The War in Europe

Hitler's gains in Europe and Putin's attacks on Chechnya, Georgia, the Crimea, the Donbas region and now all of Ukraine seem right in line with each other. They both seem like plays for more territory, influence, power and respect.Wasn't Stalin's main concern about Finland its potential use as an enemy base of operations? The amount of territory he was originally demanding wasn't that great.--Percy

I was hoping to find a definitive list of which countries support Russia and which support Ukraine, but no such luck. I put this together myself, and it isn't complete, though all the major countries are on it. If someone knows of some news outlet that has a done a complete job please post it.I think some countries must be waffling, because I found some contradictory information out there. For example, I found one article saying that China does not support Russia, but other information said they did, and I've read articles about China continuing trade with Russia, aiding Russia with sanctions, and issuing sympathetic propaganda, so I put China in the "Supports Russia" category. I had similar problems with Hungary and Turkey, which I also put in the "Supports Russia" category.Supports Russia:

• Armenia
• Belarus
• China
• Cuba
• Hungary
• India
• Iran
• Kazakhstan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Pakistan
• Syria
• Turkey
• Uzbekistan
• Venezuela

Supports Ukraine:

• Australia
• Belgium
• Bulgaria
• Canada
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Iceland
• Italy
• Japan
• Kenya
• Libya
• Luxembourg
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Poland
• Portugal
• Romania
• Slovakia
• South Korea
• Sweden
• United Kingdom
• United States

Neutral:

• Algeria
• Bolivia
• Morocco
• Mozambique
• South Africa
• Sudan
• Tanzania

Some sources:

• Chart: Where Russia's Attack on Ukraine Was Condemned | Statista
• Countries Supporting Russia & Ukraine - Complete List & Reason
• https://www.miamiherald.com/...d/world/article258822748.html

--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hungary is maintaining its joint military agreements with Russia and and is refusing to support the EU sanctions on Russian oil and gas. You could be right about Turkey. My distrust of Erdoğan probably influenced me.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

The Washington Post is currently running an opinion piece by Michael Gerson that summed up my view pretty well (If Putin isn’t stopped in Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next). Here's the concluding paragraph:

quote:

---

The lesson? Ukraine, with aggressive help from NATO, must defeat Russian forces, or the United States might soon face the question: Do we really fight for Lithuania? Though we are obligated, the decision and task would not be easy. Helping draw a NATO redline at Ukraine could help the United States preserve itself from impossible choices of the future.

---

Taking on NATO head on if it means restoring Soviet Union era vassal states isn't something that Russia would shy away from. Given the dearth of NATO troops and armaments in the Baltic States and no NATO bases at all, the Russian army would swarm over the Baltic states and present the west with a fait accompli.--Percy

I think you may be forgetting the position I've outlined in my messages in this thread, including the message you're replying to where I quoted from that editorial that I said echoed my own feelings. For instance, it asked "Do we really fight for Lithuania?" That's a serious question that will get asked should Russia threaten Lithuania, especially if Trump is back in office at the time.But my main point was that NATO doesn't scare Putin. Putin doesn't believe Russia would be committing suicide by attacking a NATO member country. Also recall everything I said earlier about softening up a targeted country first. One avenue is political change resulting in a Kremlin friendly government or leader, like Lukashenko in Belarus, Orbán in Hungary, or Erdoğan in Turkey. If Putin could help achieve a Kremlin friendly leader in the US like he did in 2016 with Trump, he could do it anywhere.The Russian military is not a clown car. The Baltics have good reason to be fearful of Russia, especially given the possibility of a second Trump administration in 2025, friendly to Russia and skeptical of NATO.A not uncommon opinion amongst foreign policy experts is that it was a mistake to admit former Soviet republics and vassal states into NATO because of how provocative it would be to Russia, that eventually there would be a price to pay. They're wrong because when you have someone like Putin there's always a price to pay. Appeasement only delays it, not avoids it.Russia has no special status that entitles it to a buffer zone of vassal states surrounding it, as it seems to be demanding. Russia's population is a mere 144 million. Indonesia is nearly twice as big, the US is more than twice as big, India and China are each nearly 10 times as big, yet none of these countries are surrounded by vassal states whose governments they control. Why should Russia get to claim this privilege? Because when it was the largest republic in the Soviet Union it was the way the Soviet Union did things? Because it has a large nuclear arsenal? I don't think so.--Percy

This is probably a bit premature. Probably what is happening is that Sweden and Finland are beginning an internal dialogue about the possibility of applying to join NATO that has a better chance of a positive decision than past efforts. NATO members must still approve their applications.Many seem willing to cede to Russian the ability to play the nuclear card to in order to have a significant say in western policy toward itself, and today we learn that Russia warns of nuclear, hypersonic deployment if Sweden and Finland join NATO | Reuters. I'm not sure what the best analogy is. Maybe letting criminals with serious bombs have a say in the arming, staffing, and enforcement procedures of police.I'll bet Russia wants more than just being able to dictate who joins NATO and what level of military support of Ukraine is permissible. I'll bet, for just one example, that Russia also believes NATO bases in Poland are just a bit too far eastward for their comfort. They'd probably prefer they be moved west a few hundred miles. We'd better do it, after all Putin does have that button.A serious discussion of Soviet and NATO military power that doesn't involve the simplistically wrong claim that (paraphrasing) "Russia commits suicide (whatever that means) by so much as setting foot on NATO soil" might be helpful. Russia already commits many cyber and air violations of Baltic sovereignty, and many Russian troops are stationed nearby in Kaliningrad and Russia proper (How real is the Russian threat to the Baltic States? | New Europe, Russian Encroachment in the Baltics: The Role of Russian Media and Military).--Percy

Good God, you're still pushing the same nonsense. See my previous messages for responses.--Percy

I'll be more direct and clear this time. You said, "Just heard that both Sweden and Finland are now applying to be NATO members," which was clearly wrong. I said, "Probably what is happening is that Sweden and Finland are beginning an internal dialogue about the possibility of applying to join NATO that has a better chance of a positive decision than past efforts," which was clearly correct.It does seem to be reported with greater circumspection on this side of the pond. On your side of the pond I tried to check the Times, but it's behind a paywall now, so I checked the Telegraph. Sweden and Finland look set to join Nato after surge in support for military alliance reports:

quote:

---

Sweden has decided to join Nato, according to reports, with Finland likely to follow “within weeks”,...

---

On our side of the pond neither Sweden nor Finland have yet made a decision about whether to join NATO. Finland moves closer to joining NATO is about Finland from the Washington Post and reports them beginning a process, just as I said:

quote:

---

Finland will launch an immediate debate on joining NATO, Finnish officials said on Wednesday, as the country reconsiders its longtime stance outside the Western military alliance following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

​

Prime Minister Sanna Marin said that a decision would be made in coming weeks.

​

“There are different perspectives to apply [for] NATO membership or not to apply and we have to analyze these very carefully,” she said at a news conference in Stockholm, according to Reuters. “But I think our process will be quite fast.”

​

Marin spoke alongside Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, who said Sweden was also reexamining its position outside NATO, after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine offensive plunged Europe into its most serious security crisis since World War II.

​

The ministers spoke as the Finnish government released an official assessment Wednesday of how Russia’s invasion has changed its security environment, beginning a process that has been expected to culminate in a request to join NATO.

---

Russia threatens to move nukes to Baltic region if Finland, Sweden join NATO reports that both Sweden and Finland are beginning a process, again, just as I said. Here's the portion about Sweden:

quote:

---

Sweden’s ruling Social Democrats, who have traditionally opposed NATO membership, have also said they will review their position in the coming months.

---

And this about both Finland and Sweden from the New York Times, which definitely doesn't believe Sweden has already made a decision as the Telegraph reported:

quote:

---

At a news conference in Stockholm on Wednesday with Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson of Sweden, Prime Minister Sanna Marin of Finland said a decision on whether to apply for membership would be made “within weeks” as her government submitted a document to inform parliamentary debate on the issue.

​

“There are of course pros and cons with being a member of NATO, as there are pros and cons of other security choices,” Ms. Andersson said. But, she added, “I see no point in delaying this analysis or the process” over whether to join.
...
Opinion is shifting quickly in Sweden, too, with about 50 percent of people now in favor of joining NATO, rising to 62 percent if Finland joins, Ms. Wieslander said. In Finland, a recent poll had 68 percent in favor joining the alliance, rising to 77 percent if the president and government recommend it.

​

In Sweden, an all-party parliamentary group led by Foreign Minister Ann Linde is studying the issue, with a report due May 31. That deadline may be accelerated, because a decision to join NATO would have to pass Parliament with a solid majority, and that would depend on the Social Democrats shifting their position, Ms. Wieslander said.

---

I didn't comment on the likelihood that Finland and Sweden would become NATO members, but if we define "end of summer" as September 22, 2022, then I will take that bet. A country that has applied for NATO membership must be approved by all NATO members. I don't know about how easy/difficult approval will be to obtain from other countries, but here in the US if accession to NATO by Sweden and Finland is seen by the Republicans as a win for the Democrats, then they will fight it tooth and nail. Also, the Senate, the body that must approve the applications, will be in recess for the month of August.The approval of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic in 1998 by the US Senate was "the result of months of laborious efforts" with objections like increased costs to American taxpayers and poisoning relations with Russia (think Trump supporters, which is still most of the Republican Party).Instead of a virtual chocolate egg for stakes, how about if I win you stop wasting space claiming a Russian invasion of a NATO country would be suicidal. It's actually a win for you since then you'd be wrong less often. Why do you keep saying things that are self-evidently not true? If it were true then we wouldn't daily read reports of NATO fears of provoking Russia by providing Ukraine with certain armaments, like modern fighter jets, or by actually putting NATO forces on the ground and in the air in Ukraine. The $800 million in additional assistance just approved for Ukraine still includes no fighter jets. What it adds are 155mm howitzers, radar defense systems and Claymore anti-personnel mines. Every little bit helps, but it's still just little bits. We're not acting like a Ukraine win is important to our own security. Current levels of assistance just make more likely a protracted conflict that results in the eastern Ukraine eventually being sliced away.Of course, once Putin has eastern Ukraine he will forgo any further expansionist efforts and the Russian threat will be over. The appeasers will have won the day! And I've got this great bridge for sale... Why this persistent insistence on being wrong? Even Zelenskyy disagrees with you since he's not applying for NATO membership. He's instead using the promise of giving up on NATO membership as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia.--Percy

Well, yes, that's the problem. You always respond with bald unsupported statements with no basis in fact. The articles are from 2020 and 2021. It's true that the security situation of the Baltic nations has changed since then, but only to become even more dire, as statements by their political leaders make clear. They feel at risk now more than ever, which was my point. The Baltic States are very vulnerable, NATO membership notwithstanding. Russia just said it would move nuclear arms to Kaliningrad if Sweden and Finland joined NATO. It was reported in newspapers worldwide. Political leaders worldwide issued reactions. I think it's safe to say everyone's listening. For example, see The Baltic's first reaction to the Russian threat. What are you basing this on? His military is preparing a major operation in eastern Ukraine. They've recently made substantial progress in Mariupol which could fall soon. The Russian economy is not failing. Sanctions work only very slowly, if at all. Where do sanctions on Russia go from here? A foreign policy expert weighs in : NPR describes what can reasonably be expected for the Russian sanctions to accomplish. You can't keep waving NATO like a magic wand. It's just a military, not a superhero. I think we all hope that Putin is pushed out of power, but it isn't something we can count on.--Percy

A virtual chocolate egg? Who cares. If you don't like the stakes I suggested then suggest something else, but at least make them tangible and interesting. But before you make a bet with substance keep in mind that all 30 NATO member states must approve. How approval is conferred differs from country to country. Their political calendars vary all over the map. There will inevitably be political considerations. Hungary leans uncomfortably toward Russia anyway. Your confidence is hard to fathom. No one expects you to change your mind just on someone else's say so, but what can reasonably be expected is a response with evidence and/or argument instead of just "nyuh-uh," which is all you've apparently got.--Percy

I explained why your opinions make no sense, and you seem unable to offer any evidence or argument in support, yet you hold them anyway. That's hard to fathom, like the people arguing that tens of thousands of votes were falsely cast. "Why do you think that?" they're asked. "How is that even possible?" There's no answer, but they think it anyway.Why do you think it would be suicide for Russia to attack a NATO country? No answer.What do you even mean by suicide? No answer.Why do you "feel very safe" in betting Finland and Sweden will be NATO members by 9/22/22 after all the reasons I gave for why this is unlikely? No answer.Why do you think no one cares what Russia wants/needs/demands anymore, even when provided the extremely recent example of their Baltic nuclear threat? No answer.And you just go on and on in this way, apparently not feeling the need to justify anything you say. This isn't a discussion to you where you muster evidence and argument in an effort to persuade, just a place to state your opinions while casting insults at people actually trying to carry on a discussion. You've said this before, also without offering any substance. I explained this at the time, but there was no answer then, either.--Percy

The true issue is that you don't know how discussion works. It goes like this. A discussion often starts when someone states an opinion. Someone else disagrees and explains why. If the first person disagrees then he responds and explains why. If the other person disagrees with that response then he in turn responds and explains why, and so on back and forth until resolution or impasse is reached.But you seem to think that a discussion ends once you state your opinion, even though it has little or no evidence or argument. Efforts to explore why you hold that opinion are met with deflection, taunts, insults, but not evidence and argument, i.e., not discussion. Of course it's allowed. What's missing is your explanation of why you disagree. You seem to think that casting aspersions at people explains your position. There were no earlier discussions. There was just an earlier version of this, you avoiding explaining why you hold the opinion you do. You're doing a great imitation of a creationist. EvC Forum creation/evolution discussions are littered with creationists making claims that they try and fail to defend, then when they make the claim again and are asked to defend it they say they already did that.Yes, I have an opinion, and you disagree. Why? Who knows, you won't say, but you feel free to keep repeating opinions you can't or won't defend. You've been kind enough to inform me of my many faults, but of why you hold the opinions you do? Very little.I see your message has three likes. I invite them to explain what they think I'm missing. Perhaps you're saying something of substance and I'm just missing it, so maybe if said in another voice I'll get it.--Percy

US has received a formal diplomatic note from Moscow that contains a warning about arming Ukraine. I'll quote sections of Russia warns U.S. to stop arming Ukraine:

quote:

---

Russia this week sent a formal diplomatic note to the United States warning that U.S. and NATO shipments of the “most sensitive” weapons systems to Ukraine were “adding fuel” to the conflict there and could bring “unpredictable consequences.”
...
“They have targeted supply depots in Ukraine itself, where some of these supplies have been stored,” said George Beebe, former director of Russia analysis at the CIA and Russia adviser to former vice president Dick Cheney. “The real question is do they go beyond attempting to target [the weapons] on Ukrainian territory, try to hit the supply convoys themselves and perhaps the NATO countries on the Ukrainian periphery” that serve as transfer points for the U.S. supplies.

​

If Russian forces stumble in the next phase of the war as they did in the first, “then I think the chances that Russia targets NATO supplies on NATO territory go up considerably,” Beebe said. “There has been an assumption on the part of a lot of us in the West that we could supply the Ukrainians really without limits and not bear significant risk of retaliation from Russia,” he said. “I think the Russians want to send a message here that that’s not true.”

---

Summarizing, Russia is warning us of "unpredictable consequences" if we continue arming Ukraine with certain weapon systems, and one Russia analyst believes that attacks on NATO territory are possible.--Percy

This is actually an excellent example of what I'm talking about. The discussion has become bothersome, but it's "difficult to point to many specifics", so you don't bother pointing to any specifics at all. It's "just a general emotion...that may be shared."I need a little bit more to go on than that. People wishing I would just drop it without providing any reason of substance just makes me suspect that evasion is being employed because the position under examination is insupportable. Except that I don't. I ask for the support for that opinion and am told, in effect, to go pound sand, with taunts and insults thrown in along the way.As I already explained, Tangle hasn't provided support for his opinion. The best example of his failure to support a position is his claim that Russia attacking a NATO country is equivalent to suicide. He's argued for it, then against it outlining a position very similar to my own, and now for it again. He's also argued that it would be WW3, which possibly he's equating to world wide nuclear war, but I don't know for sure because he won't say.I've also asked what he means by suicide, thinking that possibly what he means by it is something that would render the suicide claim sensible, but he won't say what he means by it. Evasiveness always raises suspicion. The UK? 1600 miles away? Seriously? I guess they're all experiencing such angst over this that one of their major newspapers, The Telegraph, couldn't even get the Sweden/Finland thing right: "Sweden has decided to join Nato," it said. Tangle posted that Sweden and Finland had decided to join NATO as if had already happened, a done deal. I guess they're all just in such a tizzy over there they can't think straight. Totally unreasonable to expect anyone in the UK to support their claims with evidence and argument giving what they're facing. We don't know what he means because he won't tell us, so you think we should just say to ourselves, even about things that look self-evidently wrong, "Hey, Tangle's an intelligent guy, we'll just assume that whatever he means makes sense and leave it at that." I wish I could get my hands on some of this "benefit of the doubt" you're throwing around.Do you remember Fred Hoyle? I'm sure Tangle does since Fred was British. Hoyle figured out how elements are synthesized within stars. He was considered a candidate for the Nobel Prize at one point. But near the end of his life Fred took up creationism. Should we have given Fred the benefit of the doubt, told ourselves that "Fred has more than a passing intellect," and joined him on the creationist bandwagon on his say so? No, right? So why are you arguing that Tangle should be granted this privilege? Asking someone for their evidence and/or reasoning, or pointing out what you see as problems, is disrespectful? In a debate forum? Seriously? No one's asking for a "tome of logical proofs." I'm saying that nothing is not enough. He didn't include any reasoning, nor evidence, either. He said some glib "stuff" that had self-evident problems, and I described those problems. He could have replied constructively in any of several ways. For example, he could have explained the reasoning that showed it did actually make sense, or how my own reasoning was faulty, or how I was failing to take some piece of evidence into account, and so on. But he instead just reiterated his opinion without further elaboration. There's no circle, just a pile of unanswered questions on Tangle's doorstep. You know what's bothersome and disrespectful? Having your efforts to make sense of what someone's trying to say met with silence or insults. I will continue trying to make sense of what people say here, including Tangle. If Tangle's got some opinions that he considers off limits for discussion then he should keep them to himself.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Already rebutted before you replied. Percy Message 655: We care very much about "what Russia wants/needs/demands." If we didn't we'd be much less circumspect in the assistance we provide Ukraine.--Percy