Stockholm plans to send a "signal to Russia" by allowing NATO troop deployments in Sweden before the country is admitted into the alliance, according to top officials. Turkey is holding up Sweden’s bid to join the bloc.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Defence Minister Pal Jonson announced that Sweden’s military would step-up preparations with NATO in an article published in Dagens Nyheter on Friday. “The preparations may consist of temporary basing of foreign equipment and personnel on Swedish territory. The decision sends a clear signal to Russia and strengthens Sweden’s defense,” they wrote. The joint operations send "a clear signal to Russia that our ability to give and receive military aid is good."
On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported the Swedish and Finnish militaries were rapidly integrating into the alliance due to a campaign by internationalist officials who worked to integrate the Nordic states into the bloc despite public opposition.
"Behind that long-standing public reticence was a meticulous, decades long campaign of preparation by internationalist officials," the WSJ wrote. "Who since the 1990s sought to move their countries as close to the alliance as domestic public opinion – dead set against full membership – allowed."
The article explained, "By the time public and political opinion last year swung behind joining NATO, the Swedish and Finnish militaries had been streamlined to NATO standards through participating in joint missions for 30 years."
Last year, Sweden and Finland broke their long-standing policy of neutrality and formally applied to join the North Atlantic alliance. Their bid met stiff opposition from Turkey, which believes the Nordic states provide too much support for Kurdish groups that Ankara labels terrorist organizations.
A trilateral pact between Ankara, Stockholm and Helsinki led to Turkey lifting its opposition to Finland’s membership. However, Ankara says that Stockholm has refused to fully comply with the agreement and is still preventing Sweden from joining the bloc.
Russian officials have said Moscow will respond to NATO expanding its presence in Finland and Sweden. In December, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that "given NATO’s desire to increase its military potential near the Russian borders, as well as to expand the alliance by adding Finland and Sweden, it is necessary to take retaliatory measures and to create an appropriate grouping of troops in the northwest of Russia."
The Washington-led alliance believes Sweden becoming a member will significantly change the geopolitical dynamics in the region. If Sweden and Finland join NATO, it could turn the Baltic Sea into an "inner sea of NATO," Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur explained in September.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.
**The soldiers and equipment from NATO countries would be sent to Sweden before Stockholm is admitted into the alliance**
all of that just to *send a signal to Russia*
“take that Russia – ha!”
When they are asked to send soldiers and equipment to Ukraine before they are admitted into the alliance, the people of Sweden may begin to understand what joining NATO 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 means.
They have already been sending more equipment than the NATO average members and no NATO country will be asked to send soldiers – that only happens in Putin’s wet dreams.
They already know. They’re aware of the Russian threat and they’ve reacted accordingly.
There goes neutrality…
More militarization where previously existed decades of calm only serves the interests of those who benefit from it. Typically that doesn’t involve normal folk.
Well, Saab and Ericson and others are very happy …
How long will there be a NATO to expand? Looks like NATO is about to croak, the sooner the better for the people in Sweden.
There is no plausibility why the Swedes and Fins want to unite with a dying NATO, an alliance where the members stab each other in the back., see the pipeline sabotage against Germany and EU by the US, Norway, Sweden, UK and Denmark and the SILENCE and not even an INVESTIGATION. What an alliance. Who would trust them unless they are bribed or coerced or totally deranged to join such an outfit?
NATO declared war on Germany, its ALLY, when they sabotaged the pipeline.
But they do by quite a large margin in Finland and by a margin large enough to make the reluctant Swedish parties change their stance on neutrality – simply because they were hemorrhaging support to parties that were for joining NATO (the same happened in Finland where the leading party lost votes to more pro NATO parties).
There was not silence in Denmark and Sweden about the pipeline explosions – these were investigated by our authorities – what did not happen and what you are probably complaining about was a UN investigation.
So basically (our allies in the case of Denmark) the NATO and other Security Council members did not vote for an investigation only Brazil, China and Russia did – voting for that kind of investigation would basically be a sign of distrust in the Swedish/Danish investigation team’s competence and or independence.
NATO could only do so if it was a NATO decision – it was not, it may have been the action of one NATO member country, but that does not make it a NATO action.
It was the leader of the NATO alliance, and that leader respects no laws, the leader has license to do as he wishes.
Denmark and Sweden claimed they investigated and refused to make any results public. THERE IS NOT A SLIVER OF EVIDENCE THAT AN INVETIGATION WAS DONE, NOT A SLIVER. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY DID IT, WHY INVESTIGATE WHEN YOU KNOW YOU DID IT?? And all NATO member states accepted that with no questions asked? And now they try to claim unknown Ukrainians did it and all NATO members had been informed. Give me a break, Scholz claims they know who did, but they can’t tell? That confirms that Seymour Hersh is correct, if he were wrong they would put the results of their investigation ON THE TABLE, if there ever was AN INVESTIGATION. Why don’t they tell who did it, does that make sense? They can’t even come up with a plausible lye because it is all so insane. NATO declared war in secret, behind closed doors and Scholz stood there and smiled, a traitor of his country and true of the most NATO governments.
I think most elections in NATO nations are rigged. With an honest election Germany would not have such a treasonous government as it now has. That is true for Sweden and Finland, what exactly are they gaining by giving up their neutrality to join an untrustworthy and fouling alliance. What are they gaining for what price? No one has yet to say what they get in return. Michael64, if you have an answer I would like to hear it. Ukraine is losing, Sweden and Finland can’t change that by becoming NATO members.
Jens Stoltenberg did what exactly???
We made findings public – it was not the page turner many hoped for, but then if they had found a dead Russian sailor I would have really doubted it, as I would had they found a dead US sailor.
Both the Russians and the US would have been able to do the job without leaving traces that pointed to themselves – you should be more suspicious of a clear cut signal from such an investigation – what has come out of the investigation was that Russian ships were staying still with their trace systems turned off for many hours just 4 days before the explosions.
Now if I was unfair I would claim this proved they did it, but they might have been there because they had or thought they had seen suspicious activity in the area, only why did they switch off their equipment then?
There were several reports form the investigation – we cannot be blamed if the MSM does not carry the story
https://www.information.dk/indland/2023/04/forsvaret-bekraefter-rusland-specialfartoej-naer-nord-streams-spraengningspunkt
No I guess they accepted the reports by the Danish and Swedish authorities.
Where have you seen this claim, not from NATO do you have a link?
There was and the results were publicized that you are poorly informed does not make the actions of others suspicious.
Could it be because it is not completely clear? As pointed out Russian ships at the very site of the explosions just days ahead of the explosions requires an explaniation at the very least.
US/UK elections are far less democratic than those in EU – there is absolutely no reason to doubt the democratic nature of the majority of elections in EU – and all polling you can do shows a marked increase in the support for NATO membership in the overwhelming number of members.
Now as it is the electorate that has taken the decision more so than the politicians (for once) I cannot tell you what the individuals expect to get out of it except the obvious – not to risk facing the Russians alone at some point in a not too distant future.
There used to be a sizable part of the Danish electorate which was against our NATO membership – we had a referendum on our defense reservations connected with our EU membership* the anti NATO parties who were therefore also against this EU defense issue conducted polling in May and April and simply had to yield, so they came out and stated that while they would like an alternative to NATO they had to concede that there were no current viable alternatives.
* a common procurement program to kit EU armies out to common standards – seen very much as a way to get more bang for the buck and be better NATO partners.
I had a sociology professor who was from Sweden.
She was a very interesting woman whose classes were about foreign cultures as well as domestic and how that’s sliced and diced.
She was pretty in that classical Swedish blond busty airline stewardess way to give you a image of her……
She shared that despite the popular culture’s way of describing Sweden’s neutrality they traded with Germany in that wonderful “neutral” way and her generation (she was born in the 60’s) was extremely troubled how that trade enabled that crazy house painter’s war to continue.
I can imagine how that memory has influenced their decision today.
Putin’s reputation is not the best and that historical memory that to some is shameful, like my old professor, so one can see how their old neutrality views in regards to war is not something they want to repeat.
I also knew a gal from Finland but she’s likely more concerned about the lack of quality women’s clothes to buy here and she needs to make a trip home just like always….
Truly, Swedes redefined dumb blonde.
Er, Anylyzer, I’m (a natural) blonde!
Odd, considering my heritage.
And that “signal” is just like the other “signals” that caused this war. First you poke the bear for 30 years and when those provocations finally pay off, you double down and blame the bear.
!!!
So you think that the Russians should have the right to decide Swedes defense policy!?
No, Sweden can do anything they like. But since NATO expansion has been at the heart of Russia’s security concerns one might think surrounding them with more NATO aligned countries might exacerbate the situation.
Joining NATO was top of the whish list for many/most of the countries that joined since 1991, it was so because they genuinely feared their very large neighbor. None of them saw it as NATO being expanded to provoke Russia – that I grant you is how the Russians saw it.
The dynamics* is now so that the ones not joining are the ones the most likely to face the kind of issues that they would want to join NATO to avoid – so not necessarily outright invasion but every kind of coercion right up to invasion.
Sweden bucked that trend for 30 years – but in the light of the SMO public opinion was set in motion and their politicians adapted to this new ‘normal’ – and consequently most of the political parties followed the change in public opinion:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/660842/survey-on-perception-of-nato-membership-in-sweden/#:~:text=By%20May%202022%2C%20nearly%2060,decision%20to%20join%20the%20alliance.
In other words the Russian view is only being taken into account to the extend that the individual in those countries sees that as a deciding factor. So only the other NATO members objecting to a new applicant (which otherwise lives up to the requirements to join) can keep such applicants out – barring military conflicts with their neighbors (naturally).
Joining NATO was top of the whish list for many/most of the countries that joined since 1991, it was so because they genuinely feared their very large neighbor.
I quit reading right there. It portends the bullshit that will follow.
Is it that you do not believe that they feared their very large neighbor? Is it that you think it absurd that smaller countries having been invaded repeatedly by their larger neighbors should quit fearing that this might repeat itself?
This was the sentiment in many of these countries, nit my value judgement of what they believed!
So if it is BS then it is the BS that the electorates will tell you repeatedly.
If they did, I don’t believe it was because of a “genuine” fear of another Russian (USSR) invasion. Especially given how weak Russia was during that time period.
The public feared a Russian invasion (or coercion) and possibly not at the very same period – though the ability of e.g. the Estonians to resist a Russian invasion was to say the least dubious. If you treat it as if it was a process driven by the politicians, you miss out on the point that what the electorates fear is often not driven by realistic scenarios.
Furthermore from the time they started the process to that they were let in at least 5 years passed – so their fear should not be measured against how realistic it was in 1991, but how much trouble they might have been in by 1996.
I don’t disagree about the public. They can be swayed very easily. But I’ll contend that there was an actual threat of invasion by Russia.
And since the process started in the same year the cold war ended, as you say, how should have Russia looked at that? In a positive manner with a feeling of trust?
You were right on the bullshit following.
First point, I actually agree that there was no imminent threat of a Russian invasion, not after how the SMO has developed, but then people act upon more long term fears as-well (Germany was no threat to its neighbors in 1929 but just 10 years later…). As for swaying the populations – was it easy? It only took the SMO, there were no new political parties trying to sway the populations the ones that had been for NATO started polling much better in March, April, May only then did the political parties follow the the voters. All attempts to sway the voters had failed up to then – so easy only for Putin!
I’m not blaming Russia for feeling ‘hurt’ but if they had understood that they were about as welcome in the former Warsaw pact countries as Germany were among its neighbors in 1946 then they might better have understood what was going on.
The Russians (many/most of them) did not see this – the saw themselves as friends and were taken aback by the strength of the resentment in those nations – perhaps that is why they thought it was brought on by outside influence?
We were talking about 1991. The year the USSR collapsed. There was no need for NATO expansion, or the start of any process for joining NATO, regardless of Germany of 1929.
And then you double down on the bullshit and ignore the part about the process starting the very year the cold war ended by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant shit. The provocations started immediately. You admitted as much yourself.
What business does the USA have in Europe? No one invaded the USA but the USA invaded every continent with the exception of little Australia a British colony.
The USA is the bully, they do attack smaller nations, they did not ask to get the S.W. they used military force to get it. The American Indians and all the broken treatise, how many? And all were broken. Must be a record. There was the little Reagan /Grenada invasion, remember that? Latin America, don’t mention the Monroe Doctrine.
And all that within a 200 year history compare with the Chinese thousands of years of history, of civilization.
The US is supporting the Ukrainians – for the sake of salvaging the already somewhat tattered world order we have had since 1945 – you may not like it, but that is as far as I can see the most important reason that they support the Ukrainians, should they end their support then the European nations would continue their support there is no other way now.
The US is really bad on that we agree – that does not make the Russian’s good.
Wars are about resources and power. The Ukrainians are cannonfodder. The nation is being annihilated for USA interests, If you believe out of kindness you are a fool? Biden maybe unintentionally spilled the beans, he said” Putin must go” implying regime change, maybe Navalny to replace Putin, and Austin added the war is to weaken Russia. They said it in public, it is on video, millions of people could hear it. That is the truth, nothing but the truth. They want control of Russian resources, to privatize the Russian mineral wealth to be owned by American energy giants and NOT the Russian people. Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela come to mind.
Yes!
To the extent this is at all true it is because the Russians want to end the wants to end the idea of a Ukrainian identity – i.e. they offer the Ukrainians no palatable alternative to fighting.
No for their own interests – the US could not motivate the Afghans to fight they could not motivate the Ukrainians to do so either – Russian promises of ethnic cleansing is much more of a motivation than anything the west has done.
The west is supporting Ukraine only because it happens to align with their policy goals i.e. keep the world order more or less where it is – meaning no nation should be allowed to start wars to annex territory without facing consequences.
It is very likely our goal, it is not politically correct to say so, but it certainly would not be an unwelcome outcome – though the Navalny part is not part of this – but certainly weakening Russia to the extent that it cannot threaten its small neighbors is a goal – that is if the Russians are not wise and end the SMO by leaving Ukraine as defined in 1994.
Yes it is not a secret – if a nation violates the international norm of annexing territory by war of aggression then that is how we are supposed to react.
Not a lot of people would bother to disagree with what Biden said as in those would be very nice things to achieve – the issue is that we are not at war with Russia, so it is Russia which gets to decide how long the shooting war lasts.
This is however patently absurd – if Putin left Ukraine today and there would be no basis for any western control over Russian resources – and even was Putin to be ousted, there is not much likelihood of the kind of calm needed for western companies to invest in ‘control’ over the resources of Russia.
The Russians offered neutrality, peace and prosperity, now look what NATO offered, blood and death, suffering and annihilation, a nation in shambles. They could have become another Austria and look what they got.
No the Russians did not, what they offered was loss of territory and subjugation – NATO offered weapons support, any annihilation has to come from the Russians and can only come as long as the Ukrainians wish to prolong the fight – NATO leaves that for the Ukrainians to decide.
Wars, you are the windshield and Michael is the bug 😉
Feared Russia?.. These countries were looking in the wrong direction.
Again this was the fear of the citizens of those countries, you are arguing that people should fear someone else than what they actually do. That may be well founded or it may not, what remains the same is that the countries wanting to join NATO was not to provoke Russia but because the electorates feared Russian aggression.
Russia threatened no one, NATO encircled and threatened Russia, that was the NATO goal, to keep Russia out, Germany down and the US IN. The UK was the US PROXY. De Gaulle said it, the British are no continental Europeans, history has proven him right.
No NATO did not threaten Russia (if then no more than Russia threatened NATO), but yes keeping Russia out of NATO was very much a goal.
US dominance has been an issue, however all European countries have expressed a very significant preference for US dominance over that of Russian dominance.
The only reason to create NATO was to fight Russia and for that they needed W. Germany to form a new army, the Bundeswehr. That need made the German recovery after the war possible. That need to break Russia up saved Germany.
The US empire used coercion to get its way, that is what empires do, the conquest and genocide of the American Indians was brutal and easy because the Europeans had the guns. Empires are not altruistic they are Predators. The Anglo-Saxons are no exception.
Just factually incorrect NATO was first created as a guard against Germany and the Soviets – not to fight them but to defend against an attack by them. West Germany was only included in 1955.
The US and other nations have done a lot of bad in distant pasts – if we restrict ourselves to the relevant period i.e. after 1991, the US is by far and away the worst actor on the planet, that does not excuse what Russia is doing in any way whatsoever.
What they really wanted was EU membership and being a NATO member would help.
No NATO membership is not a path to EU membership – it is a path to more investments though.
What kind of investments are you talking about?
Foreign investments.
Sounds like that is the purpose. What is it Sweden gains?
They are encircling Russia as they did Germany before WWI.
No, I think US should not have military forces outside our country. If that happens, there’s no NATO for Sweden to join.
That is a domestic policy decision for the US citizens to take – the result of the US adopting a Monroe doctrine (again) would very likely be at first very expensive militarily but then likely yield much better results for the domestic economy as the dollar would also likely lose its position as reserve currency.
It would however not mean that there would be no NATO troops for Sweden – EU was faced with the US ending its collaborative NATO stance back under Trump’s precedency and we should be very grateful for that, as this meant that we had some years to prepare.
If the US was to leave NATO, the European countries would put their defense collaboration on steroids – there simply would be no alternative. But then if you are a US citizen it probably would be of less concern for you. The main point being that NATO would be much weakened but it would be twice as unlikely to split up – not that there was much danger of that after the SMO anyway.
Without the US and Turkey, NATO is a social club for rich countries. Nothing wrong with that, of course …
Why would you think Turkey would leave NATO?
Why not?
For the obvious reason that they have more benefits out of being in NATO than leaving it – unless you can make a compelling argument for why it would be in their interest there is no real reason contemplate a very remote possibility – remember that they were only able to join together with Greece, thus leaving will make rejoining very difficult.
Only for the Bilderberg/Davos billionaires, and politicians, the war profiteers elite. Wars are their business. They are the deep state.
You are wrong, Europe must get rid of the Anglo-Saxons, they have to go. They leave nothing but trails of blood and death and ruins, they are the world’s real warmongers. Without the US and UK and Boris Johnson Zelensky was willing to compromise with Russia in March 22, but it was the Anglo-Saxons who stopped it, costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives and homes and properties. They are bad people and NATO nations are
the accomplices of war crimes.
They certainly are often a pain in the back.
Ukraine might have made peace as it stood they had not caved to the Russian demands of recognizing the LPR and DPR nor had they accepted to relinquish the claim to Crimea. Even had Johnson not interfered the EU would have placed sanctions on Russia for the next decades so the Russians would have been in the shit anyway.
Not supported by any evidence!
The annihilation of Ukraine is a war crime, what more evidence is needed? USA provoked this war going back to the brutal illegal regime change in 2014 and the funding arming and training of the Ukraine military to NATO standards. Why did the USA get involved in the Ukrainian regime change in a country thousands of miles removed on another continent?
If it is then it is being carried out by the Russians – so they are the criminals!
That does in no way make them responsible for the annihilation of Ukraine – that is on the country doing the invasion and killing.
I have not seen conclusive evidence that the US did – not beyond Victoria Nuland expressing US preferences for which person do what in the temporary administration (until the next elections could be held) – You have any convincing evidence – of the smoking gun type?
I’m happy to have not a drop of Anglo blood. I am Mediterranean, Gallic, and African. And I’m rockin’ it 😁
History is more complex, it is more than 200 years US national history.
The last conflict between Sweden and Russia was 1808 and ended in 1809. In how many wars have the USA been involved during the last 200 years. Some 150 years of neutrality paid off for Sweden, Austria has been neutral for decades and Switzerland is the oldest neutral nation and they do not want it any other way.
Do you honestly believe that Ukraine is now better off than if it were a neutral nation?
The USA has been bullying other nations, altruism did mot motivate the US ever.
What in god’s name does Canada gain from being a NATO member? It would not be protected if it did not do as told by Washington D.C. See what they did to Germany when it did not do as told.
It is however what the VIkings did is not of much relevance now.
Sure and?
Not for me to decide, and the Ukrainians did not have that choice, they would have to recognize the LPR and DPR plus end claims to Crimea – so not a relevant choice!
Sure, that does not force us to allow the Russians to do the same does it?
Not for me to say that is for the Canadians to decide they have a functioning democracy if anyone wants to run for office on a ticket of leaving NATO they are free to do so.
What was Germany told to do?
And what did who do to Germany when Germany did not do that?
The Ukraine had no choice because they lost their sovereignty after the USA funded and controlled regime change.
Germany was forbidden to buy energy from Russia, that had to be stopped, that is what the sabotage of NS is all about, the destruction of an industrial economy, you should know that by now, plus there were sanctions against Russia they were to implement. But you will deny it. It does not fit in your narrative. Germany is still occupied with thousands of American troops stationed in Germany.
These are pertinent facts I expect you will just deny or ignore.
You do know Zelensky was about to compromise with Russia in MARCH 2022 when Boris JOHNSON from the UK traveled to UKRAINE TO STOP THE NEGOTIATIONS? REMEMBER THAT? If it does not fit YOUR narrative you don’t recall it.
The Ukrainians toppled their government in 2014 – the new administration proceeded to hold democratic elections as fast as they could organize it – that election ended any democratic legitimacy problems associated with the ousting of the legal government of Yanukovych.
Germany was not forbidden to buy energy (not even gas) from Russia, and did not stop buying gas or energy from Russia in September 2022 – the Russians had ended gas supplies via the NS line before the sabotage and nothing was delivered through it – other gas lines were supplying gas until well after September 2022.
So clearly the sabotage was not about forcing Germany – otherwise they would also have had to end the pipelines which were actually in operation and not stick to the ones which were not.
EU was the ‘power’ behind those sanctions – the US even decided that it was EU that could decide on the price cap for Russian oil – so no one forced Germany on the sanctions as far as I know – you have any links showing this not to be the case?
I’ll not deny it, I’ll simply ask for better evidence that Germany wanted to defy EU and thus erode their position in the union – you know evidence that they would willingly destroy the basis for their economic success – not merely make energy more expensive.
If they are you no doubt can show them to be so with many links. I can link to the votes on sanctions in EU, but I guess you would just claim that the Germans voted as they were told by their overlords in those too.
I apparently know the story better than you – the negotiations had at that point not progressed beyond the Russians demanding recognition of Crimea as Russian and LPR and DPR as independent – a thing that the Ukrainians had indicated they were not willing to do.
My one up vote isn’t enough for this comment!!
Biden is doing all he can to stab NATO members in the back. In the end there will be no NATO, no EU.
You don’t get it, the Swedish people should have decided not the corrupt oligarch elite who are profiteering from wars.
And the Swedish people did decide it, or are you not aware of how they cast their votes in the 2022 election.
The people did not decide, they were manipulated to believe whatever they were told. It is time to accept the fact that our officials serve the people who paid to put them in office, big money not working middle class people. Votes have no money value.
Do you have any evidence that there was a manipulation – because I live in the area, and there was no attempt to win over the electorate for NATO membership – in the light of all polls showing a dramatic change in popular opinion most parties accepted NATO membership as part of their political program.
As that was the case there was no massive campaign to argue for joining – in that sense you could say that it was not debated properly, but then it has been debated before several elections before when there was a majority against joining. The notion that this was part of a concerted manipulation to change peoples mind is not supported by the actual political campaigns.
Big money plays a much less important role in the elections in all Scandinavian countries – we simply do not have the flawed kind of system that exists in the US.
Scandinavians are human and just as greedy and corruptible. The Olof Palme time is over, his assassination remains unsolved, just like the JFK assassination. Then there was Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld Swedish economist and diplomat.
Factually incorrect the Scandinavian countries are known for being the least corrupt in the world and the most egalitarian countries in the world.
That has not made Sweden more corrupt or greedy.
Sure – again this does not show that Scandinavians have abandoned the Scandinavian model.
All I want to point out Scandinavian politicians are human. So many years living in peace and prosperity under the umbrella of neutrality is likely to end. The world is closing in on Scandinavians.
Sure we are humans too – but quite different when it comes to greed and corruption – the Swedes and Finns very much agrees with you that ‘So many years living in peace and prosperity under the umbrella of neutrality’ has ended – the prosperity was not caused by neutrality however, as that made those two countries spend a lot more on defense than Denmark and Norway.
After they have joined NATO they will not be seeing any significant problems, if they do they would have done as bad or worse out of NATO as that would require nuclear war in Europe.
It is NATO’S job to prevent nuclear war in Europe and the world, but that is not what they are doing, they escalate on orders from Nuland, Biden is too demented and not in charge.
NATO serves the American Military Industrial Complex, and the huge war profiteering. NATO is throwing the continent under the bus. The Ukrainian people and the Europeans pay the price while the Americans are making the profits. Germany is in a recession and that will hit the EU badly. The pipeline sabotage was a declaration of war against Europe. The USA did it and that is why the Swedes can’t tell, they gave up neutrality some time ago. And MSM is not about to tell the truth. If we are lucky and avoid a nuclear war Europe is likely to look like the ME and Ukraine when it is over, and it will take generations to recover.
The international corporate/political elite which meets in Davos and the Bilderberg oligarchs are the real war criminals.
No it is NATO’s job to keep Russia (the Soviets before them) from invading NATO members – preventing nuclear war is nowhere in the protocol. So what NATO is doing is not in conflict with NATO’s purpose at all.
Yes that is what we implicitly agreed upon in the treaty, it is not a stated goal but it was always the only/likely outcome – that is how advantages of scale work in industrial production.
None of the NATO countries agrees with you, correction perhaps the fascist Hungarian government does.
Yes because it is our misfortune to share a border with an aggressive Russia.
Yes as is China and that will hit the whole world – a recession is coming – with or without the SMO. The issue is that if the west did not apply sanctions and allowed wars of aggression for territorial conquest to be the new norm the recession would be much longer and much deeper – as more countries would be investing much more in defense and we would face nuclear proliferation as only nukes would deter aggressive neighbors – while it used to be that a country only needed nukes if it needed to deter US aggression.
The pipeline sabotage is still an unanswered question – do you have an explanation for why the Russians had ships ‘parked’ over the explosion sites just 4 days prior to the sabotage – if not then you have only allegations and no proof. The Swedes gave up on neutrality in 1945, and much further so in 2014, but it was only post SMO that the Swedish population backed NATO membership.
You inhabit a different world from me, here the MSM is not a monolith and does not even remotely tell the same story – but the media here as many other places is more likely to tell the story that gives them higher revenue, so fewer telling it from a Russian perspective.
If we avoid nuclear war EU will look like it does now as in Russia will not attack NATO with conventional weapons. That said Europe, Russia, Ukraine and China are facing a demographic collapse which will make them backwaters of the economic world.
As bad as I find these people the war criminals are the people engaging in war.
What NATO nation did Russia attack? Kosovo was bombed by NATO not Russia. Ukraine had the option of neutrality, peace and prosperity, but BIDEN said no way, NO negotiation with Russia, Putin must go and Russia must be weakened. There are some politicians with decency and integrity, Orban of Hungary is one of them. In Washington we have a bunch of criminals, they pay the creep in Kiev for using his nation as cannon fodder.
The USA is the global evil, they are trouble wherever they go. I could say more, but that is wasting my time.
Michael the Oligarchs make the wars for which others pay, it is big business for the shareholders and their bank accounts, they have the political power to do it, the people on the bottom are VICTIMS, the oligarchs do the white color war crimes for which the little guys pay with their blood, their life and their taxes, WAKE UP to the real world.
None but it did attack two neighbors which were not NATO members, which is why many of Russia’s neighbors want to join NATO.
Yes and?
That deal was never on offer – only the deal where Ukraine had to cede Crimea to Russia and recognize the DPR and LPR as-well as remain neutral – so a vassal to Putin.
I can see a patter starting to emerge – you are a sucker for the autocratic kind of rulers.
The President of Ukraine is elected and will face elections again if not sooner then when this war is over – meanwhile he is more popular than your idol Putin.
This pare we can almost agree upon.
You have missed out on the Russian goal of ethnically cleansing Ukraine and eliminating any trace of a Ukrainian identity – something that is likely to motivate a lot of Ukrainians to fight – as for the Russians – they more than likely agree with the gist of what you wrote here – because it is true for them.
“Ukraine had the option of neutrality’
No, it didn’t.
It had the choice of being a Russian imperial satrapy or a US/EU/NATO imperial satrapy.
Being an imperial Russian satrapy got it a US/EU/NATO imperialist coup.
Being an imperial US/EU/NATO satrapy got it a Russian imperialist invasion.
It kind of sucks to be Ukraine.
They made the wrong choice, they lost their sovereignty with the regime change in 2014. They did have the OPTION of neutrality peace and prosperity, they turned it down, Austria took it and see how it compares to be a satrapy of the US. Neutrality was supported by the Europeans and the UN 100%, only the USA did not support it out of US hegemon interests not to benefit the Ukrainians, for the benefit of the USA only. Go on and fool your-self, that is what you are doing.
You have a problem with reality, you want to shape it to fit your NARRATIVE. The Ukrainian regime chose to be a satrap of USA/NATO and this is what it got. Talk about a really bad decision, this was it! Every one knew it, the only people who refused see the reality where the insanely Russophobe neocons.
The Obama/Biden people did a criminal regime change against the ELECTED president in Kiev and that GOT THEM A WAR OF ANNIHILATION which even now the Biden regime refuses to end, he is forcing the Ukrainians to fight until the last Ukrainian man, not vise versa the way the criminal NATO leadership wants us to believe. NATO WANTS THEM TO FIGHT UNTIL THE LAST MAN STANDING, not the Ukrainian people, they do not want their sons and fathers killed for Americans, get real. Zelensky is a traitor, he sold his country like Judas did Jesus, according to the bible, and the Europeans do the same to their nation, all for a few lumpy $$$$.
No decency, no integrity, greed is all they know.
The Russian offer of neutrality was sincere, the liars sit in Washington. 99% of the congressional members are accomplices to the war crime of genocide committed against the Ukrainian people.
Given their location between two
“superpower” empires, “neutrality” was never an “option.”
They’d have likely been better off remaining a Russian imperial satrapy, but the US/EU/NATO imperialist coup dragged them to the other alternative. And that had consequences.
Thomas, we will never know since Russia was never taken up on it. Austria did and Finland did they did very well. Finland will find out if it was a good Idea to give it up or not. With your attitude, nothing is an option ever.
Nothing the USA offers is an option, the US pushed the Ukrainians to apply for NATO membership and now look what they got for it. What about all the broken US treaties, starting with all the American Indians treaties, yea, look what they got for trusting the Americans. We could go on, just to say neutrality was no option, you can’t back au with a rational and realistic explanation. It would have worked, the only people who did not want it to work were the Russophobe neocon nut-jobs like Biden, Blinken, Nuland, Sullivan, Fiona Hill and all the other idiots like the Kagan clan, real war criminals, look what they have done to the Ukrainian people.
There are all kinds of options. Both the US and Russian empires have exercised many of those options.
Ukraine had few options because it was caught between those two empires.
Austria was able to be neutral because Stalin wasn’t willing to spill more of his own troops’ blood fighting for it at that particular time, and then the Cold War brought the situation into stasis. Finland was able to be neutral because it had proven that it could bloody the Russian imperial nose and didn’t feel like it needed NATO protection at the time.
Ukraine was always going to be a Russian or US imperial satrapy. Neither of those two empires was willing to let it be neutral. It would probably have been better off remaining a Russian satrapy like Belarus. But the US-sponsored coup messed that up for them.
I don’t especially blame Putin for being willing to go to war to try to slow the Russian empire’s decline. I just don’t pretend that the reasons are any more complicated than that. And there was always a chance that Zelenskyy would be willing to turn quisling like the Kadyrovs did in Chechnya, which had actually tried to be independent rather than just switching imperial loyalties, and that the US would have lost out.
Be objective, the blindly fanatic PNAC neocons have put a time bomb under the US hegemon, they already set the detonator, the clock is ticking away, and the end of the American empire is near. A conventional war will do.
There is talk Nuland was the one who gave Zelensky the OK to blow up the Dam. And of course the idiot clown did it. That would be so much like her, it is plausible, Biden is only a sideline president.
I am a bit confused and can’t understand where you really stand. I conclude you mean that the the USA/NATO coup dragged them to not opt for neutrality? If I understand you correctly I fully agree with you.
It’s not that complicated: There was never any “neutrality” option. The options were:
1) Be a Russian satrapy; or
2) Be a US/EU/NATO satrapy.
Ukraine was a Russian satrapy until the US-sponsored coup in 2014, after which it was a US/EU/NATO satrapy. And if Putin’s invasion hadn’t turned into a fiasco, it would have gone back to being a Russian satrapy. Small countries caught between big players, each of which wants to control them, don’t have “neutrality” as an option.
Do you really believe what you are posting? Frankly, you make no sense, you try to make reality fit your narrative. To the point, the Biden/Nuland neocon politic is a fiasco. All of us will pay dearly for the Biden neocon fiasco. Washington DC has become an insane asylum, we are being “governed” by a bunch of deranged people. They are disconnected from the average American people. there is no rational opposition in either party. Big mouth people like the idiot Lindsey Graham make noise in favor of more war and that is it. Some progressives only softly suggested diplomatic talk and where immediately booed, and cowardly as they are immediately they retracted a mild case of public opinion. MSM not a single voice of dissent. What a disaster, the nation has become a decaying hegemon. Keep telling yourself all is coming up roses, the nation has great leadership, Joe Biden knows what he is doing and the whole world loves the USA.
How sick, what else is there to say?
You’re correct. Washington DC and Moscow are insane asylums, full of deranged sociopaths who think it’s their job to “govern” everyone on earth.
How can you tell, Biden did not dare to take Putin up on the option, the the detailed neutrality offer, he did not even consider the Russian offer? What was he afraid of?
Biden is not the president of Ukraine and had no power to make Ukraine “neutral” even if Putin’s definition of “neutral” wasn’t “return to being a Russian satrapy.”
The Americans never supported the Minsk agreement, that is why the Ukrainian vassals never implemented it.
And the Europeans gave up and did not push to implement it. They will pay dearly for not forcing the implementation when they could have by NATO simply not funding the war.
They could have let Biden blow in the wind.
“The Americans never supported the Minsk agreement, that is why the Ukrainian vassals never implemented it.”
Was lack of American support also the Russians’ excuse for not implementing it?
The Russians supported the agreement and their negotiating points from Dec. 2021 were in large measure based on implementing the Minsk agreement. Minsk was endorsed by the UN also, only the US made no effort to help end the civil war, which the Nuland Regime Change caused. You tend to ignore anything which does not support your indoctrinated government narrative.
Russia always supported the Minsk agreements, the diplomatic offer to negotiate in Dec. 2021 was based on the Minsk agreement, which had been endorsed by the UN and for which the Americans lifted not a finger.
The Biden did not bother to negotiate to avoid an avoidable war. It is Biden’s war, like it or not, Biden wanted this war.
“Russia always supported the Minsk agreements”
Sure, other than making damn sure that the monitors required for the agreed referendums to be held never got the required protected access to do their job, ensuring that the referendums couldn’t be held even if Ukraine wanted to hold them. But yeah, other than that, Russia always “always supported” the Minsk agreements.
Negotiating on the basis of the Minsk agreements wasn’t Biden’s job. The US was not signatory to the Minsk agreements. The three signatory parties were the Ukrainian regime, the Russian regime, and the separatists.
And it was never unclear that all three parties were using the Minsk agreements as delaying tactics to improve their military positions.
Ukraine has only an American puppet pretending to be president. The USA is in charge in Ukraine since the regime change. This is all about enlarging American unilateral hegemony and be in control of Russian resources,
UKRAINE IS NOTHING BUT CANNON FODDER.
ONE MUST BE IRRATIONAL TO BELIEVE ALL THE IRRATIONAL BULL SHIT coming from the WH AND CONGRESS.
I do not live in Sweden so I am not aware that NATO membership was an honest campaign issue in 2022. I am not aware of any public debate in Finland either.
All I can say that as far as I know there was no real detailed information about any advantage or disadvantage of NATO MEMBERSHIP. Neither Sweden nor Finland had been threatened by Russia or faced any hardships related to the Ukrainian conflict.
Now, maybe you can tell me what I may have missed.
I live 15 miles from Sweden and can understand and read Swedish without problems – so I know.
It has been a debated subject in Sweden for at least the last 8 years – enjoying little political support and less popular support right up until 2022 – only then did attitudes change. The Swedes are well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of NATO membership.
You have missed that NATO membership was a debated subject in the last many years and that the Swedes were not exposed to a ‘propaganda’ campaign to join, but that they made up their minds mostly/only based on the SMO.
The leading party in Sweden were against joining NATO since forever – and they only reluctantly became for joining as the poll results slowly convinced them that this was the way the wind was blowing.
It had no public support in all the years until 2022, that should tell you something. A manipulated public with a controlled MSM and lies and omissions made the difference.
no that is exactly what tells you that the population was not controlled by the MSM – I happen to be able to watch Swedish TV and read Swedish media – there was no campaign to get them to join – if you have any evidence that there was any campaign beyond what has happened in all elections since 2000 then present it otherwise accept that this is simply a US misunderstanding of how things work in Scandinavia.
My understanding is that joining NATO or not was not really an issue, and it was not an issue after 2022 either, it was kept on low flame, much like the MSM operates in NATO countries, even the pipeline sabotage was and still is being kept on low flame. The media may mention a point and move on, nothing will be said to start a real public debate. Seymour Hersh’s report was kept at a distance from MSM, a nod here and there, so they can say but we did report. Manipulating public opinion is a very sophisticated nuanced business.
From the political parties this was the case, not so from the population – in Denmark as well as in Sweden there was a very significant move away from NATO skeptical views in the population – polls made this clear, and there were no add campaigns or any other attempts from the MSM to sway the public opinion this was all done by the report of Russians invading Ukraine.
The MSM is not operating for NATO or acting as one force in the NATO countries – the press is separated into many different papers and media some for some against NATO – in Denmark the remaining parties with a platform against NATO membership had to give up on that in the early summer 2022 – that was caused by Putin’s SMO, there were no campaign from the MSM or the Politicians – the only trick that was needed was Putin carrying out the kind of action that NATO was meant to prevent happening to its members.
That is also the most likely explanation for why the Swedish population changed their mind – there was nothing different in the Swedish election campaign from all the other years, only the polls showed that the populations attitude towards NATO membership had changed very significantly!
And the pipeline sabotage was not being kept on a low flame – whenever there was any news on it, it got reported – which is why I knew that there were Russian ships in the area of the explosions just 4 days before they happened and you apparently thought it was not being investigated at all.
Seymore Hersh’s report happened significantly after the Danish and Swedish elections – so no it was not being kept a secret.
What was different in 2022 wan not a sudden rise of the conspiracy to get Finland and Sweden to join NATO – that was ongoing since at least 2000, no what was new was that Putin had proven why countries could be wise to join NATO.
Don’t forget at no time did Russia threaten the Sweden and Finland neutrality, at no time did Russia break any agreement. For decades they delivered energy as was agreed, never did they use the energy to coerce or blackmail, the troublemakers are the USA. They force Germany to buy expensive energy from the US making their industry uncompetitive, that is what an enemy does, not an ally. If the Americans can’t compete they will destroy you. There are no business ethics worth the name, exploitations, the harder elbows and the guns rule business. Americans ended all nuclear agreements, not the Russians, your friend, the Americans did it.
Russia broke no agreements with Sweden or Finland and they did not overtly threaten them either (not before there was talks about joining NATO at least). That however seems to carry very little weight with the populations of especially Finland – the ease with which Russia broke treaties it had with Ukraine was probably more significant then the fact that Russia had not broken any deals with Finland (or Sweden).
Well Russia did use ending gas deliveries to apply pressure to EU on sanctions – but that was only after 2022. The US has not made any trouble for EU over energy though EU and US have had trade ‘wars’.
No EU forced this upon itself completely independent of the NS sabotage
– first issue being that the Russians were not delivering gas through the NS
– second issue being that gas continued to flow via other pipelines
– third issue being that gas deliveries were only ended when EU sanctions required them to be ended
During several trade wars the US has failed to force EU to do anything EU did not want to do – that in spite of what EU wanted to do was actually against WTO rules, so this does not sound plausible – I mean they would like to do so, but they cannot.
Business ethics – is that not an oxymoron?
Yes I know that is how the west beat the Soviet Union, so if Putin wants to make Russia great again, then that is the kind of opposition he should expect – I do not have much of a problem with this – the Russians developed and are further developing hypersonic launch platforms the best way to get to war by accident so they kind of started it as I see it.
“Well Russia did use ending gas deliveries to apply pressure to EU on sanctions – but that was only after 2022.”
Incorrect. The pressure began secretly in the summer of 2021 when Russia cut its gas delivery via pipeline by 75%, leaving the buildup of reserves for winter much lower — clearly, in hindsight, in anticipation of using gas shortages to blackmail Europe into not contesting the attack on Ukraine.
Which also happens to demonstrate that the invasion was planned and set into motion AT LEAST eight months in advance, not in response to shelling in the Donbas.
Very good point – I was only aware of the cuts made in the summer of 2022.
No one thinks that the Russians should decide any othre states policy. But STUPID & provocative moves against superior states invites TROUBLE and we all should avoid trouble that is an unforced & erroneous
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/961a45eedb9077284e54dd6f425b2a6ac9c46ab1d96a8f5a882de8211883a14d.jpg
MIC bought all European politicians who are for sell. Only Orban showed them his middle finger. Now they introduced a new word – Orbanism which means something absolutely unacceptable in the “civilized world”.
Yes they even managed to buy the electorates of Sweden and Finland – they have quite the reach, or possibly it was your superior Putin that actually managed to scare the population of Europe?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/660842/survey-on-perception-of-nato-membership-in-sweden/#:~:text=By%20May%202022%2C%20nearly%2060,decision%20to%20join%20the%20alliance
Did you know Jan. 06, 2021 happened in Washington DC? How could that happen?
In Sweden and Finland lots of money must have changed hands.
I know what happened in DC on January 6 2021 – as for your absurd implication that the elections were bought, they were not, all independent polls showed what was going on in the electorates and the politicians mostly adapted accordingly – the idea that this was bought or driven by some money campaign is not supported by any evidence form any media in Scandinavia.
Europeans trust Putin more. He is a competent statesman, you can’t say that of Scholz or Marcon or the last three British PM. They want NATO to get out of Europe.
There is not as far as I know any present NATO member where the support for membership in the population is below 50 most places it is significantly above. You must inhabit an alternate universe.
There are demonstrations all over Europe against NATO, but MSM is silent. That is not even new, I recall the demonstrations in the 1980 against NATO nuclear weapons in Germany, nations don’t like foreign army operating from their soil, as Americans do from Ramstein AB. It is occupation no one talks about o not to rock the boat. A sovereign nation would not have tolerated the pipeline sabotage, an occupied nation has no choice. The German government members are traitors of their nation, so is Zelensky. They serve US interests not their own nation. Baerbock even said so.
There have been a few some of the largest in Slovakia if I remember correctly – but
As for the MSM being silent what gave you that idea?
https://english.news.cn/20230424/993a0fa048c246959546ce0695435a27/c.html
https://countercurrents.org/2023/02/anti-nato-anti-eu-anti-war-protest-rallies-hit-germany-france-italy/
Yes there were very large demonstrations against NATO back in the 1970ties and 1980ties.
The evidence that NATO executed the pipeline sabotage is absent – there is evidence for suspicious Russian ships at the sabotage sites just 4 days prior to the explosions – seeing as the explosions took place in Swedish and Danish waters the Germans were likely satisfied that they could do the investigations properly – there simply was no reason for Germany not tolerating the situation.
Can you link Baerenbrock’s speech?
Just google it, she said many such stupid things such as she will support Ukraine as long as it takes and Germany is at war with Russia, and she does not care what German voters think. She is an unbelievably stupid secretary of state, how she got there is a big question. She is immature and without integrity, a despicable person, a shame for the nation, which is true of the whole Green party. They are just scum.
I have googled it, you do know that google tends to get you the links you click on the most? I do not get any match on ‘Baerbock said that Germany serve US interests not their own’ – so you have to dig up that speech for me or accept that she did not say so.
Well the only thing I can say is that her party is not getting favorable polls so it would seem that the German electorate is agreeing with you on some of that.
Unlike the AFD?
What I found is hilarious satire based on her BLUNDERs, her incompetence, but in German. sorry about that.
I can read German so just provide the link!
http://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/parteien/id_90163798/gruene-neue-patzer-im-lebenslauf-von-annalena-baerbock.html
This is not user friendly at all. Sorry about that.
The AfD is a conservative right of center party, but they are a real opposition party voicing real and realistic fact based dissent and are closer to the voters than the unreal coalition. In polls they gained a lot and rate higher than the Greens now and are almost even with the SPD.
They are poorly hidden neo-Nazis – and yes they have gained in polls.
They are not hidden Nazis, but the propaganda is denigrating them to be Nazis, just as Social Democrat’s are denigrated to be communists. Anyone who says Germany is great or would put a flag on the house must be a Nazi. To be German is to be a nationalist and must be a NAZI.
As far as I know they are normal CDU conservatives and reserve the right to be German without having to say but I am not a Nazi. The AfD reserves the right to serve German interests and not be traitors of their nation’s interests as Scholz does. In the USA a politicians always speak of “this great nation”. That kind of nationalism is illegal in Germany.
No anyone claiming that all the problems in Germany could be solved by chasing the sub humans out is a poorly hidden NAZI – and that is pretty much the AFD ticket.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/german-court-rules-far-right-afd-party-a-suspected-threat-to-democracy
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/chat-group-leak-reveals-far-right-fantasies-of-germany-afd
As the links above show this is not even remotely true
No it is not illegal only frowned upon and with good reason – if the Germans started that kind of speech again their relations with their EU partners would sour, so not a move that would be serving Germany’s interests.
You better prove it, you are spitting propaganda to denigrate the opposition to an politically American controlled treasonous German government. A government which has sold the German nations interests to American interests. The same is true of most NATO governments. The USA has used coercion and threats against the NATO allies in form of sanctions and it went even so far to blow up NS 2, to demolish the German and EU economy and then blame Russia.
NATO united could have told the American administrations to go to hell. There was Minsk, implement it. We do know politicians are dishonest and corrupt people, worse than used car salesmen.
Morally these people are on the level of Adolf Hitler.
I just did these were criticism of the AFD that loon precedes the present government as well as the SMO
No NATO would not most NATO countries are much more worried by what Putin does than by what Biden does.
Only Putin can lay claim to such a parallel – coming complete with his own Hitler/Putin Youth.
I use my own judgement, not yours. Russian propagandists talk about killing millions of Ukrainians. You do know what propaganda is, right? You are a sucker. That talk suits you narrative, so it must be true, no questions asked. ARTE used to be an outstanding French/German TV channel, not anymore it is as controlled as all MSM, they serve their employers, not the people.
While I trust the word of the many who have engaged with the AfD and the fact coming out from their court cases.
I do, do you know that the Ukrainians can see this on their TV and that they understand Russian – and if you do, did you not realize what this would do for their willingness to fight for their liberty and lives? Or did you think that this would make them realize that they are only fighting for Biden and the US interests???
Coming from you that is high praise.
I’m not passing judgement on whether it is true or not, only on what it will do for the Ukrainians motivation to fight – and ou are the sucker if you had not spotted this very basic issue.
Conspiracy theories – the MSM controls everything that does not agree with your narrative – if you have issues with a specific source all you need to do is to say so – I can find many sources that tell the same story from different angles naturally.
Erdoğan took some big risks too. I was surprised that he was reelected. I worry that the TurkStream pipeline won’t meet the same fate as the NordStream pipeline. That would hurt both Turkey and Hungary.
Russian/Turkey pipeline is protected by Russian navy.
By the way, today four unmanned boats attacked a Russian warship. All of them were destroyed. American navy can’t operate in Black sea as easy as in Baltic.
The attack you mention is the second attack in less than a week. AFU forces seen determined. That’s why I’m worried.
“Sweden Will Allow NATO Deployments in ‘Signal to Russia’ The soldiers and equipment from NATO countries would be sent to Sweden before Stockholm is admitted into the alliance”
This is why Sweden is known as a ship of fools by Americans.
And de facto they were not neutral anymore going back decades.
And the assassination of Olof Palme has not yet been solved.
Mr. Hammarskjöld was appointed Secretary-General in 1953, at just 47, still the youngest person to ever hold the UN’s top job. He died in a plane crash and his assassination has not been solved.
What could go wrong?
Someone’s about to make a lot of money
The only plausible explanation for so much irresponsible action. They know what they are doing or they would have had an open and honest public debate, instead they did it behind closed doors with a silent press. Or did I miss something?
The western alliance once again demonstrates that playing by the rules means finding ingenious ways to get around them.
What rules would that be? As in what rules are they getting around?
You know what they say Duane: Rules were made to be broken… But this situation, to my mind, seems to be , dare I say: escalating?… One minute, you are sending signals to Russia, the next you are sending nukes to Russia…
“When it happens and I know it will, I want to be stoned on a blue sky and blonde hash, the gold seal still visible…”
Some experts are predicting that this war will become a frozen conflict, much like the Korean War. But, given the remarkable losses Ukraine experienced this week in Zaporizhia, it’s starting to look as if the only way to keep the war going would be direct NATO involvement. It’s my hope that sober minds will look for ways to end this before we get to that point. But I’m not ruling out another round of doubling down.
Are you familiar with the kind of losses France took in WWI from a population about the same as Ukraine’s was in 2022? Even if the Russian figures for Ukrainian losses were correct we are years away from needing to add soldiers form other populations.
Where are those sober minds?
When Merkel and Hollande supported Minsk Agreements, it looked, they are the sober minds. Then, 6 years later, both of them announced that it was done only for the purpose to gain more time for preparing Ukrainian army for the war against Donbass republics. So, actually, they, together with US and Kiev regime, all those 6 years worked as one team preparing Ukrainian army for the ethnic cleansing in Donbass. Not only Donbass. They also planned the offensive against Crimea. The blood of those hundreds of thousands killed in Ukraine in the last 16 months is on their hands. The other outcome of their craftiness is the deindustrialization of Germany and the recession in EU.
You are talking about something that already happened. I’m talking about the prospect of NATO putting boots on the ground in Ukraine when/if the counteroffensive fails. Donna worries that this war will lead to World War 3. I think we can avoid that if and only if NATO members keep their troops out of Ukraine. If there are sober minds, they will not authorize such an escalation.
Are Scholz and Macron any better than Merkel and Hollande? The other new NATO politicians are the same or worse than the old. They are all, with a rare exception, working for American oligarchy. More bloodshed in Europe, better for US oligarchy. Nothing will change any soon.
Undermining Minsk II carried very low risk of war with Russia. Putting boots on the ground carries a very high risk of war with Russia. One is not like the other.
NATO boots on the ground seems unlikely. And Ukrainian attempts at Hail Mary offensives seem unwise.
Since the Ukrainians are backed by regimes with many times the industrial production and logistics capacity available to Russia, the way they win this war is by fighting a defensive war until the Russians get tired of banging their heads against the wall and go (partially) home.
If the Ukrainians are on the offensive, other than moving into areas as the Russians abandon those areas, then it becomes a manpower problem and the only way they can compete with the Russians is by getting NATO boots on the ground.
“Partially” is the operative word here, Thomas.
Russia gets to keep Crimea, no question. And Donetsk and Luhansk either declare independence from Ukraine or join the Russian Federation.
Game over.
That’s pretty much my assessment as well.
I wonder if anyone has ever seen the list of those rules.
Where and when it was published? Who created this list? Who voted for it?
Sweden is not part of NATO because the rules require the consent of all current members, and that hasn’t happened. But it looks as if they intend to participate as NATO members anyway. That, in my mind, is breaking the rules.
They are talking now about a set of rules which is supposed to replace the international legal system.
Neither Sweden nor Finland have a coherent explanation why they give up neutrality and what do they expect to gain?
Is idiocy contagious or is it simple corruption, what else could explain
successful Democracies act so crazy and risk their nations welfare?
Corruption
It appears to be the only honest explanation.
Finland and Sweden recently saw a former “great power” launch an invasion of a European country for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Regardless of whether one thinks the invasion was justified, whether the Russians are just settling an uncommon affair or embarking on an expansionist phase, etc. when invasions start happening in your neighborhood, you presumably start looking around for prospective assistance in case you’re next.
Your reasoning makes no sense at all. Great powers like the US INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES ALL THE TIME.
Russia has been invaded many times before. Russia respected the Sweden neutrality for some 150 years, Finland some 70 years by now, never questioned Austrian and Switzerland’s neutrality and had offered neutrality guaranty joined by other Europeans if they guarantied Russia border security with good reason, it was the USA from another continent and Canada and GB and European NATO members encircling Russia as they did before WWI against Germany which made Russia cautious, as well as the fact that USA had crossed into Russia after WWI and kept troops inside Russia for several years. This is history, Russia has reasonable border security concerns and the refusal of Biden to respond diplomatically only confirmed the Russian concerns. So, do not pretend you did not know of Russian concerns when they kept telling NATO for decades not to expand NATO more, Ukraine is a red line, but arrogant Americans simply ignored it and now we have the catastrophe caused by American arrogance and greed. That is how they built their empire, but they crossed the line, they are overextended as empires tend to do, ask the British.
They spend their wealth on wars while at home it is in decay. The empire is croaking, a war with China can only speed it up.
“Great powers like the US INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES ALL THE TIME.”
Yep.
Do you think it’s mere coincidence that after the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran started exploring membership in CSTO (the Russian equivalent of NATO)?
You see your neighbors getting invaded, especially by a “great power,” you start thinking about joining alliances that make you look like a harder target. And until about the middle of the last year, when it became clear that the invasion of Ukraine had turned into a fiasco for the Russians, people still assumed that Russia was a “great power” and acted accordingly.
Excellent assessment.
Unity makes you stronger, how else can you fight the bully? What would you do? But the US formed the alliance to gang up on other weaker nations. The US is not defending Ukraine, the US is the bully using Ukraine as battlefield and the people for cannonfodder. Would you say the USA/NATO brought peace and prosperity to the Ukrainian people? What benefit was the regime change for the people of Ukraine? Are they better off now than they were before the regime change in 2014?
Suppose they would become members of NATO at what price and for what???? Would neutrality have been the better way or not? Compare to Austria, they are not in the NATO. Finland and Sweden up until now they were neutral. They will regret having given up that precious neutrality. Finland is learning already.
Times have changed, the USA has lost influence in the ME, they can’t coerce as easily anymore. The US lost in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Arabs are forming alliances with their former enemies. See China and Russia.
Biden is making enemies isolating the US.
Ukraine is a fiasco for NATO, for Europe. The real smart Biden people destroyed Europe and NATO. WHAT DO THEY EXPECT TO WIN OTHER THAN RUINS?
You asked for a “coherent reason” why Finland and Sweden would join NATO.
I gave you one: The Russian invasion of Ukraine scared them into wanting allies who are at least theoretically committed to helping them defend themselves if they’re next.
Arguments as to whether NATO should even exist, whether Russia should have invaded Ukraine, etc. (here’s one among many pieces I’ve written on those questions), are interesting in themselves, but they don’t change the coherence of the reason I gave you.
That makes no sense at all, Russia always honored treaties, it always respected the Swedish and Finish neutrality as well as business agreements . In all the decades they delivered energy as was agreed, which was true for the pipelines, NS II carried gas, all the Germans had to do was to open the spigots, but the US had forbidden to buy Russian energy. The USA treated Germany as an enemy not Russia, the USA is Europe’s enemy, not Russia. And the Americans would use nuclear weapons in Europe without blinking an eyelash, THE USA IS EUROPE’S ENEMY NOT RUSSIA. The USA is Ukraine’s enemy , that is why they oppose any diplomatic peace negotiations, the USA is the enemy # 1 That is a rational and coherent explanation. The goal of the USA is a regime change in Moscow as they did in Kiev and a destruction of the Russian Federation to gain control of the Russia’s natural resources and privatize them to benefit the American energy giants. Privatizing other nations resources is the goal, in Venezuela, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Syria, Afghanistan (lithyum) Norway better look out, the USA is not your friend. The USA elite are robber barons without morals and ethics.
All regimes honor treaties — until they don’t.
Yes, I understand: Putin is your preferred thug, and Russia your preferred gang, and all the other gangs and gang shot-callers are BAD because REASONS. Wear that jersey. Wave that foam finger. No biggie.
I gave you one: The Russian invasion of Ukraine scared them into wanting allies who are at least theoretically committed to helping them defend themselves if they’re next.
That is a most stupid ‘coherent reason ever.
NATO is falling apart. Russia had not threatened any NATO member, it never threatened the neutrality of Sweden for more than 150 years and Finland for some 8 decades, there is no rational reasoning to justify NATO membership.
NATO IS a dying alliance in which the members are stabbing each other in the back. Using sanctions against each other to force sanctions against Russia against their own self-interests. Can it get more insane?
The USA SABOTAGED Germany’s basic energy supply in order to break the German and EU economy, only your biggest enemy would do that to you.
Rational thinking would have told the Swedes and Fins
BUT NOT WITH ME, WE DON’T NEED A FRIEND LIKE YOU. YOU CAN’T BE TRUSTED.
You asked a question.
I gave you an answer.
You don’t like the answer.
Which is fine, but why complain about it?
Every story I read about these 3rd & 4th tier military countries gets more and absurd!!! Someone, state has gotten countries like Sweden and Finland believing that as members on NATO they will be protected from possible Russian aggression≥. All these frightened places have capitol cities which the Russians can level before dinner hour, so why would these feckl4ess states want tom piss the Russians off…???? Why make any unfriendly moves or commitments…??????? Will Putins Patience run out and make an example of one of these feckless ones???
When did the Scandinavians become such assholes?
Good question.
They are human and corruptible like others.
The nation’s corporate elites make the policies. Money controls USA/NATO and their elite too wants a piece of the pie. Why they believe there will be a piece of pie left beats me. They will be taken to the cleaners like the Germans, the French, and Italians and Australians and Canadians and not to forget the British people. The Bilderberg/Davos oligarchs will be the winners while the people, the middle class will be the looser.
They force the Ukrainians to fight until the last man standing and promise to fund their dying and turning the country to rubble as long as they can then rob the Russian resources, as they did when they had their Yeltsin making it possible. That is why Biden said, Putin must go.