Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Mciahel Goodman said:
Obviously they wouldn't but my point was about the idea that Russia couldn't intimidate Finland/Sweeden "not to" join NATO. It is through intimidation from Russia that either will opt to choose NATO membership, or at least that's how it will be justified.
Click to expand...

You've said that Russia's military performance should make Sweden and Finland less likely to join NATO. Yet Russia's military performance has seen air and artillery strikes on major cities, including their capital.

They can both fear Russian aggression and at the same time, not want to see artillery strikes/airstrikes on Helsinki/ Stockholm and other cities, which the Russians have shown themselves well able to carry out, even if the ground operation has at times been chaotic.
 
africanspur said:
You've said that Russia's military performance should make Sweden and Finland less likely to join NATO. Yet Russia's military performance has seen air and artillery strikes on major cities, including their capital.

They can both fear Russian aggression and at the same time, not want to see artillery strikes/airstrikes on Helsinki/ Stockholm and other cities, which the Russians have shown themselves well able to carry out, even if the ground operation has at times been chaotic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well the quickest means of doing that would be to admit both instantly as a long, drawn out, membership process will surely increase the risk of Russian aggression?
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
What's the general consensus in Finland? I think there was a surge in support recently?
Click to expand...
Latest polls says that 62% support a Nato membership, up from 25% at the start of the year. Most of our politicans has also said that they support a membership, except those from The Social Democrats and the Left party who are yet to say their opinion.
My personal guess would be that we will apply for a Nato membership within the next 2 months and i think Sweden will to.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Yeah, well the quickest means of doing that would be to admit both instantly as a long, drawn out, membership process will surely increase the risk of Russian aggression?
Click to expand...
I don't think there's anything preventing NATO troops being present, if Finland wishes so, during the process
 
the hea said:
Latest polls says that 62% support a Nato membership, up from 25% at the start of the year. Most of our politicans has also said that they support a membership, except those from The Social Democrats and the Left party who are yet to say their opinion.
My personal guess would be that we will apply for a Nato membership within the next 2 months and i think Sweden will to.
Click to expand...
Yeah I had seen the 62% figure. Was curious for an inside perspective.
hellhunter said:
I don't think there's anything preventing NATO troops being present, if Finland wishes so, during the process
Click to expand...
I think they'd have to. If they go down that route they'll need a pre-commitment/guarantee and that might be the only way of doing it. Station a lot of NATO troops there while it happens with the signal being that aggression will mean war.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Obviously they wouldn't but my point was about the idea that Russia couldn't intimidate Finland/Sweeden "not to" join NATO. It is through intimidation from Russia that either will opt to choose NATO membership, or at least that's how it will be justified. They will join from Russian intimidation, basically, (or sell it as such), which is at odds with the poster's overall point. A minor quibble either way. Except insofar as you sell the idea of Russia as being weak and no threat based on their actions in Ukraine yet also an enormous threat based on their actions in Ukraine (and this simultaneous idea of a weak and strong Russia has been a prominent theme for a long time).
Click to expand...

Actually the pro-NATO lobbies in here have been working hard lately and Putin's war crimes definitely helped them. The consensus against joining NATO was broad in Finland and opposition was also relatively high in Sweden. I personally think we should both join, we would have a say at the table, and be part of making sure a mandate like Libya's isn't abused the way Sarkozy & Cameroon abused it.

This is how Finland thought about NATO previously. 2014 after the occupation of Crimea 26 % wanted in, and then the support for NATO kept shrinking until recently. (NB: both Yes and No lost support and the undecided increased in that period of "peace")

39-4499165a2ff0aae9230.jpg





Now things are very different. The last poll I can find, it went up to 53 % in the first week of the invasion, and then up to 62 % in the third week...



FN0jTyTXsAQdjSf
 
Pintu said:
Actually the pro-NATO lobbies in here have been working hard lately and Putin's war crimes definitely helped them. The consensus against joining NATO was broad in Finland and opposition was also relatively high in Sweden. I personally think we should both join, we would have a say at the table, and be part of making sure a mandate like Libya's isn't abused the way Sarkozy & Cameroon abused it.

This is how Finland thought about NATO previously. 2014 after the occupation of Crimea 26 % wanted in, and then the support for NATO kept shrinking until recently. (NB: both Yes and No lost support and the undecided increased in that period of "peace")

39-4499165a2ff0aae9230.jpg





Now things are very different. The last poll I can find, it went up to 53 % in the first week of the invasion, and then up to 62 % in the third week...



FN0jTyTXsAQdjSf
Click to expand...
That's interesting. If the invasion is scaled back to the Donbass region on a kind of perpetual basis, and interest dies down over time, I wonder if those numbers will hold. Or has this been a point of no return for Finland and Sweeden? The Russian invasion backfired in many ways, unless their aim was to promote pro-NATO sentiment across Europe.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
That's interesting. If the invasion is scaled back to the Donbass region on a kind of perpetual basis, and interest dies down over time, I wonder if those numbers will hold. Or has this been a point of no return for Finland and Sweeden? The Russian invasion backfired in many ways, unless their aim was to promote pro-NATO sentiment across Europe.
Click to expand...
Most people here based their thinking on the idea that Russia was not a threat to it's neigbours anymore and joining would only serve the purpose of upsetting them. Now that they have showed their true face I don't think there is any going back at least not in the next couple of decades. As the atrocities in Ukraine unravel I think the support will only grow, these polls where made before we knew what had happend in Bucha and the rest of the Kyiv region so the support will probably be much higher already.
 
Last edited:
do.ob said:
And what would that look like? Doubling down on the same propaganda that led people to support the current invasion and all the horrific deeds against Ukranians that come with it. Which logically leads to a national idea of revenge. I can completely understand people who say that it's better to follow through with sanctions and support for Ukraine right now, instead of watching or even helping the Russians rebuild and try again.
Click to expand...

I'm not opting to support Russia or anything like that. Just pointing out that they'll have no army or resources to exact revenge and chances are that a significant proportion of what remains will be occupied with keeping it all together at home. It's still important to think about Russian perspectives and their possible path back into the international community, ideally as a democracy since you generall don't want a authoritarian backed-into-a-corner country armed with nukes to their teeth sitting bedrungingly on your border, even if they're very unlikely to use them and have no conventional forces to rival yours.

Or to phrase it differently: It might be a bit premature to speak about Russia surely losing this war but regardless of how it ends, it is save to say that their nation will be in such a weak postion that it could all break apart. So we better have a plan on how to deal with that situation.

Mciahel Goodman said:
Assuming Russian military will be a shambles unable to reach its previous standard, which was too poor to beat Ukraine, then surely Finland and Sweeden should be less inclined to join NATO? That is, the reason they will give for joining is surely that they are intimidated by Russia? Other words, not joining is the stance which says "we are not intimidated by a poor Russian army".

On the international community. I think there has been a break between Russia and the "west" but not with/between Russia and the international community. India, with a pro-western government, is trading with Russia in rubles (most of the non-Western world either is or will, too: see Pakistan). The Western Asian states (the entire Middle East) have stayed out of the entire topic. The Africans are generally pro-China and China is typically pro-Russia. So I don't see Russia has having lost much in the way of international good will. It will have to deal with the economic fallout which follows complete isolation from two of the world's three largest economic blocs, and that is the primary punishment I see Russia facing. On the other hand, the US and EU continue to buy Russian energy.
Click to expand...

That might sound logical but isn't human nature. Finland's or Sweden's threat of being invaded might have been bigger before the invasion of Ukraine but they didn't know it. And the perceived threat of being invaded is much bigger now that you've seen the images.

If you believe Russia hasn't lost much of its goodwill.. well. I mean, they've lost so much diplomatic weight it's unreal. Nobody will believe a word they say, nobody will listen when they voice concerns, nobody has an interest in agreeing compromises with them. Before this whole mess, Russia already relied heavily on a) intimidation, b) resources and c) the division of the West. The only thing they have left to inimidate are nukes and as a result of their war, the West is far more unified. And on top of that, major Europan players are working to make themselves independent from Russian energy.

What have they left to put on the table? What can they bargain with? They've maneuvered themselves in a situation in which their system is almost destined to fall apart.
 
Zehner said:
If you believe Russia hasn't lost much of its goodwill.. well. I mean, they've lost so much diplomatic weight it's unreal. Nobody will believe a word they say, nobody will listen when they voice concerns, nobody has an interest in agreeing compromises with them. Before this whole mess, Russia already relied heavily on a) intimidation, b) resources and c) the division of the West. The only thing they have left to inimidate are nukes and as a result of their war, the West is far more unified. And on top of that, major Europan players are working to make themselves independent from Russian energy.

What have they left to put on the table? What can they bargain with? They've maneuvered themselves in a situation in which their system is almost destined to fall apart.
Click to expand...
They've lost a lot of good will, but primarily from Western countries. The rest of the world will still deal with them/stay out of it because they're concerned with their own self-interest. I'd say the primary loss for Russia is dual. Economic in terms of EU/US sanctions, if they really work long-term, and diplomatic in terms of undecided Western states divorcing themselves from Russia.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
That's interesting. If the invasion is scaled back to the Donbass region on a kind of perpetual basis, and interest dies down over time, I wonder if those numbers will hold. Or has this been a point of no return for Finland and Sweeden? The Russian invasion backfired in many ways, unless their aim was to promote pro-NATO sentiment across Europe.
Click to expand...

I think it is a complicated debate. In 2014 I remember people saying we are protected by our EU membership and that is probably enough (even though without NATO, the EU armies willing to help wouldn't have the guarantee that they could get here through Norway soil). People would also bring up our obligations towards Erdogan's regime if we were to join NATO. Nobody is talking about that now.

In contrast, now we have to remember that the EU is militarily weaker than it was in 2014, especially since the Brexit, and given that the big countries (Italy, Germany and Spain) haven't invested much in their militaries lately I'd guess Putin's regime doesn't see EU alone as a deterrent.

I personally think there is no going back. Finland is about to decide, and if they join we will have no choice but to follow through. Last week 46 % in Sweden supported joinging NATO, and it increases to 54 % if Finland is joining.
 
An article with personal accounts of different Bucha survivors — help yourself to a google translate (although seeing as it’s BBC, maybe they’ll translate it to English soon enough?):

https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-60996647
 
Ukraine will become a “‘big Israel' with its own face,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared on Tuesday, indicating that his country intends to emulate the Israeli security state in the wake of Russia’s invasion.

“Ukraine will definitely not be what we wanted it to be from the beginning. It is impossible. Absolutely liberal, European – it will not be like that. It [Ukraine] will definitely come from the strength of every house, every building, every person,” Zelenskyy told members of the Ukrainian media during a briefing.

"We will become a ‘big Israel’ with its own face. We will not be surprised if we have representatives of the Armed Forces or the National Guard in cinemas, supermarkets, and people with weapons. I am confident that the question of security will be the issue number one for the next 10 years. I am sure of it.”

However, such measures would not serve to undercut Ukrainian democracy, he added, declaring that “an authoritarian state is impossible in Ukraine.”

“An authoritarian state would lose to Russia. People know what they are fighting for,” he said.

Such language is “not new,” Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Michael Brodsky told Haaretz, stating that the Jewish state has “always been a role model for Ukraine, at least in terms of security and self-protection.”

“Israelis have lived surrounded by enemies for all of their history and Ukraine will be doing the same,” Ukrainian Ambassador Yevgen Korniychuk told Haaretz following Zelenskyy’s comments, declaring that Kyiv did not feel that it could rely on international security guarantees, such as those it received from the West after its 1994 nuclear disarmament.

“Now we have to retain much bigger armed forces against our two neighboring states and that's why our leadership currently sees that, no matter what happens next, [things] in Ukraine will be similar to the security situation in Israel. You will see more armed people in the streets, even when things become more peaceful than they are now."
Click to expand...


More here: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/..._campaign=jewish-world&utm_content=57f57ae0f4
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
They've lost a lot of good will, but primarily from Western countries. The rest of the world will still deal with them/stay out of it because they're concerned with their own self-interest. I'd say the primary loss for Russia is dual. Economic in terms of EU/US sanctions, if they really work long-term, and diplomatic in terms of undecided Western states divorcing themselves from Russia.
Click to expand...
They've probably lost at least a bit of their perceived power projection capability in the middle east as well, given the poor performance of their military. I think right now Saudi Arabia is throwing a bit of a tantrum at the US because Biden doesn't want to acknowledge MBS, and the US isn't as vitally interested in countering Iran as they were in the past 15 years. But I think any thought that Russia can replace the US as the key military partner for these countries is now a premise that at least needs some revision.
 
MTF said:
They've probably lost at least a bit of their perceived power projection capability in the middle east as well, given the poor performance of their military. I think right now Saudi Arabia is throwing a bit of a tantrum at the US because Biden doesn't want to acknowledge MBS, and the US isn't as vitally interested in countering Iran as they were in the past 15 years. But I think any thought that Russia can replace the US as the key military partner for these countries is now a premise that at least needs some revision.
Click to expand...
Yeah, their situation in the Middle East is highly complicated. Also a member of OPEC+ which grants them a natural affinity with some of those states. US did just give the Saudis patriot system but in general the Iran Nuclear Agreement (needed now from an energy point of view) threatens whatever little stability there was in that region. Hard to know.
 
Pintu said:
I think it is a complicated debate. In 2014 I remember people saying we are protected by our EU membership and that is probably enough (even though without NATO, the EU armies willing to help wouldn't have the guarantee that they could get here through Norway soil). People would also bring up our obligations towards Erdogan's regime if we were to join NATO. Nobody is talking about that now.

In contrast, now we have to remember that the EU is militarily weaker than it was in 2014, especially since the Brexit, and given that the big countries (Italy, Germany and Spain) haven't invested much in their militaries lately I'd guess Putin's regime doesn't see EU alone as a deterrent.

I personally think there is no going back. Finland is about to decide, and if they join we will have no choice but to follow through. Last week 46 % in Sweden supported joinging NATO, and it increases to 54 % if Finland is joining.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Yeah, their situation in the Middle East is highly complicated. Also a member of OPEC+ which grants them a natural affinity with some of those states. US did just give the Saudis patriot system but in general the Iran Nuclear Agreement (needed now from an energy point of view) threatens whatever little stability there was in that region. Hard to know.
Click to expand...
I don't meant to be dismissive and suggest that Saudi Arabia has to naturally be aligned with the US, they can certainly chart their own path and it can be closer to Russia. I just don't think from the Russian perspective that it can ever in any significant way replace what they got from trade with Europe.

For sure I agree that the Middle East is more uncertain today than it was at any point post-2003. As much as maybe the rest of the world would like to be done with the Middle East, I don't think that the Middle East is done with us.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
They've lost a lot of good will, but primarily from Western countries. The rest of the world will still deal with them/stay out of it because they're concerned with their own self-interest. I'd say the primary loss for Russia is dual. Economic in terms of EU/US sanctions, if they really work long-term, and diplomatic in terms of undecided Western states divorcing themselves from Russia.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate how much influence they've lost even outside the West. Even leaving morals out of the computation, Russia proved that it is far less potent than the whole world was expecting it to be.

They are also isolated from the largest markets in the world which affects their bargaining positions.

As far as I know, India e.g. stayed neutral in the voting because they receive weapon systems from Russia which they need to deter Pakistan and China. If Russia is unable to provide those, what incentive do they have to stay by their side, possibly angering the EU and the US?
 
Russia gets £3.5 billion less than it forecast for oil and gas in March:

"The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation announced on Tuesday that it received 302billion rubles less than expected for the month of March 2022. The country received oil and gas revenues of 496bilion (4.5billion) rubles in March, but was forecast to receive around 790billion (£7billion)."
 
Zehner said:
I think you underestimate how much influence they've lost even outside the West. Even leaving morals out of the computation, Russia proved that it is far less potent than the whole world was expecting it to be.

They are also isolated from the largest markets in the world which affects their bargaining positions.

As far as I know, India e.g. stayed neutral in the voting because they receive weapon systems from Russia which they need to deter Pakistan and China. If Russia is unable to provide those, what incentive do they have to stay by their side, possibly angering the EU and the US?
Click to expand...

Oil.
This talk of angering the EU and US is overstated in my opinion, there's a reason India hasn't come under the same criticism as China here. India and many other states will move towards cheaper Russian oil and no one will care, the reality is someone has to take that oil and it benefits the world market if they do. Russia will still take the hit having to sell their oil at a reduced rate whilst they also lose leverage on European states moving away from resource dependency.
 
TMDaines said:
Interesting. I’ve spent virtually all my time in Ukraine in the West, and there they have had relatively little armed presence on the streets ever. In fact, since Euromaidan in 2014 the presence has somewhat decreased after the Berkut gendarmerie were disbanded.
Click to expand...

I did have the thought that Ukraine will have to become a borderline militarist state for the forseeable future. They have of course been heading that way for the last 8 years since the first invasions but security and self-defense will have to become a priority on everyones going forward.

Even if they end this war and reach agreement on favourable terms there will always be the threat of insurgency/infiltration from the completely brainwashed terrorist state next door that will no doubt hold massive grudges for their downfall.

There are certainly some parallels you can draw with Israel.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
More here: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/..._campaign=jewish-world&utm_content=57f57ae0f4
Click to expand...

Very counterproductive to say now that you are going to emulate a colonial apartheid state. Make no mistake that's how people in most of the non-Western world view Israel.

I know he probably only meant the internal security policies of Israel, but he should have made that very clear. Israel is not only illiberal. Israel is also profoundly ethnocratic and is imposing on the Palestinians under its rule what Amnesty, HRW, and many others proved to be Apartheid.

This is exactly what Putin's propaganda was trying to frame as the situation of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians. This is also what the far right in Ukraine wanted to be the fate of Roma in Ukraine... If Ukraine were to impose on some minorities even a little bit of what Hebron citizens are living under, then Putin's fascist war would have succeeded in infecting Ukraine for the forseeable future.
 
Simbo said:
I did have the thought that Ukraine will have to become a borderline militarist state for the forseeable future. They have of course been heading that way for the last 8 years since the first invasions but security and self-defense will have to become a priority on everyones going forward.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by borderline, but if it is anything like Israel's then Ukraine can kiss their EU's aspirations goodbye. And that would be a tragedy.
 
Frosty said:
Click to expand...

A more accurate description would be “Lapid accuses Russia”. Lapid is probably the most pro- Western minister in that cabinet.

I’d wait to hear from Bennett before saying “Israel accuses Russia”.

This is how the finance minister spoke yesterday.

 
Pintu said:
Depends on what you mean by borderline, but if it is anything like Israel's then Ukraine can kiss their EU's aspirations goodbye. And that would be a tragedy.
Click to expand...
Surely Ukraine militarizing would be done with funding from EU countries, this might change their calculus. Being an EU country would likely make giving assistance easier.
 
Simbo said:
I did have the thought that Ukraine will have to become a borderline militarist state for the forseeable future. They have of course been heading that way for the last 8 years since the first invasions but security and self-defense will have to become a priority on everyones going forward.

Even if they end this war and reach agreement on favourable terms there will always be the threat of insurgency/infiltration from the completely brainwashed terrorist state next door that will no doubt hold massive grudges for their downfall.

There are certainly some parallels you can draw with Israel.
Click to expand...

It would be perfectly justified for them to become well armed with modern weapons after what just transpired.
 
Smores said:
Oil.
This talk of angering the EU and US is overstated in my opinion, there's a reason India hasn't come under the same criticism as China here. India and many other states will move towards cheaper Russian oil and no one will care, the reality is someone has to take that oil and it benefits the world market if they do. Russia will still take the hit having to sell their oil at a reduced rate whilst they also lose leverage on European states moving away from resource dependency.
Click to expand...

Sure. But we were discussing whether Russia has lost goodwill and diplomtic leverage by invading Ukraine and the poster I was replying to suggested that this was the case only in Western countries, not the rest of the world. If anything India buying cheap Russian oil contradicts that claim.

Regarding the anger of EU and US: I believe this particularly concerns circumvention of sanctions.
 
The tank turret tossing competition is getting ridiculous.


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.