Huh, history would suggest otherwise.
The Soviet Union had its reasons to act like it did according to its own justifiable geopolitical needs back then but peaceful and non-agressive it was certainly not.
Discussing long term impacts of Ukraine crisis
- Thread starter sndef888
- Start date
The Soviet Union had its reasons to act like it did according to its own justifiable geopolitical needs back then but peaceful and non-agressive it was certainly not.
Professor John Mearsheimer, an American political scientist (in September 2015): : The West is leading down the primrose path, encouraging Ukraine play tough with , and the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe the policy I've been advocating is neutralizing Ukraine...
As posted earlier by other member, the long version of about 01:15:00 is here -- if any one has such time & interest
As posted earlier by other member, the long version of about 01:15:00 is here -- if any one has such time & interest
Finland and Sweden are both members of the EU and have no urgent need of NATO membership.
Whether they will apply or not remains to be seen. I think Sweden will. Finland is a more open question due to past history and position but it would be easier for both to do it at the same time. Where one nordic country go the rest usually follows.
Russia of course applies pressure to both countries not to even think about but I don't think it has much sway. Not before and especially not after Ukraine.
Moldova on the other hand is in no such strong position and would very likely be the next hotspot after Ukraine
Last edited:
New NATO members is bascially a uno reverse card.
There isn't much NATO can do about Russia's attack on Ukraine without risking all-out war.
But there isn't much Russia can do about new NATO members without risking all-out war either.
Cold war brinkmanship at play.
And the message to Russia that "you went to war to avoid new NATO members and that is exactly what happens due to your actions" is pretty enticing as a political signal for NATO and the West right now. Might even be seen as a win.
It mostly depends whether the West (especially the US) wants to de-escalate things or not.
There isn't much NATO can do about Russia's attack on Ukraine without risking all-out war.
But there isn't much Russia can do about new NATO members without risking all-out war either.
Cold war brinkmanship at play.
And the message to Russia that "you went to war to avoid new NATO members and that is exactly what happens due to your actions" is pretty enticing as a political signal for NATO and the West right now. Might even be seen as a win.
It mostly depends whether the West (especially the US) wants to de-escalate things or not.
Professor John Mearsheimer, an American political scientist (in September 2015): : The West is leading down the primrose path, encouraging Ukraine play tough with , and the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe the policy I've been advocating is neutralizing Ukraine...
As posted earlier by other member, the long version of about 01:15:00 is here -- if any one has such time & interest
Isn’t Mearshermer in favor of collaborating with Russia to contain China? Is Hua trying to get him in trouble on purpose?
Exactly, once Ukraine is in NATO is over for Russia, it can't do nothing about it except nuclear war, something make the Putin snap and say "f**k it, is now or never", Putin is a very cold calculating guy and he doesn't do things out of the blue.
i think he say it in more in the kind of economic competition, either way, is so true that its sounds almost prophetical.
It's been weird seeing Mearsheimer referenced so much recently. I've watched more than a dozen of his talks and debates. He is fiercely anti-China. He thinks it was a huge mistake to allow China into the WTO. He could care less about the 100's of millions of Chinese raised out of poverty. He just wants the US/West to surround and choke off China by any means. Any chance he gets he tries to rally his audience to be anti-China. For example, in one debate he tells Australia to follow the US and confront rather than work with China. If not, they will eventually be ruled by China (this was when Australia was still friendly with China). Nowadays I don't bother with him anymore because he has been singing the same anti-China tune for decades.
He is euphemistically called a "realist." I suspect he might be more a racist, given his pro-russian stance.
Maybe the Chinese are trying to use popular sentiment to turn him into an American Yuan Chonghuan.
That depends on what you mean by over.
Certainly not Russia's very existence or core national security but more its influence over the few remaining east european countries outside NATO. Which to Russia might be seen as an integral part of the former whether the West, NATO, Ukraine (or anyone else for the matter) sees that as rational or not. However that's just an explanation and not a justification for the war against Ukraine.
But yeah, the rest you wrote is eactly what I think transpired and why the Russian invasion seems so unprepared despite all the very public military build-up bs. That was just an extension of the political pressure by Russia but became something else when that plan didn't (or didn't seem) to work.
Last edited: