3 3
SkyDekker

Ukraine

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, olofscience said:

Turkey joined NATO in 1952, so it's not really living memory anymore why they joined. But this NATO article has some explanation: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_191048.htm

And now Turkey is gobbling loud over Finland and Sweden joining Nato, but it's mostly Finland. I see their point, actually. Yes, they have Erdoğan, and he's a pill. But he's a pill that is supplying one Bayraktar TB2 Drone a day to Ukraine. Those drones are proving decisive. What can Finland supply a day? Lutefisk? That and why should NATO poke the bear again by taking on a country contiguous to Russia when NATO is already busy defending another country contiguous to Russia because Russia doesn't want another NATO country contiguous to Russia? As they say, timing is everything and Finland and Swedens after the fact decision that non-participation in a defensive treaty is on reflection, not in their best interests really is a bit offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

And now Turkey is gobbling loud over Finland and Sweden joining Nato, but it's mostly Finland. I see their point, actually. Yes, they have Erdoğan, and he's a pill. But he's a pill that is supplying one Bayraktar TB2 Drone a day to Ukraine. Those drones are proving decisive. What can Finland supply a day? Lutefisk? That and why should NATO poke the bear again by taking on a country contiguous to Russia when NATO is already busy defending another country contiguous to Russia because Russia doesn't want another NATO country contiguous to Russia? As they say, timing is everything and Finland and Swedens after the fact decision that non-participation in a defensive treaty is on reflection, not in their best interests really is a bit offensive.

Sweden has donated slightly more to Ukraine's defense than has the US by GDP It also has a very robust defense program including its own fighter A/C.

Finland has 200,000 full time and 900,000 reservists out of a population of 5.5 million. I get your point but alliances are built out of a sum of their parts. They are right on Russia's doorstep. Both can close off Russian access to the Baltic sea.both would be on the front line of any Russian conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Sweden has donated slightly more to Ukraine's defense than has the US by GDP It also has a very robust defense program including its own fighter A/C.

Finland has 200,000 full time and 900,000 reservists out of a population of 5.5 million. I get your point but alliances are built out of a sum of their parts. They are right on Russia's doorstep. Both can close off Russian access to the Baltic sea.both would be on the front line of any Russian conflict.

I concede your point on Sweden. Thank you. But Finlands move is self serving. I don't blame them but were it my call I'd be happy to point out the late isn't always better than never, parachute deployment comes to mind, and optics do matter. Please wait awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billvon said:

Because you said that he should disband the US military because he couldn't be sure no one is "crazy enough to do something stupid."  He explained how the US military has safeguards against one crazy person doing something stupid, thus addressing your stated concern.

Safeguards against one person doing something crazy with nukes. But we’re not talking about nukes, so how on earth do you think he’s addressed his concerns about every other piece of equipment?

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Since the US military actually DOES have A-10's, it wouldn't make much sense to try to apply his concern about A-10's to the US. 

Eh? We need to be worried about A10s because they could be used to start WW3 but we don’t need to worry about people who have A10s? Maybe explain that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
14 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Trump has a long history of either saying what the last person told him, or what he thinks the listener wants to hear. So he should be judged on the actions he has taken and the actual outcomes of his words. Not on what he might have said to Piers Morgan that one time.

Such as perhaps... recommending the covid vaccine to his own supporters?  ..and somehow being clairvoyantly aware of exactly which 'listeners' would watch (or listen) a publicly available TV interview?  The actual facts are that he hasn't said a single positive thing about the invasion since it's second week and has indeed since condemned the invasion at least three separate times in separate interviews or speeches since February. Hence.. these days.  Trump has also repeatedly harped on about how 'it would never have happened on his watch' and although his claim is utterly absurd it is also reflective of sentiment that he did not want the invasion to happen.  

By denying such obvious facts; your own comments are really more reflective of liberals who are so drunk on lefty dogma that they're no longer capable of objective analysis resulting in the kind of illogical response you've provided. It's like the lefty equivalent of The Hundredth Monkey.

Edited by metalslug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Trump has also repeatedly harped on about how 'it would never have happened on his watch' and although his claim is utterly absurd it is also reflective of sentiment that he did not want the invasion to happen.  

By denying such obvious facts; 

That is not a fact, it is an opinion which does not naturally follow from any logical analysis. If you weren’t so rabidly anti-liberal you would see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Yes, they have Erdoğan, and he's a pill. But he's a pill that is supplying one Bayraktar TB2 Drone a day to Ukraine. Those drones are proving decisive.

Decisive, yes, but not irreplaceable.

The US can just supply Reapers, and IAI has plenty of alternatives too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, metalslug said:

The actual facts are that he hasn't said a single positive thing about the invasion since it's second week . . . 

Exactly.  He was very up on it initially, since his mentor Putin was prosecuting it.

Then he saw the poll numbers, and then, as Skydekker said, "told the viewer what he wants to hear."  If all republicans started supporting Putin he'd be singing his praises in a heartbeat again.

You're sorta proving Skydekker's point here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, olofscience said:

Decisive, yes, but not irreplaceable.

The US can just supply Reapers, and IAI has plenty of alternatives too.

I suppose. But I further suppose that given the rest of what the US is supplying to fight what has become a proxy war that not having US air assets flying over Ukraine when an ally nearby Ukraine can do so is a good thing. Regarding Finland, I just do not see how the value of bringing them into NATO exceeds the additional friction it will cause especially now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I suppose. But I further suppose that given the rest of what the US is supplying to fight what has become a proxy war that not having US air assets flying over Ukraine when an ally nearby Ukraine can do so is a good thing. Regarding Finland, I just do not see how the value of bringing them into NATO exceeds the additional friction it will cause especially now.

I've found it mentioned in other forums, but the Baltic is way more strategic for NATO than the Black Sea. Having Finland would effectively make the Baltic a complete NATO lake.

Russia's Baltic fleet is bigger and more important than the Black Sea fleet. It would also move NATO closer to the Kola Peninsula, which is very strategically important.

Erdogan has a good negotiating starting point, but not unlimited. He'll probably use whatever leverage he has to negotiate some concessions and Finland will eventually join. Turkey's order of Russia's S-400 missile system has already caused way more friction than whatever Finland has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I've found it mentioned in other forums, but the Baltic is way more strategic for NATO than the Black Sea. Having Finland would effectively make the Baltic a complete NATO lake.

Russia's Baltic fleet is bigger and more important than the Black Sea fleet. It would also move NATO closer to the Kola Peninsula, which is very strategically important.

Erdogan has a good negotiating starting point, but not unlimited. He'll probably use whatever leverage he has to negotiate some concessions and Finland will eventually join. Turkey's order of Russia's S-400 missile system has already caused way more friction than whatever Finland has done.

The US can't control what Turkey does anymore than we can control India. Honestly, when the time is right I won't care if we make Finland the capital of the world and force everyone to be happy and have a home sauna. I simply think now isn't the time to add a country that has an 800 mile border with Russia given that NATO is fighting a proxy war over something similar at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, billvon said:

Exactly.  He was very up on it initially, since his mentor Putin was prosecuting it.

Then he saw the poll numbers, and then, as Skydekker said, "told the viewer what he wants to hear."  If all republicans started supporting Putin he'd be singing his praises in a heartbeat again.

You're sorta proving Skydekker's point here.

If that's true then it also disproves the nonsense narrative in this forum that 'all conservatives support Putin'.  You've now conceded that in your comment above.  Either they don't support Putin, or Trump does not pander to his supporters. Both can't be true. Trump didn't seem to mind recommending the vaccine to his supporters, either by being too 'slow' to realize the blowback he would get, or by actually placing principle above policy. I know which one you'll pick.

42 minutes ago, billvon said:

"told the viewer what he wants to hear." 

 Name me one prominent US politician who doesn't do that?  The very nature of politics is popularity, else they never become prominent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The US can't control what Turkey does anymore than we can control India. Honestly, when the time is right I won't care if we make Finland the capital of the world and force everyone to be happy and have a home sauna. I simply think now isn't the time to add a country that has an 800 mile border with Russia given that NATO is fighting a proxy war over something similar at the moment.

Well, the US can't control what Finland does either - and what they've done is apply to NATO.

Russia's army has gotten decimated in Ukraine and Finland's army is far better equipped. With Putin now dialing down his threats to Finland I don't see what the problem is. Could you clarify? Only Turkey stands in the way, and I've explained how they might negotiate something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, billvon said:

...You're sorta proving Skydekker's point here.

That the hard core of the republican base will always only see what they want to see? Or something else?

 

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

... I simply think now isn't the time to add a country that has an 800 mile border with Russia given that NATO is fighting a proxy war over something similar at the moment.

I detest bullies and those in power that abuse power. I love the idea that Putin is getting the proverbial punch in the face. That Finnish membership delivers to him and his supporters.

As far as Ukraine becoming some sort of external threat due to the flood of weapons flowing into the country. Don't forget it gave up its nuclear weapons years ago. In exchange for worthless paper promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, metalslug said:

the nonsense narrative in this forum that 'all conservatives support Putin'

um, nope, if you think that's the narrative, that's not coming from me. I don't think billvon has said anything of the sort either.

I think the conservatives here in this forum are firmly against Putin. (The Hundredth Monkey doesn't count - he's probably a russian bot) Even me and brent are on the same side!

But your narrative that Trump is firmly against Putin is what's getting pushback, so calm down.

From what I've seen, the most extreme leftists have also sided with Putin, as have the extreme right (which Trump is part of). Little do they realise what they have in common!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I suppose. But I further suppose that given the rest of what the US is supplying to fight what has become a proxy war that not having US air assets flying over Ukraine when an ally nearby Ukraine can do so is a good thing. Regarding Finland, I just do not see how the value of bringing them into NATO exceeds the additional friction it will cause especially now.

Consider that if Ukraine had been a full member of NATO already we would not currently be fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. That’s the value Finland being in NATO brings to NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, metalslug said:

If that's true then it also disproves the nonsense narrative in this forum that 'all conservatives support Putin'.

?? Right.  I didn't claim that.  Many do, including some of the more influential politicians and media mouthpieces.  Taken as a subset of conservatives, far more Trump supporters support Putin (or at least are OK with Putin's actions) than your average republican.

russian.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Well, the US can't control what Finland does either - and what they've done is apply to NATO.

Russia's army has gotten decimated in Ukraine and Finland's army is far better equipped. With Putin now dialing down his threats to Finland I don't see what the problem is. Could you clarify? Only Turkey stands in the way, and I've explained how they might negotiate something.

I see what Finland gains short term, I don't see what NATO gains-at this particular moment. If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland we can choose to respond or not and to whatever degree seems appropriate. Why add an unnecessary trigger point, and potentially give Russia additional political leverage, at an inconvenient time? Yes, that's entirely transactional but so is everything geopolitical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Trump didn't seem to mind recommending the vaccine to his supporters, either by being too 'slow' to realize the blowback he would get, or by actually placing principle above policy. I know which one you'll pick.

Should note that Trump has not recommended the vaccine after he got booed doing so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Should note that Trump has not recommended the vaccine after he got booed doing so. 

Exactly.  He got negative feedback, so he went with a different message.  His ratings control what he says - not the other way around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I see what Finland gains short term, I don't see what NATO gains-at this particular moment. If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland we can choose to respond or not and to whatever degree seems appropriate. Why add an unnecessary trigger point, and potentially give Russia additional political leverage, at an inconvenient time? Yes, that's entirely transactional but so is everything geopolitical.

NATO is a deterrent. Putin doesn’t want conflict with the NATO block. That’s partly why he attacked Ukraine - to cut off NATO membership - and most of why he felt confidant that he could attack Ukraine without being directly opposed.

 

In short, with Finland in NATO there is a far, far lower probability of Russian aggression against Finland. If you can’t see why that’s a good thing for NATO in general and the rest of Europe in particular then I’m not sure what else to say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I see what Finland gains short term, I don't see what NATO gains-at this particular moment. If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland we can choose to respond or not and to whatever degree seems appropriate. Why add an unnecessary trigger point, and potentially give Russia additional political leverage, at an inconvenient time? Yes, that's entirely transactional but so is everything geopolitical.

NATO gains the entire Baltic sea, which is a big gain.

If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

Yes it might add a trigger point.

No it won't give Russia additional political leverage. Their complaint that NATO caused their invasion of Ukraine was like a rapist blaming their victim that they were "forced" to do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, olofscience said:

NATO gains the entire Baltic sea, which is a big gain.

If Russia attacks a non-NATO Finland, the Russian army will be destroyed. That much is already clear from their performance against Ukraine.

Yes it might add a trigger point.

No it won't give Russia additional political leverage. Their complaint that NATO caused their invasion of Ukraine was like a rapist blaming their victim that they were "forced" to do it.

The political leverage could be a simple as knowing that by treaty an attack on Finland would require a response from all of NATO. Even a serious looking bluff would require something in kind. Not to mention we'd receive even more piercing insights into who is willing to pay for what and when. I see nothing gained by changing the games rules at this juncture. I concede I might be wrong but that's how I'd play it right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3