Agnostic.com

3 3

Arguably the US mistake made with Ukraine was encouraging them to move toward NATO membership. That goal for Ukraine has been dropped. Is the US making the same mistake, again, with Finland and Sweden?

[nytimes.com]
U.S. Embraces Finland’s Move Toward NATO Membership. What About Ukraine?
David E. Sanger
May 12, 2022, 7:43 p.m. ET1 hour ago
1 hour ago
David E. Sanger

[theguardian.com]
Vladimir Putin
Putin could use nuclear weapon if he felt war being lost – US intelligence chief

Avril Haines says Russian leader could see prospect of Ukraine defeat as existential threat, potentially triggering escalation
Putin preparing for prolonged war in Ukraine, says top US intelligence official – video
Julian Borger in Washington
Tue 10 May 2022 13.15 EDT

kmaz 7 May 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

folks:

I'm guessing (without knowing that much about it) that one of the reasons the US objected to nuclear-tipped missiles being located in its backyard, during the Cuban missile crisis and perhaps at other times, is that it was particularly justified in objecting to such weapons being located so close by. Likewise, from what I can tell, a reason that Russia has offered for objecting to countries on its borders joining NATO is that this would confer upon the countries the ability to locate nuclear-tipped missiles at Russia's doorstep. While it is in theory "nice" that we have portrayed ourselves as trying to do everything we can for Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, it looks to me like we may have provided Russia a pretext it wanted to enter this period of murderous nouveau-empire-rebuilding. What was gained by so encouraging Ukraine to rattle sabers?

The bear is out of the cage now, and perhaps extraordinarily sharp and knowledgeable psychologists can suggest the best way to handle that situation once that threshold is passed, but it would be great if I was not the only person here trying to discuss in a serious way and understand that the US may well have made a fatal (for Ukrainians) blunder in its approach to post-cold-war NATO membership questions, and it may be doubling down on that same blunder. At least one counter-argument would be that, regardless of whether that was a blunder before, the reality now may be that the best way to contain Russian aggression now is to strengthen NATO. I don't know.

kmaz Level 7 May 14, 2022
0

I’m surprised Finland is not already a NATO member with all the problems they’ve had with the Russians. The primary purpose of NATO was to deter Russian aggression after they established ruthless communist regimes in all the countries they occupied after WW ll. Who can blame Eastern European countries for wanting to be in NATO after that? To bad the Ukraine wasn’t admitted to NATO sooner. Then this war might have been adverted.

1

“Arguably” is the critical adverb. The threat of joining NATO did not require an unprovoked invasion and the wholesale slaughter of Ukrainian civilians by Putin’s soldiers including the assassination of the elderly and women and children noncombatants.

Agreed. Putin stubbed his toe but the resulting phlebitis will kill him. Finland has a million man Army (if they call up Reserves) and an entire nation behind using them. They see Article 5 is their only hope. Suddenly the SoA are getting very popular. We got out of the 20 year war only to engage Russia.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:666032
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.