Sweden and Finland set to join NATO in May

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

I was speaking mainly in generalities. Russia's basically been reliant on selling hydrocarbons and other mineral resources to Europe for the past 20 years; that's, at core, a soft power strategy, not a hard power one. The charm offensive they've pulled re: Germany was a soft power thing if I've ever seen one.
Of course, Georgia is an exception, and one I should have mentioned. But it doesn't really change the broader picture in a fundamental way.

[CumbrianLefty]

Vote Lib Dem on May 7 - keep Clegg as deputy PM

In case you haven't noticed, they didn't

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Vote Lib Dem on May 7 - keep Clegg as deputy PM

In case you haven't noticed, they didn't

I wasn't going to talk about it, but since two people have now brought it up, I'll make a short comment. Lol.
That little thing is kept mainly for time capsule value. It's part of the unchanging retro-ness of my signature. I've only heard positive comments about it over the years, so clearly I'm doing something right.
That is all, lol. This thread is about NATO and Russia, Nordics, that jazz. Feel free to ask anything here.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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.

I was speaking mainly in generalities. Russia's basically been reliant on selling hydrocarbons and other mineral resources to Europe for the past 20 years; that's, at core, a soft power strategy, not a hard power one. The charm offensive they've pulled re: Germany was a soft power thing if I've ever seen one.
Of course, Georgia is an exception, and one I should have mentioned. But it doesn't really change the broader picture in a fundamental way.

You are right about Germany, but Russia used hard power plenty of times post-1990 - besides Ukraine and Georgia, there were the interventions in Syria and Transnistria, and the provision of troops to provide “stability” in Belarus and Kazakhstan. This is a grey area w.r.t. hard/soft power, but they also gave strong support to the closely linked Wagner PMC group in Libya, Mali and other unstable countries.

This is in addition to committing troops to various international missions like the anti-piracy campaign off the Somalian coast. High-profile poisonings aren’t necessarily military action, but I would argue the polonium/novichok assassinations in Britain constituted a use of hard power.

No state pursues a purely “hard” or “soft” power strategy, but (in recent decades) Russia has probably relied on strength of arms more than any other major power (except the USA). The contrast between its regular conflicts and China’s lack of them is striking.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

I was speaking mainly in generalities. Russia's basically been reliant on selling hydrocarbons and other mineral resources to Europe for the past 20 years; that's, at core, a soft power strategy, not a hard power one. The charm offensive they've pulled re: Germany was a soft power thing if I've ever seen one.
Of course, Georgia is an exception, and one I should have mentioned. But it doesn't really change the broader picture in a fundamental way.

You are right about Germany, but Russia used hard power plenty of times post-1990 - besides Ukraine and Georgia, there were the interventions in Syria and Transnistria, and the provision of troops to provide “stability” in Belarus and Kazakhstan. This is a grey area w.r.t. hard/soft power, but they also gave strong support to the closely linked Wagner PMC group in Libya, Mali and other unstable countries.

This is in addition to committing troops to various international missions like the anti-piracy campaign off the Somalian coast. High-profile poisonings aren’t necessarily military action, but I would argue the polonium/novichok assassinations in Britain constituted a use of hard power.

No state pursues a purely “hard” or “soft” power strategy, but (in recent decades) Russia has probably relied on strength of arms more than any other major power (except the USA). The contrast between its regular conflicts and China’s lack of them is striking.

This is fair. Of course, I'm honing in on the economic side of it, which by default will be more soft power-oriented; this provides a profoundly different picture.
Some similarities between France and Russia in how they've blended soft and hard power for their own purposes over the past 20 or so years, here.
And it's true that China's lack of regular conflicts is quite striking, especially vis a vis Russia.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1519735278969233408?s=20&t=_teAfFTkz...

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

As i had said somewhere else but put an other way:

If u are threatened by someone and u think u need a shield, dont come out of the wood to tell ur threatener:

'Hey wait! Im gonna look for a shield!'

Means, the moment they officially apply, they shouldnt be surprised if something bad happens on their territory, Finnish people are getting trained in the woods, but someone trains them how to shoot a hypersonic Russian thing?

And since an application doesnt mean being part of it, then Article 5 couldnt directly apply, right?

Then all of sudden Russia would have a wonderfull reason to strike some Western+EU countries without NATO could officially do anything in return, just a wonderfull humiliation of the kind Putin can really enjoy, just with the cost of a few missiles

Apparently a majority, but not so huge, in those countries agrees to join NATO, and amongst the opponents u can hear about, some people whoseem to be aware of such possibilities! Well, people there would be the 1st ones to be on the front line, so i guess it helps to be aware of this

I mean, instead, make everything done with NATO as secret and fast as possible, special procedures with ur parliament or whatever fits the situation, and then only come out of the wood to tell the bad guys:

'Hey look! We got a pretty damn good shield now!'

Might help, too late now, good luck

https://www.nouvelobs.com/russie/20220501.OBS57882/un-avion-russe-viole-l-espace-aerien-de-la-suede-une-action-totalement-inacceptable-pour-stockholm.html#xtor=EREC-10-[WM]-20220501&utm_source=welcoming&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_gratuit

Google translate might be ur friend, otherwise, in short, one more time during very last weeks, some Russian military planes in Sweden sky...

Reconnaissance, nerve testing, else?

[KaiserDave]

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

This did not happen. This simply did not happen. No such event as you are describing happened.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1522221253293228032

[Storr]

Based:

https://twitter.com/elisabethbraw/status/1522645458962636800?s=20&t=LW7I9sBo...

[Hindsight was 2020]

So apparently the (Social Democratic) President of Croatia is threatening to veto Finland's entry to NATO.

I remember Atlas cheering this dweeb's election victory.

And Croatia Prime Minister is pro admitting them and are openly contradicting each other
https://yle.fi/news/3-12418999

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

https://mobile.twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1522221253293228032

Hey, the hypersonic things dont take 2 days to reach, but hey, up to them...

[Helsinkian]

Hey, the hypersonic things dont take 2 days to reach, but hey, up to them...

Seeing as some of the Russian troops in Ukraine are back to using Mosin-Nagants and Maxims, I'm not too worried.

[dead0man]

https://mobile.twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1522221253293228032

Hey, the hypersonic things dont take 2 days to reach, but hey, up to them...

what point do you think you're making?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

https://mobile.twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1522221253293228032

Hey, the hypersonic things dont take 2 days to reach, but hey, up to them...

what point do you think you're making?

Explained above

[dead0man]

Explained above

not to me.  Are you saying Finland can be defeated by Russia in 2 days because Russia has hypersonic missiles?  'cause that would be a very VERY stupid thing to say out loud, so I have to assume it's not that, but I can't think of anything else it could be.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hmm, the point of a whole thread is to be followed in case of any inquiries about what is meant, so, there was this:

As i had said somewhere else but put an other way:

If u are threatened by someone and u think u need a shield, dont come out of the wood to tell ur threatener:

'Hey wait! Im gonna look for a shield!'

Means, the moment they officially apply, they shouldnt be surprised if something bad happens on their territory, Finnish people are getting trained in the woods, but someone trains them how to shoot a hypersonic Russian thing?

And since an application doesnt mean being part of it, then Article 5 couldnt directly apply, right?

Then all of sudden Russia would have a wonderfull reason to strike some Western+EU countries without NATO could officially do anything in return, just a wonderfull humiliation of the kind Putin can really enjoy, just with the cost of a few missiles

Apparently a majority, but not so huge, in those countries agrees to join NATO, and amongst the opponents u can hear about, some people whoseem to be aware of such possibilities! Well, people there would be the 1st ones to be on the front line, so i guess it helps to be aware of this

I mean, instead, make everything done with NATO as secret and fast as possible, special procedures with ur parliament or whatever fits the situation, and then only come out of the wood to tell the bad guys:

'Hey look! We got a pretty damn good shield now!'

Might help, too late now, good luck

But, if it's ok to take a few strikes for Finland and/or Sweden within few minutes after they make loud official application as long as they are not defeated, then who am i...

Why on Earth they, u know who i guess, bothered staging a fake operation in 1944 to go to Normandy, they should have straight away aired the date and place on BBC, and those bloody French Résistants only did odd code messages cause they are just so stupidly fond of poetry, i guess

Just like right now the world media seems to know the details of all whats being sent to Ukraine by Westerners, they should also give the dates and places of deliveries might show to the ennemy that we are really not scared of whatever they could do in return

Art of dissimulation wouldnt be reserved to the bad guys only, especially in war contexts, and can be done without breaking ur moral values, it's just tactic and strategy, and no matter how many war challenges we are being thrown in our faces it seems too 'bellow' for us to really bother

I hope we wont have to need to be more seriously tested about it to better realize, and this case, especially Finland's, will be one more test, for Russians to see till where they want to go, and for us to see how we really want to handle it, if we really want to handle it

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is concerning, the potential for NATO expansion to create a world war.
I hope it never gets to that point.

[dead0man]

Hmm, the point of a whole thread is to be followed in case of any inquiries about what is meant, so, there was this:

As i had said somewhere else but put an other way:

If u are threatened by someone and u think u need a shield, dont come out of the wood to tell ur threatener:

'Hey wait! Im gonna look for a shield!'

Means, the moment they officially apply, they shouldnt be surprised if something bad happens on their territory, Finnish people are getting trained in the woods, but someone trains them how to shoot a hypersonic Russian thing?

And since an application doesnt mean being part of it, then Article 5 couldnt directly apply, right?

Then all of sudden Russia would have a wonderfull reason to strike some Western+EU countries without NATO could officially do anything in return, just a wonderfull humiliation of the kind Putin can really enjoy, just with the cost of a few missiles

Apparently a majority, but not so huge, in those countries agrees to join NATO, and amongst the opponents u can hear about, some people whoseem to be aware of such possibilities! Well, people there would be the 1st ones to be on the front line, so i guess it helps to be aware of this

I mean, instead, make everything done with NATO as secret and fast as possible, special procedures with ur parliament or whatever fits the situation, and then only come out of the wood to tell the bad guys:

'Hey look! We got a pretty damn good shield now!'

Might help, too late now, good luck

But, if it's ok to take a few strikes for Finland and/or Sweden within few minutes after they make loud official application as long as they are not defeated, then who am i...

Why on Earth they, u know who i guess, bothered staging a fake operation in 1944 to go to Normandy, they should have straight away aired the date and place on BBC, and those bloody French Résistants only did odd code messages cause they are just so stupidly fond of poetry, i guess

Just like right now the world media seems to know the details of all whats being sent to Ukraine by Westerners, they should also give the dates and places of deliveries might show to the ennemy that we are really not scared of whatever they could do in return

Art of dissimulation wouldnt be reserved to the bad guys only, especially in war contexts, and can be done without breaking ur moral values, it's just tactic and strategy, and no matter how many war challenges we are being thrown in our faces it seems too 'bellow' for us to really bother

I hope we wont have to need to be more seriously tested about it to better realize, and this case, especially Finland's, will be one more test, for Russians to see till where they want to go, and for us to see how we really want to handle it, if we really want to handle it

so your point, I think, is that they should join NATO secretly?  I don't see how that's possible.  Russia sucks, sure, but they aren't completely incompetent at espionage.  And the press in the west is even better, someone would find out.  Plus the thousands of people involved, someone is leaking even if the press or the KGB (or whatever they call it these days) fail to figure it out.

Also, as the Tweet above states, as soon as the process starts, they're members and will be defended if attacked.  If I was in charge, I'd give the NATO umbrella to everyone in eastern Europe whether they want it or not.  Appeasing jerks is no way to live.  If we had stood up to Putin in 08 or 14, there would be a whole hell of lot more living Ukrainians.  Nobody know what future deaths we might see if we don't stand up to him now.

[Person Man]

It is concerning, the potential for NATO expansion to create a world war.
I hope it never gets to that point.

At this point, if a world war actually happens, it was always going to happen.

[DavidB.]

>ever responding to TimTurner and Benwah in a serious way instead of ignoring them

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

A good way of countering the Warsaw Pact.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hmm, the point of a whole thread is to be followed in case of any inquiries about what is meant, so, there was this:

As i had said somewhere else but put an other way:

If u are threatened by someone and u think u need a shield, dont come out of the wood to tell ur threatener:

'Hey wait! Im gonna look for a shield!'

Means, the moment they officially apply, they shouldnt be surprised if something bad happens on their territory, Finnish people are getting trained in the woods, but someone trains them how to shoot a hypersonic Russian thing?

And since an application doesnt mean being part of it, then Article 5 couldnt directly apply, right?

Then all of sudden Russia would have a wonderfull reason to strike some Western+EU countries without NATO could officially do anything in return, just a wonderfull humiliation of the kind Putin can really enjoy, just with the cost of a few missiles

Apparently a majority, but not so huge, in those countries agrees to join NATO, and amongst the opponents u can hear about, some people whoseem to be aware of such possibilities! Well, people there would be the 1st ones to be on the front line, so i guess it helps to be aware of this

I mean, instead, make everything done with NATO as secret and fast as possible, special procedures with ur parliament or whatever fits the situation, and then only come out of the wood to tell the bad guys:

'Hey look! We got a pretty damn good shield now!'

Might help, too late now, good luck

But, if it's ok to take a few strikes for Finland and/or Sweden within few minutes after they make loud official application as long as they are not defeated, then who am i...

Why on Earth they, u know who i guess, bothered staging a fake operation in 1944 to go to Normandy, they should have straight away aired the date and place on BBC, and those bloody French Résistants only did odd code messages cause they are just so stupidly fond of poetry, i guess

Just like right now the world media seems to know the details of all whats being sent to Ukraine by Westerners, they should also give the dates and places of deliveries might show to the ennemy that we are really not scared of whatever they could do in return

Art of dissimulation wouldnt be reserved to the bad guys only, especially in war contexts, and can be done without breaking ur moral values, it's just tactic and strategy, and no matter how many war challenges we are being thrown in our faces it seems too 'bellow' for us to really bother

I hope we wont have to need to be more seriously tested about it to better realize, and this case, especially Finland's, will be one more test, for Russians to see till where they want to go, and for us to see how we really want to handle it, if we really want to handle it

so your point, I think, is that they should join NATO secretly?  I don't see how that's possible.  Russia sucks, sure, but they aren't completely incompetent at espionage.  And the press in the west is even better, someone would find out.  Plus the thousands of people involved, someone is leaking even if the press or the KGB (or whatever they call it these days) fail to figure it out.

Hey, if u dont try u wont succeed, and if ure so sure at what ure doing that u can risk the lives of people that u have under ur responsibility, then good for u, good for them, and best of luck to everybody!

It's not as if there is seriously dangerous guy who is actually leading a seriously dangerous war and that would seriously like to turn the Western democracies down!

Again, when we could feel the war from closer then we were taking measures to handle the dangerosity of the war way more properly, dissimulation, surprise effect, hey it's not as if all of this really mattered in the history of War, did it??

So, dunno, maybe it's not close enough for us yet, maybe we need Finland or who knows what to realize things a bit more properly, eventually

That anyways gonna be a good test for Russia too, depending on how NATO handles the new adhesions, if ever there effectively is a gap of protection and that Russia doesnt use it, it would show them as bit more cautious about a serious confrontation with the West than what they want to show, but it's a bet that could have 'a cost'

[Hindsight was 2020]

I feel like your point that Finland and Sweden needing to join in secret would have more weight to it if it wasn’t for the fact that it would be suicide for Russia to open a second front on Finland and Sweden. They don’t have the manpower or resources to open a second front against two more countries let alone ones that have superior military equipment to Russia. I mean Sweden has a western armed air force that could ripe Russia’s apart. The only thing Russia can do is shake their fists at them joining NATO because quite frankly at this point they could probably beat Russia on their own without actually joining NATO. It’s just that even though they probably would win it still would be destructive and bloody so it would better to join as a deterrent