Scandinavia: I know I shit on Denmark a lot, but I think they deserve it

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Scandinavia: I know I shit on Denmark a lot, but I think they deserve it

«‹›589 »

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

V. Illych L. posted:

first: it provides a framework for direct intervention by security services, as seen in the countries i mentioned in a previous post.
second: it means that an independent security policy is impossible. it means that we are forced to join in imperial adventures such as the libya intervention, because that's what we're set up to do. this means that even if we wanted to develop our own security services less hostile to socialism than the ones mentioned above, we couldn't.
third: it means that our foreign policy with other power blocs (china, russia, etc) is always going to be framed in terms of inter-imperial competition, i.e. it's going to lead to confrontations on the national level. the history of the 19th century illustrates that this is not conductive to socialism; they spent decades trying to build a movement which stood in opposition to this kind of miltarism, and the great inter-imperial conflagration of WW1 was a huge blow to socialism in western europe.

Now explain how all of this does not apply to any other military alliance, like the proposed Scandinavian/Nordic one.

# ? Apr 10, 2022 15:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 01:17

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

it's mostly the specific connection to the western imperial powers, especially the USA. i'm sure that the norwegian, swedish and finnish security services are also firmly conservative, but they are not as overwhelmingly well-funded, nor have they got as strong a tradition of intervention as the US security state. there's also less direct overseas interest for these countries - if we have a stable and more or less independent security situation, we can generally expect that refusing to join in imperial adventures is an actual option. it would also open up a possibility of a less confrontational european security arrangement in northern europe, which one may hope reduces tensions all around in the long term and ideally averts further war.

basically, the closer to actual people a security structure is, the less implacable it is. any path to socialism already involves going up against very tall odds and powerful forces in our own country, and an awful lot of financial and cultural opposition from other countries. the NATO security paradigm means that, even if we could overcome all that opposition, we would have no way of maintaining our position since our security services are unable to function more or less independently. even if sweden and finland were skeptical of norway turning socialist, it's not clear that they would be able to do much about it, since we're a peer nation to them; not so the americans or the british.

NATO membership for the past few decades has meant effectively assuming that the US security interest is identical to ours. that is a problematic assumption today - russia invading ukraine is not a huge problem for the US, but it's a much bigger problem for europe - but in a situation where we're trying to transition to a socialist political economy it would be obviously wrong, since the US security interest is so inimical to socialism.

e. note i'm pretty hungover so i'm probably not at my most coherent today. i apologise for this

# ? Apr 10, 2022 17:07

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

V. Illych L. posted:

russian nuclear doctrine is openly available and states that nukes are a weapon for an existential conflict. they have not used tactical nukes in ukraine. i do not think that it's a part of the spectrum of realistic russian aggression. if it were, i would prefer if the risk of strategic nuclear escalation be kept as small as possible. i honestly find the idea that we should prefer the end of the world to a military defeat a little unnerving.

you're basing your fear here not on present russian doctrine but on what you think the russians might make their doctrine in the future. it is possible that circumstances change, of course, but i do not think that this change is particularly likely. as noted previously, this change would amount to a view of russia as permanently, actively aggressive and military confrontation as basically inevitable: i do not subscribe to this view for reasons i've laid out in previous posts.

NATO membership prevents socialism in the following ways:

first: it provides a framework for direct intervention by security services, as seen in the countries i mentioned in a previous post.
second: it means that an independent security policy is impossible. it means that we are forced to join in imperial adventures such as the libya intervention, because that's what we're set up to do. this means that even if we wanted to develop our own security services less hostile to socialism than the ones mentioned above, we couldn't.
third: it means that our foreign policy with other power blocs (china, russia, etc) is always going to be framed in terms of inter-imperial competition, i.e. it's going to lead to confrontations on the national level. the history of the 19th century illustrates that this is not conductive to socialism; they spent decades trying to build a movement which stood in opposition to this kind of miltarism, and the great inter-imperial conflagration of WW1 was a huge blow to socialism in western europe.

there are more specific points to be made here, but they mostly boil down to "the US will not allow socialism and NATO membership means that we cannot substantively defy the US"

Ugh.

Russia can't use nukes like I described because that's not their doctrine? Cause they wrote it down? They can't change their mind?

You're goddamned right I'm worried about tomorrow, why the gently caress would I be planning for today? I don't accept your personal opinion on the conduct of Russia in five years from now as a security guarantee.

So basically, you can't coherently and concisely make a legible point as to the precise nature of how NATO stops socialism in Norway. Other than, like, it harshes the vibe totally and we can't like, be super besties with powers such as Russia and China.

Why the hell would we align ourselves with anything but the democratic and human rights respecting nations of the west? If we can't achieve the goals of socialism within that framework, then how would we ever.

The core of your premise is we substantially - today - can't defy the US, which you 1: haven't demonstrated is true, 2: haven't described what that would entail (what would the left want to do to "defy" the US?), and 3: how this in a worst case scenario is worse than the forced subservience to a totalitarian mafia state we could expect if we were at the mercy of our clearly belligerent neighbour.

This is some Pål Steigan poo poo. I don't understand your point and I don't accept it. Again, if I can't be a socialist if I want a realistic national security policy then the far norwegian left is in for some serious trouble.

# ? Apr 10, 2022 18:42

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

the USA: noted pro-socialist human rights respecter

look, if your view of russia is that they are prepared to suffer any losses necessary to subdue norway for some reason and that we must assume that they will use maximal force contrary to their history and stated doctrine to this end, then you're perfectly right that there is no way to deter this without nuclear force of our own. i do not agree with this assessment of russia's position and i've posted about why previously. this is of course a point which may be discussed further, but i've gotten the impression that that discussion is unwanted itt.

our association with the US has seen us intervene in military conflicts in iraq, afghanistan, libya and former yugoslavia in my lifetime. it is not clear that these interventions have left the places they happened better off. it is not clear that they've left *us* better off. we did it because Our NATO Allies (tm) called and we responded. it seem very clear that the NATO framework has considerable policy implications for norway, from the actual composition of our armed forces to where and how those forces are deployed. we cannot meaningfully refuse to engage in such adventures, the initial invasion of iraq notwithstanding, because we're completely dependent on being a valuable asset to the US for their protection to be worth anything. that means subscribing to a confrontational security situation which *leads inevitably to conflict*. such conflict can be resolved in different ways. presently it's being attempted resolved by military aggression from the russian side.

it's pretty easy to find examples of US policy being consistently and heavy-handedly anti-socialist from italy to indonesia to chile to greece to vietnam to post-soviet russia to cuba to just about anywhere US power has been dominant. it is honestly a little confusing to me why this is apparently controversial. to me, if we can assume that the US is consistently anti-socialist and that it's willing to use its leverage to prevent a transition to a socialist political economy, it follows that having our security situation totally dependent on them for security gives them a great deal of leverage and that this is contrary to the objective of transitioning norway to a socialist society.

this sort of thing is not a steigan perspective. most of what i'm writing here has been espoused by everyone left of Labour since NATO was founded, from NKP through SF and AKP(ml) to R�dt and SV. luminaries like georg johannesen and dag �sterberg have echoed more or less exactly this kind of sentiment. i do not understand why this is making you so angry

# ? Apr 10, 2022 19:09

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

It's really not that hard to understand that some scandis would rather not be too involved with western states with a rich history of modern interventionism.

# ? Apr 10, 2022 23:20

Cardiac: Aug 28, 2012

V. Illych L. posted:

our association with the US has seen us intervene in military conflicts in iraq, afghanistan, libya and former yugoslavia in my lifetime. it is not clear that these interventions have left the places they happened better off. it is not clear that they've left *us* better off.

Lol that former Yugoslavia would be better off without the interventions.
You are really tying yourself into a knot in order to get away from the fact that NATO is the only security organisation for a western democratic country (and some others).
Any arguments that countries are forced to follow USA falls flat on their face since neither Germany nor France will do anything they are not onboard with and they cannot be forced into it. Obamas red line comes to mind.
Also, nato membership didn�t stop a coup and counter coup in Turkey.
If history tells us something about NATO it is that it is a defensive organisation, where the real big thing, Article 5, have only been invoked once. That membership countries have a tendency to go on separate military adventures is another thing.

Finally, at this point I would argue that the actual endpoint of socialism is a nationalist police state run by a dictator/oligarchy.

# ? Apr 11, 2022 13:14

jeebus bob: Nov 4, 2004; Festina lente

Cardiac posted:

Finally, at this point I would argue that the actual endpoint of socialism is a nationalist police state run by a dictator/oligarchy.

Fascinating. Please share which logical steps you took to arrive at that conclusion.

Provide examples where possible.

# ? Apr 11, 2022 20:11

Jon Pod Van Damm: Apr 6, 2009; THE POSSESSION OF WEALTH IS IN AND OF ITSELF A SIGN OF POOR VIRTUE. AS SUCH:
1 NEVER TRUST ANY RICH PERSON.
2 NEVER HIRE ANY RICH PERSON.
BY RULE 1, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PRESUME THAT ALL DEGREES AND CREDENTIALS HELD BY A WEALTHY PERSON ARE FRAUDULENT. THIS JUSTIFIES RULE 2--RULE 1 NEEDS NO JUSTIFIC

Trading some exports to parts of Europe, the US and Canada and the formalization of NATO in a couple of tiny countries in Europe in exchange for the weakening of SWIFT and the Petrodollar and the rise of the Ruble-Yuan, Ruble-Euro, and Ruble-Rupee and improved relationships with South America, Africa, Asia seems like a good deal for the Russians and the vast majority of the human population that live outside the West.

Was Finland or Sweden ever going to be allowed to leave the European losers in NATO and the EU and join the SCO by the Americans? I don't think so. The EU will be forced to crash their own economy and remain servants to the rich men in Texas, Alberta, New York, Virginia and Delaware by buying expensive oil, gas, credit, and weapons from them.

Is it a good idea to go down with the sinking ship that is the American empire? Probably not. Pledging your allegiance to countries with leaders like Donald Trump (who will probably win in 2022/2024), Boris Johnson and Macron(or LePen) is pretty stupid but that's what most likely will happen unfortunately.

But on the other hand it's pretty funny to watch sophisticated holier than thou Scandinavians get owned by fat hamburgers.

If you truly believe Trump and LePen are Putin's puppets why would you join a NATO that will soon be lead by Donald Trump.

Enjoy following the escapades of Trump's second (and more senile) term while also being members of NATO :rubby:

.

What kind of hijinks will he and his merry band of insane Fox News and neo-con advisors get up to? Will they assassinate a Russian or Chinese general this time? What kind of crazy and dangerous operations will his loyalists in the CIA and the armed forces be able to get away with after decades of Islamophobic, Russophobic and Sinophobic propaganda when Trump controls the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court in 2024?

# ? Apr 11, 2022 20:20

Revelation 2-13: May 13, 2010; Pillbug

ted hitler hunter posted:

in exchange for the weakening of SWIFT and the Petrodollar and the rise of the Ruble-Yuan, Ruble-Euro, and Ruble-Rupee and improved relationships with South America, Africa, Asia seems like a good deal for the Russians and the vast majority of the human population that live outside the West.

So that's what a copium overdose looks like.

ted hitler hunter posted:

Is it a good idea to go down with the sinking ship that is the American empire? Probably not. Pledging your allegiance to countries with leaders like Donald Trump (who will probably win in 2022/2024), Boris Johnson and Macron(or LePen) is pretty stupid but that's what most likely will happen unfortunately.

But on the other hand it's pretty funny to watch sophisticated holier than thou Scandinavians get owned by fat hamburgers.

If you truly believe Trump and LePen are Putin's puppets why would you join a NATO that will soon be lead by Donald Trump.

Enjoy following the escapades of Trump's second (and more senile) term while also being members of NATO .

What kind of hijinks will he and his merry band of insane Fox News and neo-con advisors get up to? Will they assassinate a Russian or Chinese general this time? What kind of crazy and dangerous operations will his loyalists in the CIA and the armed forces be able to get away with after decades of Islamophobic, Russophobic and Sinophobic propaganda when Trump controls the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court in 2024?

I guess no matter which neoliberal rear end in a top hat wins an election somewhere, and no matter which fascist imperialist scores some kind of win; you get to run "I told you so" victory laps. Good on you.

# ? Apr 11, 2022 21:04

fnox: May 19, 2013

ted hitler hunter posted:

words

Wow, now I just want Sweden to join NATO even more, thanks!

# ? Apr 11, 2022 22:59

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

i also think that the russians had mostly written off everything to their west bar belarus and ukraine when they invaded, so sweden and finland joining is likely something they see as acceptable losses. they're not even bothering to whine too much about it. i do question the idea that arguing a case is tying oneself into knots, though

# ? Apr 11, 2022 23:06

Kamrat: Nov 27, 2012; Thanks for playing Alone in the dark 2.

Now please fuck off

All I want from NATO is to gently caress off to their own corner of the world, creating a mutual defensive army together with the other Nordic countries would be a far better alternative than joining the American imperial army wing that is NATO.

Now even Socialdemokraterna is warming up to the idea of joining NATO though so I have little hope for Sweden.

# ? Apr 12, 2022 00:06

vuk83: Oct 9, 2012

Kamrat posted:

All I want from NATO is to gently caress off to their own corner of the world, creating a mutual defensive army together with the other Nordic countries would be a far better alternative than joining the American imperial army wing that is NATO.

Now even Socialdemokraterna is warming up to the idea of joining NATO though so I have little hope for Sweden.

How is NATO an imperial army wing of the US? participation in overseas adventurism was never mandatory?

# ? Apr 12, 2022 10:19

Baudolino: Apr 1, 2010; THUNDERDOME LOSER

As if we would have spent nearly the money required to make a nordic defence union credible. Readyness for crisis is not something we like to prioritize. So i for one am grateful for Nato despite its flaws.
Unless you are proposing a nucular arned Scandinavia. That just migth work.

# ? Apr 12, 2022 11:28

Kamrat: Nov 27, 2012; Thanks for playing Alone in the dark 2.

Now please fuck off

vuk83 posted:

How is NATO an imperial army wing of the US? participation in overseas adventurism was never mandatory?

It increases American military presence and power around Europe and it makes it possible for the US to stage attacks from their military bases. Participation in wars of aggression and approving the building of US-military installations in the country isn't mandatory but it's encouraged.

# ? Apr 12, 2022 11:31

Mymla: Aug 12, 2010

I mean, we participate in america's wars even without being in NATO.

# ? Apr 12, 2022 11:49

vuk83: Oct 9, 2012

Kamrat posted:

It increases American military presence and power around Europe and it makes it possible for the US to stage attacks from their military bases. Participation in wars of aggression and approving the building of US-military installations in the country isn't mandatory but it's encouraged.

No not really? Turkey is member of NATO. that didn't mean the 4th infantry division could invade northern Iraq in 2003. And the different Scandinavian governments have their own reasons for supporting the US, for example the Danish government wants American support in the polar regions, also denmark has some industry involved in for example JSF

# ? Apr 12, 2022 12:11

Kamrat: Nov 27, 2012; Thanks for playing Alone in the dark 2.

Now please fuck off

Mymla posted:

I mean, we participate in america's wars even without being in NATO.

I don't like this either, we could stop doing this and not join NATO at the same time.

Kamrat fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Apr 12, 2022

# ? Apr 12, 2022 12:43

fnox: May 19, 2013

We'd have to pony up so much loving cash for weapons production in order to be able to even muster something close to what NATO membership would provide for a much lower cost. The idea of a Scandinavian only military alliance is laughable, it's not a real alternative.

Again like, we're discussing joining NATO on the concept of deterring imperialist aggression from Russia. This means at the very least a nuclear deterrent. We'd hypothetically have one as part of the EU but who loving knows at this point, if France suddenly decides to not let anybody else use their nukes. The UK is no longer part of the EU so they're not beholden to anything related to that.

# ? Apr 12, 2022 12:56

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

fnox posted:

We'd have to pony up so much loving cash for weapons production in order to be able to even muster something close to what NATO membership would provide for a much lower cost. The idea of a Scandinavian only military alliance is laughable, it's not a real alternative.

Again like, we're discussing joining NATO on the concept of deterring imperialist aggression from Russia. This means at the very least a nuclear deterrent. We'd hypothetically have one as part of the EU but who loving knows at this point, if France suddenly decides to not let anybody else use their nukes. The UK is no longer part of the EU so they're not beholden to anything related to that.

I mean that is officially France's nuclear deterrent policy, it's independent of NATO's, unless things have changed in the last decade or so. France will engage in full on nuclear relatiation for an attack on French territory, but for anything else they will leave it. It's even reflected in that old crazy Soviet war game where France is excluded from the nuclear strikes (against German and Danish targets amonst many others) that were part of that.

# ? Apr 12, 2022 13:23

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

fnox posted:

France suddenly decides to not let anybody else use their nukes.

LOL at what point have the french shared control of their deterrence stockpiles?

# ? Apr 12, 2022 13:51

fnox: May 19, 2013

evil_bunnY posted:

LOL at what point have the french shared control of their deterrence stockpiles?

Never. According to a maximalist interpretation of what the CSDP entails it is hypothetically possible considering France would have to be involved in the defence of another EU country that is dragged into war, meaning they'd be at war with said aggressor as well, which would presumably also be a nuclear state. Maybe I should rephrase that as "France using their nukes for anybody else".

# ? Apr 12, 2022 14:09

Affi: Dec 18, 2005; Break bread wit the enemy

X GON GIVE IT TO YA

I'm a longtime V voter and I'm all for joining NATO mostly because a fascist dictator is telling us not to.

# ? Apr 12, 2022 14:35

Revelation 2-13: May 13, 2010; Pillbug

fnox posted:

We'd have to pony up so much loving cash for weapons production in order to be able to even muster something close to what NATO membership would provide for a much lower cost. The idea of a Scandinavian only military alliance is laughable, it's not a real alternative.

Yeah, trump was right about the US doing the heavy lifting of nato. However, the US would have a giganto mega-army anyway. So everyone else in the west/europe, who is not a facist nation prone to starting wars of aggression, can just chill with a minimum military (excluding france and the uk). Like even russia could just have spent it's military budget of the last 20 years on infrastructure instead, and nothing would have happened. Except probably the nations they subjugated by force would try and break free. The orange clown is also a complete imbecile who is too stupid to realize that the US gets 10 fold back what they spend patrolling the world, by being defacto western world leader. Which he almost blew with his weird army extortion scheme.

Revelation 2-13 fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Apr 12, 2022

# ? Apr 12, 2022 19:01

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

fnox posted:

"France using their nukes for anybody else".

A thing that will not happen

# ? Apr 12, 2022 23:57

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Revelation 2-13 posted:

Yeah, trump was right about the US doing the heavy lifting of nato. However, the US would have a giganto mega-army anyway. So everyone else in the west/europe, who is not a facist nation prone to starting wars of aggression, can just chill with a minimum military (excluding france and the uk). Like even russia could just have spent it's military budget of the last 20 years on infrastructure instead, and nothing would have happened. Except probably the nations they subjugated by force would try and break free. The orange clown is also a complete imbecile who is too stupid to realize that the US gets 10 fold back what they spend patrolling the world, by being defacto western world leader. Which he almost blew with his weird army extortion scheme.

russia's a major arms dealer and that has traditionally made up a lot of their soft as well as their hard power. this is actually playing out right now with india and vietnam trying very hard not to condemn russian aggression here. you're assuming institutional US benevolence, which is not a good assumption, especially in the russian case since they actually tried capitulating in living memory and it worked out terribly for them.

Affi posted:

I'm a longtime V voter and I'm all for joining NATO mostly because a fascist dictator is telling us not to.

this is not a good reason to be in favour of something, you realise. a thing can be bad and be disliked by bad people. the whole great power politics game is very, very bad for ordinary people everywhere, and combined with high tensions and mutually assured destruction it's eventually going to end up destroying us all. a policy of confrontation between nuclear armed blocs is incredibly risky. this all used to be established knowledge after the cold war, but suddenly people are agitating for nuclear confrontation like they're ronald reagan and it's 1983 and they're trying to end d�tente

there's no winnable nuclear war. permanent confrontation increases the risk of large-scale war. even the russians realise this, which is why they haven't altered their nuclear doctrine in the face of serious military setbacks.

NATO membership is a way of suborning one's own security apparatus to the US security apparatus. unless one assumes that US security interests are identical to your own security interests, there's something very real being lost there. it also will not be cheap; both sweden and finland would have to commit to increased military expenditure compared to their present budget within a NATO which is taking the 2% goal more seriously now that it has a reason to exist again.

# ? Apr 13, 2022 05:24

Lunsku: May 21, 2006

V. Illych L. posted:

NATO membership is a way of suborning one's own security apparatus to the US security apparatus. unless one assumes that US security interests are identical to your own security interests, there's something very real being lost there. it also will not be cheap; both sweden and finland would have to commit to increased military expenditure compared to their present budget within a NATO which is taking the 2% goal more seriously now that it has a reason to exist again.

FWIW, our (Finland) defence expenditure in 2021 budget was already 1.85% of GDP, and in 2022 budget 1.96% (and extra spending has been decided on for this year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Given what's going on, I am completely fine with hitting the 2% minimum.

Edit: And I do feel the question of cost is somewhat beside the point: the necessary security arrangement, be it maintaining the current status, deepening co-operation in a nordic framework, or applying and joining NATO, WILL be expensive anyway. Unless of course one�s basic premise is that it�s still more or less business as usual and more focus on security and defense is not required.

Lunsku fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Apr 13, 2022

# ? Apr 13, 2022 05:31

Revelation 2-13: May 13, 2010; Pillbug

V. Illych L. posted:

russia's a major arms dealer and that has traditionally made up a lot of their soft as well as their hard power. this is actually playing out right now with india and vietnam trying very hard not to condemn russian aggression here. you're assuming institutional US benevolence, which is not a good assumption, especially in the russian case since they actually tried capitulating in living memory and it worked out terribly for them.

The point is nothing would have happened if they made farm equipment and nice roads with the military budget instead, and stopped trying to build their stupid fascist empire. I�m not assuming benevolence on anyone�s part. �Nato� wouldn�t have attacked them, no-one would. They could even have turned off all the nukes if they wanted to.

I don�t want to touch the rest of your post with a 10 foot pole because the fascist appeasing/legitimizing literally makes me sick. As if anyone but russia engineered, started, and is continuing this horrific war of aggression and ethnic cleansing. As if they haven�t been doing the same to their neighbors for year and years. As for the �Oh no, Permanent confrontation?!! :qq:

� the alternative is a fascist dictator rules over most of Europe you dumbo, certainly the eastern part. Certainly Poland and the Baltics would be gone as poo poo even in this decade. I realize the Putin-explainers love their �Putin gets his way or we all die!!!� but ughh, it�s just so loving stupid.

# ? Apr 13, 2022 05:47

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

i actually agree that the budget commitment isn't the most significant thing about NATO membership, but

fnox posted:

We'd have to pony up so much loving cash for weapons production in order to be able to even muster something close to what NATO membership would provide for a much lower cost.

seems to imply that NATO membership is a cheaper alternative than the present posture, or that only a nuclear deterrent can keep russia from invading scandinavia. the latter is so clearly deeply questionable that i assume that fnox means the former.

# ? Apr 13, 2022 05:48

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

V. Illych L. posted:

i actually agree that the budget commitment isn't the most significant thing about NATO membership, but

seems to imply that NATO membership is a cheaper alternative than the present posture, or that only a nuclear deterrent can keep russia from invading scandinavia. the latter is so clearly deeply questionable that i assume that fnox means the former.

No, it implies that NATO membership is a cheaper alternative to the required deterrence that fnox believes is necessary. Like, you've cut out the part where they say a Scandinavian alliance would need a nuclear deterrent.

# ? Apr 13, 2022 05:58

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Revelation 2-13 posted:

The point is nothing would have happened if they made farm equipment and nice roads with the military budget instead,and stopped trying to build their stupid fascist empire. I�m not assuming benevolence on anyone�s part.

I don�t want to touch the rest of your post with a 10 foot pole because the fascist appeasing/legitimizing literally makes me sick. As if anyone but russia engineered, started, and is continuing this horrific war of aggression and ethnic cleansing. As if they haven�t been doing the same to their neighbors for year and years. As for the �Oh no, Permanent confrontation?!! � the alternative is a fascist dictator rules over most of Europe you dumbo, certainly the eastern part. Certainly Poland and the Baltics would be gone as poo poo even in this decade. I realize the Putin-explainers love their �Putin gets his way or we all die!!!� but ughh, it�s just so loving stupid.

the actual alternative in europe would have been an OSCE-style reformed european security arrangement. the NATO path is a path towards permanent confrontation, which is incredibly risky and has always been, especially when there's no plan in place for any way out of this; the present strategy seems to be try and isolate the russians economically, which hasn't got a great track record in terms of regime change.

also it's extremely tiresome to keep getting accused of what amounts to a lack of patriotism because i don't believe that the russians are Just Crazy And Evil. the invasion of ukraine is a clear act of aggression, a huge escalation in tensions and a crime. this can be true *at the same time as our present security policy is bad*. in fact, i would argue that one of the primary goals of a security policy should be to prevent and avoid open war, in which case NATO's policy up until 2022 failed. whether this is because they miscalibrated their deterrence or because they wanted to avoid risking too much for ukraine or whatever is a matter for discussion, of course.

i've even agreed that a military deterrent is necessary and useful, i just don't think that 1) the russians are going to escalate to using nukes unless there's a clear and direct threat to either the country or the regime and 2) that permanently increased tensions are a good thing

# ? Apr 13, 2022 05:59

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

A Buttery Pastry posted:

No, it implies that NATO membership is a cheaper alternative to the required deterrence that fnox believes is necessary. Like, you've cut out the part where they say a Scandinavian alliance would need a nuclear deterrent.

ok, it's early and i probably misread that.

but that's a very strange thing to post from sweden, though

# ? Apr 13, 2022 06:00

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

V. Illych L. posted:

also it's extremely tiresome to keep getting accused of what amounts to a lack of patriotism because i don't believe that the russians are Just Crazy And Evil.

You start off saying it's tiresome to have your position misrepresented, and then you misrepresent everyone else by claiming they believe "the russian are Just Crazy And Evil." I am pretty sure the position of most people in the "can't trust Russia camp" specifically don't trust Putin and the Russian leadership in general, with the Russian populace essentially not being part of the analysis because they'll just be propagandized into going along with whatever Putin wants. Putin =/ Russia, and Putin's interests =/ the interests of the Russian people.

V. Illych L. posted:

ok, it's early and i probably misread that.

but that's a very strange thing to post from sweden, though

Not if you believe Russia has shifted into a different conception of how to achieve security, for Russia, the Russian state, or Putin specifically, which has changed to security calculus for Sweden and Finland.

# ? Apr 13, 2022 06:09

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

A Buttery Pastry posted:

You start off saying it's tiresome to have your position misrepresented, .

You can't use logic and facts to argue someone out of a position they arrived at without the use of logic and facts.

# ? Apr 13, 2022 06:19

Revelation 2-13: May 13, 2010; Pillbug

V. Illych L. posted:

also it's extremely tiresome to keep getting accused of what amounts to a lack of patriotism because i don't believe that the russians are Just Crazy And Evil.

I apparently wasn�t clear enough when I said the fascist appeasing made me sick. So to minimise the apparent confusion. I�m not accusing you of lack of patriotism and I don�t think Russians are inherently crazy and evil. I�m saying you are supporting fascist imperialism. Willingly or because of being a moron I cannot say. Just to be even more clear; no, it�s not because of your anti-nato stance I think that. I share that in large parts.

# ? Apr 13, 2022 06:24

Zudgemud: Mar 1, 2009; Grimey Drawer

V. Illych L. posted:

the russians are going to escalate to using nukes unless there's a clear and direct threat to either the country or the regime

What you do not get is that for defence you always plan according to what the capabilities of your likely attacker is. You do not plan according to their current policy, as that is something that can change from one month to the next. This is really basic defence planning, I'm surprised that you do not know of this.

And even if one goes by your quote above. If the US and the major EU countries turn isolationist or pro Russia, and a Russian military expedition to a non aligned non nuke country goes absolutely terribly and defeat is a direct threat to the regime due to their internal politics, what would prevent the Russian regime from ordering a nuclear strike on their war target then? Morals? A policy document written in 1962? Sanctions? Strongly worded letters from the small potatoes of the international community? The self preservation instinct of some conscript in a missile silo?

Zudgemud fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Apr 13, 2022

# ? Apr 13, 2022 09:21

big scary monsters: Sep 2, 2011; -~Ｓｋｕｌｌｗａｖｅ~-

Zudgemud posted:

What you do not get is that for defence you always plan according to what the capabilities of your likely attacker is. You do not plan according to their current policy, as that is something that can change from one month to the next. This is really basic defence planning, I'm surprised that you do not know of this.

How had the situation changed with this (second) invasion of Ukraine then? Russia has had a massive nuclear arsenal for decades, nothing has changed in their offensive capabilities.

# ? Apr 14, 2022 13:49

TheFluff: Dec 13, 2006; FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

big scary monsters posted:

How had the situation changed with this (second) invasion of Ukraine then? Russia has had a massive nuclear arsenal for decades, nothing has changed in their offensive capabilities.

After 2000 the Swedish defense policy changed to planning for the intent rather than for the capability. Peace in our time was a fact, or so it was believed. The Cold War era planning did assume that at least tactical nukes could be deployed and there were attempts to mitigate that (earlier in the Cold War they planned for even more than that). The current armed forces and not least the current civil defense are shadows of their former selves though, and now Russia has very clearly demonstrated that they have both the capability and the intent to wage actual wars of conquest against their neighbors. This puts the current defense policy in such an obviously bad spot that it cannot be ignored anymore. We need to return to planning for the capability, but unfortunately we don't have a couple of decades and a significant chunk of the government's total spending to rectify the problem on our own (during WW2 we had the same problem and it took the better part of a decade and something like 40% of the state budget in spending for most of those years to get mostly up to par).

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Apr 14, 2022

# ? Apr 14, 2022 14:18