Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:27:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24
Author Topic: Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May  (Read 29981 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 25, 2022, 02:09:53 PM »

Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2022, 05:02:02 PM »



LET’S FU****G GO!
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2022, 06:21:16 PM »

Putin doesn't want to annex countries with "feminist" foreign policies, lol.

Although that would be a pretty sick ice hockey team.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2022, 11:32:11 PM »

Good!
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2022, 02:46:12 AM »

A bit of a misleading thread title. They're not joining in May, they're applying to join.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2022, 06:47:39 AM »

Though the process of joining probably won't be too protracted in this case.
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,293
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2022, 03:20:45 PM »

Though the process of joining probably won't be too protracted in this case.
Exactly. This is not like Ukraine wanting to join the EU.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2022, 03:28:06 PM »

After 77 years, we have the definlandization of Finland.
Logged
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,023
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2022, 06:52:49 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2022, 06:54:48 PM »

Three of the five Nordic countries were among the original 12 members of NATO, and it appears that the other two Nordic countries will be the 31st and 32nd members, 73 years later (assuming they're accepted).
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2022, 06:54:56 PM »

NATO expansion generally tends to lower the chance of war in Europe, while increasing the chance of a world war.
Just remember how we got into World War I.
Logged
DaleCooper
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,852


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2022, 06:55:47 PM »

NATO expansion generally tends to lower the chance of war in Europe, while increasing the chance of a world war.
Just remember how we got into World War I.

All NATO membership does is leave Russia with fewer countries to invade.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2022, 06:57:54 PM »

NATO expansion generally tends to lower the chance of war in Europe, while increasing the chance of a world war.
Just remember how we got into World War I.

All NATO membership does is leave Russia with fewer countries to invade.
That's not the only impact it has. Though it's certainly one that is on the minds of policymakers in Helsinki and Stockholm right now.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2022, 06:58:25 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2022, 07:02:46 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Ironically, both Russia and Ukraine would be better off right now if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008. Ukraine would contain the strongly pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass and have a natural pro-Russian majority (thus no severe tensions with Moscow), while Russia would have an ally state within NATO that would in practice hurt the cohesion of the alliance against Russia.
Russia losing its hold on Ukraine has been the second biggest setback for Russian geopolitical interests since World War I, only surpassed by the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Logged
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,023
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2022, 07:04:26 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.

When we tried to let Ukraine join NATO in 2014, it helped to create and exacerbate a civil war in that country which directly led to the Russian seizure of Crimea
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2022, 07:08:47 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.

When we tried to let Ukraine join NATO in 2014, it helped to create and exacerbate a civil war in that country which directly led to the Russian seizure of Crimea

Nobody was letting Ukraine join NATO in 2014. If there had been a political will to do it, it would have been done swiftly (just like it will be with Finland and Sweden) before Russia could manufacture its pretexts for invasion ("civil war" sure).

You were always a Putin shill but it's pretty sad that none of the crimes he's committed in the past two months has led you to do any serious introspection. It's truly pathetic how "America Bad" rots people's brains.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2022, 07:14:44 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Ironically, both Russia and Ukraine would be better off right now if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008. Ukraine would contain the strongly pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass and have a natural pro-Russian majority (thus no severe tensions with Moscow), while Russia would have an ally state within NATO that would in practice hurt the cohesion of the alliance against Russia.
Russia losing its hold on Ukraine has been the second biggest setback for Russian geopolitical interests since World War I, only surpassed by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine never had a "natural pro-Russian majority". Pre-Maidan it was split basically 50-50, but it was clear that Yanukovych's servility to Russia and naked corruption had already alienated a lot of his erstwhile supporters, and the trend was toward a consolidation of pro-EU sentiment in the country. And then, of course, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas, and support for pro-Russian parties collapsed to like 15%. And now, after this even more naked aggression, it's down to like 1% lol.

So Putin definitely made things worse for himself by invading, yes, but I do think ultimately Ukraine was trending in that direction no matter what.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2022, 07:20:41 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Ironically, both Russia and Ukraine would be better off right now if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008. Ukraine would contain the strongly pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass and have a natural pro-Russian majority (thus no severe tensions with Moscow), while Russia would have an ally state within NATO that would in practice hurt the cohesion of the alliance against Russia.
Russia losing its hold on Ukraine has been the second biggest setback for Russian geopolitical interests since World War I, only surpassed by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine never had a "natural pro-Russian majority". Pre-Maidan it was split basically 50-50, but it was clear that Yanukovych's servility to Russia and naked corruption had already alienated a lot of his erstwhile supporters, and the trend was toward a consolidation of pro-EU sentiment in the country. And then, of course, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas, and support for pro-Russian parties collapsed to like 15%. And now, after this even more naked aggression, it's down to like 1% lol.

So Putin definitely made things worse for himself by invading, yes, but I do think ultimately Ukraine was trending in that direction no matter what.
It was a (slim and getting increasingly more slim) majority, but it was still a majority. It only failed to elect a pro-Moscow president once: in 2004.
Indeed, in 2010, Yanukyvch won the vast majority of his victory margin from Crimea alone. You are right the country was shifting more and more away, but the trend was very slow before 2014.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2022, 07:30:36 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Ironically, both Russia and Ukraine would be better off right now if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008. Ukraine would contain the strongly pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass and have a natural pro-Russian majority (thus no severe tensions with Moscow), while Russia would have an ally state within NATO that would in practice hurt the cohesion of the alliance against Russia.
Russia losing its hold on Ukraine has been the second biggest setback for Russian geopolitical interests since World War I, only surpassed by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine never had a "natural pro-Russian majority". Pre-Maidan it was split basically 50-50, but it was clear that Yanukovych's servility to Russia and naked corruption had already alienated a lot of his erstwhile supporters, and the trend was toward a consolidation of pro-EU sentiment in the country. And then, of course, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas, and support for pro-Russian parties collapsed to like 15%. And now, after this even more naked aggression, it's down to like 1% lol.

So Putin definitely made things worse for himself by invading, yes, but I do think ultimately Ukraine was trending in that direction no matter what.
It was a (slim and getting increasingly more slim) majority, but it was still a majority. It only failed to elect a pro-Moscow president once: in 2004.
Indeed, in 2010, Yanukyvch won the vast majority of his victory margin from Crimea alone. You are right the country was shifting more and more away, but the trend was very slow before 2014.

Yanukovych could only win by 3 points against a deeply unpopular incumbent PM marred by her own scandals. And that's after losing by 8 points the previous time. Even if he'd managed to last out his term, it was obvious he would have lost even worse the next time. Ukraine in the 2004-2014 decade was a deeply polarized country, to be sure, but if anything it seems to me that a clear majority was already in favor of loosening ties with Russia and strengthening them with the EU. Even Yanukovych himself initially wanted the EU association agreement, because he understood that going against it was political suicide (as indeed it proved to be)!

Maidan and Russia's reaction to it accelerated things dramatically, of course, but regardless, your idea that Ukraine could have acted as a Russian pawn within NATO just doesn't reflect the reality of Ukrainian politics at that time. Maybe things were different in the 90s (a moot point since Ukraine wouldn't have joined NATO back then), but by the time of the Orange Revolution already, it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2022, 07:36:54 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Ironically, both Russia and Ukraine would be better off right now if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008. Ukraine would contain the strongly pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass and have a natural pro-Russian majority (thus no severe tensions with Moscow), while Russia would have an ally state within NATO that would in practice hurt the cohesion of the alliance against Russia.
Russia losing its hold on Ukraine has been the second biggest setback for Russian geopolitical interests since World War I, only surpassed by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine never had a "natural pro-Russian majority". Pre-Maidan it was split basically 50-50, but it was clear that Yanukovych's servility to Russia and naked corruption had already alienated a lot of his erstwhile supporters, and the trend was toward a consolidation of pro-EU sentiment in the country. And then, of course, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas, and support for pro-Russian parties collapsed to like 15%. And now, after this even more naked aggression, it's down to like 1% lol.

So Putin definitely made things worse for himself by invading, yes, but I do think ultimately Ukraine was trending in that direction no matter what.
It was a (slim and getting increasingly more slim) majority, but it was still a majority. It only failed to elect a pro-Moscow president once: in 2004.
Indeed, in 2010, Yanukyvch won the vast majority of his victory margin from Crimea alone. You are right the country was shifting more and more away, but the trend was very slow before 2014.

Yanukovych could only win by 3 points against a deeply unpopular incumbent PM marred by her own scandals. And that's after losing by 8 points the previous time. Even if he'd managed to last out his term, it was obvious he would have lost even worse the next time. Ukraine in the 2004-2014 decade was a deeply polarized country, to be sure, but if anything it seems to me that a clear majority was already in favor of loosening ties with Russia and strengthening them with the EU. Even Yanukovych himself initially wanted the EU association agreement, because he understood that going against it was political suicide (as indeed it proved to be)!

Maidan and Russia's reaction to it accelerated things dramatically, of course, but regardless, your idea that Ukraine could have acted as a Russian pawn within NATO just doesn't reflect the reality of Ukrainian politics at that time. Maybe things were different in the 90s (a moot point since Ukraine wouldn't have joined NATO back then), but by the time of the Orange Revolution already, it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
Granted, the proposition that Ukraine being in NATO would weaken its unity vs Russia was silly to begin with, now that I'm thinking about the facets and not just a few of them. Russia's entire NATO strategy would have to change if Ukraine was a NATO member. Playing nice (by Russian standards, anyway) with the membership while deepening relationships with NATO members - a soft power strategy reliant on economics instead of tanks and bombs - would be the most effective Russian strategy going forward, and one that Putin would have been capable of doing. In this world, Nord Stream 2 would be 100% likely to go ahead.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2022, 07:46:32 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Ironically, both Russia and Ukraine would be better off right now if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008. Ukraine would contain the strongly pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass and have a natural pro-Russian majority (thus no severe tensions with Moscow), while Russia would have an ally state within NATO that would in practice hurt the cohesion of the alliance against Russia.
Russia losing its hold on Ukraine has been the second biggest setback for Russian geopolitical interests since World War I, only surpassed by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine never had a "natural pro-Russian majority". Pre-Maidan it was split basically 50-50, but it was clear that Yanukovych's servility to Russia and naked corruption had already alienated a lot of his erstwhile supporters, and the trend was toward a consolidation of pro-EU sentiment in the country. And then, of course, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas, and support for pro-Russian parties collapsed to like 15%. And now, after this even more naked aggression, it's down to like 1% lol.

So Putin definitely made things worse for himself by invading, yes, but I do think ultimately Ukraine was trending in that direction no matter what.
It was a (slim and getting increasingly more slim) majority, but it was still a majority. It only failed to elect a pro-Moscow president once: in 2004.
Indeed, in 2010, Yanukyvch won the vast majority of his victory margin from Crimea alone. You are right the country was shifting more and more away, but the trend was very slow before 2014.

Yanukovych could only win by 3 points against a deeply unpopular incumbent PM marred by her own scandals. And that's after losing by 8 points the previous time. Even if he'd managed to last out his term, it was obvious he would have lost even worse the next time. Ukraine in the 2004-2014 decade was a deeply polarized country, to be sure, but if anything it seems to me that a clear majority was already in favor of loosening ties with Russia and strengthening them with the EU. Even Yanukovych himself initially wanted the EU association agreement, because he understood that going against it was political suicide (as indeed it proved to be)!

Maidan and Russia's reaction to it accelerated things dramatically, of course, but regardless, your idea that Ukraine could have acted as a Russian pawn within NATO just doesn't reflect the reality of Ukrainian politics at that time. Maybe things were different in the 90s (a moot point since Ukraine wouldn't have joined NATO back then), but by the time of the Orange Revolution already, it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
Granted, the proposition that Ukraine being in NATO would weaken its unity vs Russia was silly to begin with, now that I'm thinking about the facets and not just a few of them. Russia's entire NATO strategy would have to change if Ukraine was a NATO member. Playing nice (by Russian standards, anyway) with the membership while deepening relationships with NATO members - a soft power strategy reliant on economics instead of tanks and bombs - would be the most effective Russian strategy going forward, and one that Putin would have been capable of doing. In this world, Nord Stream 2 would be 100% likely to go ahead.

Yes, soft power was always going to be the smart approach for Russia to maintain its geopolitical influence. This should have been obvious to Putin for a very long time, and if he was such great Strategic Mastermind as some people claim he is, he would have pursued that strategy instead of attempting to preserve his empire through brute force while relying on a decrepit army.

But I guess there's a fundamental reason why he couldn't do that. Soft power is rooted on attractiveness, on the idea that your country has a positive model to offer other countries that play ball. The US has that, China has that, even the USSR had that in his heyday. But Putin's Russia has no attractive quality and no tangible benefits to offer to potential allies. The kind of society Putin is interested in building is one that can only maintain itself through brute force - that's true externally as it's true internally.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2022, 08:43:33 PM »

Good thing there's never been any historical adverse effects of NATO expansion, such as increased geopolitical tensions and fostering armed conflict. Oh wait...

lol, okay

Back in the real world, "geopolitical tensions" (a nice euphemism for naked expansionist invasion by a larger power) seem to be a problem for non-NATO countries that happen to border Russia. It's pretty obvious that if we'd let Ukraine join NATO in 2008, Putin would never have invaded.
Ironically, both Russia and Ukraine would be better off right now if Ukraine had joined NATO in 2008. Ukraine would contain the strongly pro-Russian regions of Crimea and Donbass and have a natural pro-Russian majority (thus no severe tensions with Moscow), while Russia would have an ally state within NATO that would in practice hurt the cohesion of the alliance against Russia.
Russia losing its hold on Ukraine has been the second biggest setback for Russian geopolitical interests since World War I, only surpassed by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine never had a "natural pro-Russian majority". Pre-Maidan it was split basically 50-50, but it was clear that Yanukovych's servility to Russia and naked corruption had already alienated a lot of his erstwhile supporters, and the trend was toward a consolidation of pro-EU sentiment in the country. And then, of course, Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas, and support for pro-Russian parties collapsed to like 15%. And now, after this even more naked aggression, it's down to like 1% lol.

So Putin definitely made things worse for himself by invading, yes, but I do think ultimately Ukraine was trending in that direction no matter what.
It was a (slim and getting increasingly more slim) majority, but it was still a majority. It only failed to elect a pro-Moscow president once: in 2004.
Indeed, in 2010, Yanukyvch won the vast majority of his victory margin from Crimea alone. You are right the country was shifting more and more away, but the trend was very slow before 2014.

Yanukovych could only win by 3 points against a deeply unpopular incumbent PM marred by her own scandals. And that's after losing by 8 points the previous time. Even if he'd managed to last out his term, it was obvious he would have lost even worse the next time. Ukraine in the 2004-2014 decade was a deeply polarized country, to be sure, but if anything it seems to me that a clear majority was already in favor of loosening ties with Russia and strengthening them with the EU. Even Yanukovych himself initially wanted the EU association agreement, because he understood that going against it was political suicide (as indeed it proved to be)!

Maidan and Russia's reaction to it accelerated things dramatically, of course, but regardless, your idea that Ukraine could have acted as a Russian pawn within NATO just doesn't reflect the reality of Ukrainian politics at that time. Maybe things were different in the 90s (a moot point since Ukraine wouldn't have joined NATO back then), but by the time of the Orange Revolution already, it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
Granted, the proposition that Ukraine being in NATO would weaken its unity vs Russia was silly to begin with, now that I'm thinking about the facets and not just a few of them. Russia's entire NATO strategy would have to change if Ukraine was a NATO member. Playing nice (by Russian standards, anyway) with the membership while deepening relationships with NATO members - a soft power strategy reliant on economics instead of tanks and bombs - would be the most effective Russian strategy going forward, and one that Putin would have been capable of doing. In this world, Nord Stream 2 would be 100% likely to go ahead.

Yes, soft power was always going to be the smart approach for Russia to maintain its geopolitical influence. This should have been obvious to Putin for a very long time, and if he was such great Strategic Mastermind as some people claim he is, he would have pursued that strategy instead of attempting to preserve his empire through brute force while relying on a decrepit army.

But I guess there's a fundamental reason why he couldn't do that. Soft power is rooted on attractiveness, on the idea that your country has a positive model to offer other countries that play ball. The US has that, China has that, even the USSR had that in his heyday. But Putin's Russia has no attractive quality and no tangible benefits to offer to potential allies. The kind of society Putin is interested in building is one that can only maintain itself through brute force - that's true externally as it's true internally.
Russia was in fact using a soft power strategy for most of the 2000s and even some of the 2010s.
It was only in 2014 they switched to hard power, and then only in one theater.
Russia sits on more hydrocarbons than any other country on earth, and enjoys a key position along east and west that gives it enormous latitude to play the economic power game should it want to.
Russia absolutely has things to offer, it just chose to deemphasize these things at a time when it could scarcely afford it.
Logged
Biden 2024
wolfentoad66
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 336
Norfolk Island


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2022, 11:36:49 PM »

Vote Lib Dem on May 7 - keep Clegg as deputy PM
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,096
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2022, 11:58:04 PM »

Russia was in fact using a soft power strategy for most of the 2000s and even some of the 2010s.
Georgia (and other peoples in the northern Caucasus) would disagree with you.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 11 queries.