mobile ICBMs. Those are simply impossible to eliminate in a first strike. Russia has for now, and for the foreseeable future, a guaranteed second strike.

As for the "missile defense", there was never enough confidence in any missile defense system. At this point in time, all missile defense systems can be trivially defeated by a saturation attack.

[guerrilla]

> If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep.

Zelensky already conceded to not going in NATO in March[1]... Russia partially withdrew after that (combined with the increasing cost of continuing to try to take Kiev), but I believe the current continuation is about taking the south, as I explained here [2], so it seems disingenuous to continue to claim some kind of self-defense case at this point.

1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukr...

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31550236

[OrvalWintermute]

The US came very close to war with Russian missiles in Cuba.

If they were far closer there could definitely be war.

[sorokod]

Looks like Ukrainans are not interested in getting split up in the way you are proposing.

How about Finland? Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?

[landemva]

Ukraine and Zelensky had agreed to allow eastern Ukraine to have separatist elections and then be self-ruling. Zelensky didn't follow through with that.

' would receive self-governing status once they hold elections ' https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-agrees-to-election-in-occupi...

[OrvalWintermute]

> Looks like Ukrainans are not interested in getting split up in the way you are proposing.

It was the Eastern Ukrainians that declared independence and broke away from Ukraine, after the coup that deposed a democratically elected albeit corrupt government.

Ukraine to Moscow is ~ 475 KM and lacks significant choke points.

Finland to Moscow is ~780 KM and involves a number of impediments, including a major city in St Petersburg

[VictorPath]

If Finland was a threat outside Karelia, the USSR once mobilized could have marched in in 1945. Finland was not a threat then and it is not now.

[guerrilla]

> Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?

No, this isn't right. On the day that Finland announced they would apply, Putin said that it's not a problem as long as heavy NATO hardware wasn't moved into Finland or Sweden. If it were, he claimed, then they would respond. He was claiming that he doesn't care what people do on paper as long as the physical situation doesn't change. [1]

1. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/vladimir-putin-warns-ag...

[mcv]

Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda.

The issue isn't Ukraine becoming "NATO controlled" (all NATO members actually control themselves; NATO is a voluntary alliance), it's about keeping it Ukraine-controlled. Putin wants it to be controlled by Moscow instead, and that's why he invaded.

Besides, there are already NATO members close to Moscow. And you know why they joined NATO? Because Russia is also close to them. Putin-supporters keep arguing that Russia needs security guarantees, but completely ignore the security guarantees of Russia's neighbours. And Russia is clearly a far larger threat to its neighbours than those neighbours are to Russia. Few countries have as much buffer built in as Russia does. What right does Russia have to demand entire countries as additional buffer? Where is Ukraine's buffer?

> If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland)

Switzerland is not a buffer state. They're neutral because they choose to be. Chose, because Russian aggression is making even the Swiss consider choosing sides.

> that would have been the best outcome for Russia.

Because then Russia would be able to coerce and invade with impunity. Ukraine doesn't need neutrality, it needs security guarantees. Guarantees that Putin is clearly unwilling to give, and NATO is able to provide.

Putin's aggression is Russia's biggest enemy.

[OrvalWintermute]

> Ukraine is not "NATO controlled", and has been refused entry into NATO. Nobody has suggested putting NATO missiles in Ukraine; that's all Putin's propaganda.

Ukraine is actually controlled by the US State Department, and has been since the Maidan Coup overthrew a democratically elected leader.

It was Washington & Brussels that issued an Ultimatum to Yanokovych in https://youtu.be/ROTwyP5no08?t=381 that preceded the protests and led to the coup.

It was US State Department leaders that selected, rather than elected, Ukraine's leaders post-coup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

The US's own STRATFOR, Private CIA, even calls this a coup https://archive.ph/NAXCc

It was the Oligarch Kolomoisky that bankrolled Zelensky's campaign, providing him protection, a bodyguard, vehicles, and other resources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgli7TpINw

However, it is also known that Burisma hired Hunter Biden, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Report%20document...

and, Burisma is controlled by the Oligarch Kolomoisky https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine...

It was the US State Department that also sanctioned the Oligarch Kolomoisky for public corruption in 2021 https://www.state.gov/public-designation-of-oligarch-and-for...

[ipaddr]

The missiles that were going to be placed on the border of Russian inside Ukrainian now will be placed further away.

[pessimizer]

You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.

[OrvalWintermute]

There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.

[sorokod]

Or Finland?

[gattilorenz]

> the war will go on

...until Russia stops invading Ukraine, or successfully conquers it.

Do you think going back and bringing the polish army at the border in August 1939 should also be classified as "escalation"? Or, better, the Dutch army at the border of The Netherlands in April 1940?

[justsomehnguy]

Hmm, why did you stop at 1939?

1938 has athing to say, too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

[chitowneats]

Yes. The military alliance of NATO is a bargain where American dollars subsidize European security in exchange for greater geopolitical influence for the U.S.

Whether this is good or bad from your perspective depends on many, many factors. But that is the truth.

[Teever]

If NATO is merely an extension of American will and always has been then what made Sweden and Finland finally want to join now after all these years?

[guerrilla]

I would say American lobbying and propaganda in Sweden and Finland, which we've had for decades. We were already de facto members anyway though. On the other hand, it's not like we had a choice. We voted for anti-NATO parties who, after the war started, changed their position and rejected any referendum and refused to wait until the autumn elections. Polls showed that a majority in Sweden didn't want to join if Finland didn't (and a majority did if Finland did), so you can effectively restrict your question to Finland (maybe someone else here has more details on their case.) There was a good reason for joining if Finland did though. We dismantled a lot of our military at the end the cold war and so we relied on an exclusive partnership with Finland; thus, without them, we'd be pretty weak.

[chitowneats]

Losing some amount of autonomy to the U.S. is far preferable to what we are seeing in Ukraine, or even Belarus.

Edit: That being said, Sweden and Finland were already quite integrated as NATO partners. It's unclear to me, a layman, how much is really changing vs. just being formally declared.

[guerrilla]

Not just to the US, but to Turkey. From day one, they demanded we abandon the Kurds abroad, brand them all terrorists and hand over political refugees to them and, starting today, sell them weapons. We had a ban on weapons export to Turkey but now half of our biggest parties refuse to comment on whether that will be upheld.

[ipaddr]

Isn't Turkey vetoing Sweden and Finland entry into nato?

[guerrilla]

They're threatening to unless we concede to all of their demands (which keep multiplying.) Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer.

[pessimizer]

Absolutely no details that we would be aware of. Diplomacy happens behind the scenes.

[leto_ii]

> what made Sweden and Finland finally want to join now after all these years?

Honestly I suspect that's just a momentary bout of mass irrationality (to put it politely). Both countries are completely safe, de-facto NATO members. Russia has no stated or implied interest in invading either. More importantly, Russia has no capacity to do so - they can barely push 50 km into Ukraine as it is.

America, otoh, has a lot to gain in extra weapons sales (remember NATO comes with a 2% of GDP spending target).

[guerrilla]

> America, otoh, has a lot to gain in extra weapons sales (remember NATO comes with a 2% of GDP spending target).

Maybe, but not too likely. OTOH, if you have numbers I'd like to see them. We make our own very high-tech weapons, which have already been NATO standard forever. We even sell some to the US (and Ukraine) and train them. We have been de facto NATO partners for a while.

[leto_ii]

UPDATE COMMENT:

I guess I should have known I was poking the dragon with this one, sorry for that.

Just to clarify things a bit, here's my general position:

1. I have complete sympathy and respect for the Ukrainian cause. They are fighting heroically to defend their country against imperialist aggression. I think my country (Romania) should continue to help refugees as much as possible and should offer military support, with the caveat that this support should be sized appropriately.

2. While in the relation Ukraine-Russia it's clear who's the aggressor and who the victim, there's a second dimension to this war, namely the US-Russia conflict.

For decades the US has extended NATO towards Russian borders and into what Russia considers its sphere of influence. Does Russia have a right to have a sphere of influence? No, no country does. Nevertheless, this is how the world works. America knows this full well (see the fuss it makes over developments in Equatorial Guinea [1] and the Solomon Islands [2]). They have decided to expand NATO not because of some great love for Eastern Europe, but because they're playing great power politics.

This cynical game has now reached the hot war phase. If it wanted to, America could force the sides to start peace negotiations - it's vastly more economically and militarily powerful than Russia; and by now I think even Putin understands how badly he miscalculated this invasion. Alas, that's not what America wants - its stated goal is that of weakening Russia [3], not of reaching peace. The subtext here is that they're willing to let Ukrainians die, as long as more Russians die as well.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-aims-to-thwart-chinas-plan-...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-o...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakede...