"the only reason Finland would find themselves in conflict is if they joined NATO."

No, Russia does not want to engage in conflict with a NATO country. If Finland joins NATO then Finland will be at piece for the next century, guaranteed.

I don't understand where this logic "if Finland joins NATO then Russia will invade it". That is backward logic. Russia has very little reason to invade Finland now, and if Finland joins NATO, it cannot.

> Russia does not want to engage in conflict with a NATO country. If Finland joins NATO then Finland will be at piece for the next century, guaranteed.

Russia has not engaged in conflict with a NATO country, so far. If the stakes are raised high enough, I don't think this will continue to hold.

> Russia has very little reason to invade Finland now, and if Finland joins NATO, it cannot.

I would go so far as to say that if Finland applies to join NATO, they'd have to. That is, if it is truly part of their doctrine that NATO/US is an existential threat to the Russian state.

Russia is bullshitting - they are not afraid NATO would invade them.

The balance of fear due to nuclear weapons if nothing else guarantees this.

Russia is opposed to the fact it can't bully it's weaker neighbours on a whim if they are in NATO. That is the cause for their irritation.

I trust Finland and Sweden's analysis. That more than anything else solidified my trust in the NATO position on Ukraine.

If Finland and Sweden remained neutral throughout the entire cold war and yet now are openly considering NATO membership, it means something.

Well, Finland was basically Sweden's shield, and Finland was yielding to Kremlin, so there was very little risk of conflict.

Now Russia has more or less proclaimed it's "back to the empire" agenda which implies subjugation of all of the former states of the russian empire.

Which includes Finland.

The weird thing is, even though Russians lie constantly, when they declare foreign policy targets, they are surprisingly honest and consistent about that.

This implies 1) Finland needs to join NATO asap.

2) After that sweden would be the only weak target left. Gotland is an obvious, concrete military goal that would be feasible target for a RU invasion from Kaliningrad.

Sweden is not a "weak" target just because it's not part of NATO.

Invading, defending, and holding Gotland is not an easy task, especially as the Ukraine invasion has exposed the glaring deficiencies of the Russian armed forces. And Sweden's defense, attenuated as it might be from decades of budget cuts, is focused on defending Gotland.

I'm pretty sure Finland and Sweden are basically inseparable in terms of foreign policy... where one goes the other will go, and they'll discuss with each other in depth prior to any decision.

They may still forgo NATO, its absolutely their choice, and every NATO member respects that, being the primary difference between NATO and Russia. They can leave at any time too.

What disturbs me is that there is a lot of appeasement rhetoric floating around in the comment sections.

If people want to let Russia get away with wrecking Ukraine because Russia has nukes, then we may as well drop the bombs now - once you legitimize that strategy you are going to have massive nuclear proliferation, and even if appeasement worked (it simply doesn't), every other aggressor is going to view nukes as an easy win.

As long as they go into it fully informed, that is the best one could hope for.

Well, they have been bullshitting for loooong time if that is the case. I recall watching a video of Gorbachev talking to the US Congress and warning about NATO/US expansion. This was in 1997.

There is no credible threat of a NATO invasion but there is the First-Strike issue now that hypersonic missiles are being developed. Putin has been moaning about this for a while now. A security-conscious/pragmatic state models "what is possible" vs "what is probable". If it seems likely that future Finland could host hypersonic missiles pointed at St.Petersburg, well it becomes incumbent on Moscow to attempt to prevent that. It seems unwise to dismiss their concerns if said dismissal would lead to Ukraine 2.0.

Lots of people seem to think that the Russian unwillingness to flatten Kiev means they could not do it.

How many people have to die for Finns to feel like they stood up to a bully?

And yet somehow it is fine for Russia to develop its own hypersonic missiles (well at least try to) and deploy them to kalingrad where they are just as close most Central European capitals as such weapons in Finland would be to Petersburg. Also Estonia is already part of nato and the distance from its borders to Petersburg is pretty much the same so the first strike nuclear risk does not really change at all if Finland joins nato.

For some weird reason Russia is the only country in Europe that must have buffer states protecting its lands and be allowed to use force the enforce this.

It would be helpful if everyone stopped this lying and just said it how it is. Russia wants weak buffer states around its borders that it can abuse however it wants. There really is no actual military reason for any of this as nato is a defense alliance by definition and thus it will not attack first and the current situation in Ukraine has proven this to be true.

"It would be helpful if everyone stopped this lying and just said it how it is. Russia wants weak buffer states around its borders that it can abuse however it wants."

This 100%

I honestly don't get this whole nuke placement argument.

Both Russia and the US have nukes that reach around the entire planet, and vehicles to keep nukes moving and hidden so that second strike capability is always present. Russia can hide its nukes in Siberia if its worried about a first strike to remove MAD. The nukes would work just as well. Its also been bragging about its super cavitating torpedo... although I get the Russian position a bit more if its all been a bluff like what appears to be the case in Ukraine.

Hypersonic missiles aren't going to be a huge game changer here (how much of those heavy elements can you cram into them), interception technologies just aren't there yet, and by the time they really come into full swing the US won't be Russia's real problem (demographics are destiny... this applies to everyone)

In addition, I doubt Finland would allow nukes placed on its territory. NATO is a fully voluntary organization. There is no command structure that supersedes national authority.

Also fyi, no one outside of Russia believes that Russia was wasn't trying to level Kiev. They are happily continuing to level Mariupol, so its not like they had humanitarian thoughts in mind. You don't send a massive column of armor for a quick strike smart bomb operation. It boggles my mind that even Russians can believe that.

I believe the most prescient military analysis we can make is that Ukraine got invaded because it was not in NATO.

Until Russia invades any NATO country I have a hard time to dismiss this analysis.

If NATO fails to defend any of it's members then it is nullified. Hence I have a quite high trust to the security instilled by the alliance to any of it's members.

You are pretty good at repeating Russian talking points, by the way ;)

Russia has no legitimate reason to be leveling Ukraine, yet here we are. All Putin has to do is say that Gotland is critical for defending Kaliningrad from NATO to have an excuse to take it.

I'm curious to hear what you think the reason was that Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

I wouldn't know all of Putin's reasoning, but I have to assume that his expressed regret over the dissolution of the Soviet Union, his desire to find out just how much he'd be punished for it, his anger (and need to save face) over the Maidan Revolution, all played a role.

Look at when the Ukraine revolution/coup happened, and when Putin annexed Crimea. Also, understand that after the coup, when Ukraine rewrote their Constitution they laid the ground work to drop neutrality and join NATO. Putin annexed Crimea the next day.

The only reason things didn't continue to accelerate under Trump is because he was not a fan of NATO and had no financial interests in Ukraine like Biden does, so the Ukrainians knew they had no friend in him. Once Biden won, Ukraine went back to poking the bear with obvious results.

I'm sure the Biden families financial activities in Ukraine are 100% completely unrelated though.

Tell me exactly what crimes Ukraine committed that make mass rape, kidnapping, murder, and destruction an appropriate response.

This isn't Reddit.

War crimes committed by the Russians or Ukrainians should absolutely be investigated. They're just not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is "How did we get to this point".

There is a pretty decent amount of information out there as to why Russia wants Crimea (and Ukraine)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

There is a lot of propaganda out there, but a hard and fast truth is that no country, not Russia nor the US nor China nor India nor anyone actually cares at all about normal citizens.

People can care about other people, but countries do not and cannot. Its why Putin's claims of protecting Russians are BS. (US Claims of protecting Ukrainians too, its in the US/Europe interest to do so, its not to protect Tibetans or Afghans for example, so it does not)

It's an obvious bad faith question. Parent poster has a well-rehearsed little shpiel to unload on "why Russia wants Crimea", it's in their comment history multiple times. They're not curious in the slightest, they're prompting a bogus talking point.

See above, cited and sourced. Do you think the timing in 2014 was coincidental?

Also, if the US government had nothing to do with the Russia/Ukraine tiff, then why did Crimea happen while Biden was VP, then nothing while Trump was President, then back on again after Biden becomes President. Is that also unrelated?

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 because Yanukovych failed to put down popular opposition to abandoning the EU association agreement scheduled to be signed in late 2013. EU association was Ukraine's goal long before Biden was VP.

Russia and Ukraine were at war Trump's whole presidency. The Kerch Strait incident escalated it.

Maybe Putin knew Trump was in his back pocket and didn’t need to rock the boat.

Just spitballing.

If that were the case, then he would have invaded while Trump was in office since by this sort of logic, Trump would have let Russia walk right in to Ukraine with no response from the US.

And yet that isn't what happened. Instead, Putin invaded while Biden was VP in 2014 and again while Biden is President now. Very curious that the exact opposite happened. Curious indeed...

> Trump would have let Russia walk right in to Ukraine with no response from the US.

Mr Trump would have done that, absolutely. Not only with no response, but with some blather about "fine people on both sides" and "I spoke to Mr Putin, he said he had to do it, he's a genius to do that".

In other words, with support from the White House in the obfuscatory propaganda; instead of having his militarily moves called out like they were in Feb 2022 - the Biden team was ahead of the game on that.

Why didn't Russia move when Mr Trump was in office? We can't know, but one theory is that he was waiting for NATO to be damaged beyond repair by Trump. Which would have happened if Mr Trump was still in office in 2022.

We know that Mr Trump was much warmer with Mr Putin than Mr Biden or any other recent US president was. Which makes your whole line of suggestion very misleading. So nothing new there. Anyway it's curious that you think this odd talking point is relevant. Curious indeed...

I'm not here for you trotting out that "poking the bear" nonsense again.

So wait, you think Putin could have easily taken Ukraine with no resistance from the US for 4 years under Trump, but instead Putin decided to wait until Trump was gone and Biden was President knowing he would get massive resistance across the board?

So Putin intentionally made things 1000x harder on himself...because reasons? I understand being blinded by Trump hatred, but how do you logically make that sort of conclusion? You have to know that makes zero sense, right?

This not a good response at all, it mostly shouts emotional phrases about "because reasons" and "zero sense" and does not engage with the parent comment.

In short: We can't know all of Mr Putin's reasons. He may have expected a second Trump term, and didn't think we was "waiting until Trump was gone" at all. You don't address the damage to NATO that a second Trump term would have done, and that Mr Putin so clearly wanted Mr Trump to do for him. Come one, engage your NATO obsession one more time?

Mr Putin also clearly didn't expect "massive resistance across the board" or that it would be "1000x harder on himself" to take Kyiv in 2022 so this argument doesn't hold up.

The words that you put in my mouth "you think Putin could have easily taken Ukraine with no resistance from the US" show a confused thinking - are you saying that "resistance from the US" is the only thing that prevents "easily take Ukraine"? I don't believe that, and in 2022, no one should. It's simplistic rubbish that forgets about the agency of the Ukrainian people. Facts on the ground have disproved it.

Finally if you want real answers, ask an expert - Fiona Hill, Molly McKew, Anne Applebaum or the like, not strangers on the internet.

I agree that Mr Putin's actions since February make "zero sense" - his speeches are unhinged and his invasion plan has failed. But an attempt to claim that the cause is in "Trump vs Biden" is ridiculous and self-obsessed. The cause is in Moscow. The answer is in Kyiv.

>are you saying that "resistance from the US" is the only thing that prevents "easily take Ukraine"?

You don't have to take my word for it, Zelensky himself has spent the last 2 months begging for more and more financial and military aid from the US/NATO. We have pumped billions into Ukraine already.

And I'm still trying to understand why you think Putin wouldn't take the opportunity to invade under Trump, while invading twice with Biden in a position of power. Especially considering all of the financial interests of the Biden family in Ukraine. You just see that as a coincidence?

> You don't have to take my word for it, Zelensky himself has spent the last 2 months begging for more and more financial and military aid from the US/NATO

And also fighting for survival, there's that. Financial and military aid from all over, after an invasion, is not the same as "resistance from the US" - the latter implies combat, from the US only. It's dishonest to conflate these.

> And I'm still trying to understand why you think Putin wouldn't take the opportunity to invade under Trump,

All the guidance that you're going to get is above, and I can not help you further.

>and I can not help you further.

Clearly, because there is no logical response. If Putin truly thought he could easily take Ukraine under Trump, he would have. Which means your assumption is wrong.

Meanwhile, we're back to wondering why the Biden families massive financial interests in Ukraine somehow aren't relevant...

> Meanwhile, we're back to wondering why (insert bogus propagandistic talking point) somehow aren't relevant...

I'm not wondering at at all, I see it clearly. You're right, this rubbish is a distraction.

"Hold back 10% for the big guy"

Do you think the invasion and annexation of Crimea, had anything to do with the coup (ahem...pro-US/NATO revolution) that had just occurred in Ukraine[1]?

Keep in mind Putin rolled his tanks into Crimea the day after the new pro-US/NATO regime in Ukraine had thrown out the democratically elected (albeit pro-Russia) government, and rewritten the Ukrainian Constitution[2] to then make it possible to drop neutrality[3] so that they could begin the process of joining NATO. A rule to join NATO is that a nation must be in control of its borders and not in active conflict, so by annexing Crimea, Russia ensured the moves to join NATO would be halted with that action.

Or is that timing coincidental? Remember, you don't have to agree with a reason to at least understand what the reason is.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constituti...

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763