Turkey opposes NATO entry because of the many terrorist groups in Sweden and Finland? Every country has its problems but this seems a melodramatic way of complaining about a missing IKEA piece or the horror of fish and crispbread. What is he talking about, if anything?
Coming from Erdogan, I take that to mean they have given refuge to people he does not want to have refuge, e.g. Kurdish activists.
Horses in the meatballs?
Although Finland was wise to prepare for invasion/war there was nothing wrong, and nothing lost, by trying to build friendship and trade. It might have worked. Better than not trying and always wondering if that might have been a possibility.
Estonia was actually occupied and controlled by the Kremlin for decades, whereas Finland was not. Pretty sure that is a factor in how Estonia views the situation.
It is important to consider NATO expansion very carefully. Article Five is a blank check. Do Americans really want to send their children to war over some fool thing in the Balkans? (Or in this case Scandinavia.) Alliances work both ways. At this point the Hungarians could drag us into a war.
I can see both sides of it of course. I tend to see both sides of most everything nowadays. We must protect Finland because to do otherwise would just about ensure a Russian attack some time or another.
Better a war now than later, I suppose. Best of all would be no war at all.
Another Russian ship is reported to have been set alight by Ukrainian action. The Vsevolod Bobrov logistics ship, is reportedly limping home.
Sure, no war at all would be better, but that’s up to the people who start them. Those being invaded don’t exactly have a say in the matter. As for some “fool thing” happening in Scandinavia, I don’t see how that’s even possible. The only non-NATO country in the area is Russia, and unless you consider Russia doing further invasions a fool thing, getting involved due to some fool thing is a negligible risk.
Another one? To lose the Saratova is unlucky, but to also lose the Kunikov, the Novocherkassk, the Moskva, plus 3 patrol and landing boats is careless (and hilarious).
Some excellent news, “Ukraine says Russian troops are withdrawing from Kharkiv”
The article has a lot of details in it. Worth a read I think.
Highlights:
- The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, said Ukraine "appears to have won the Battle of Kharkiv.
- U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is scheduled to meet his NATO counterparts, including the Turkish foreign minister, this weekend in Germany.
- Ukraine’s forces had also made progress, retaking six Ukrainian towns or villages in the past day.
- Britain’s Defense Ministry said Russia lost “significant armored maneuver elements” of at least one battalion tactical group in the attack.
The entire point of NATO was to let the Soviets know that if they attacked a small, relatively defenseless country, they would also end up fighting America. As a practical matter, NATO is one-way. If somebody attacks America directly, all of Western Europe put together will make only a fairly minor addition to the fighting. It would be like two burly men fighting, and then a half-grown child joining in. Your example is precisely how NATO was designed to work from the very beginning.
All of Europe together? They combine to quite a bit more might than you give credit for. Especially ground forces. The US Navy is lopsidedly greater than Russia or all of Europe combined but all of Europe combined is greater than the Russian Navy.
As far as air, I believe the European combined NATO forces are greater than Russian and based far closer than the full US Air Force. They’re probably greater than the US can bring as much of the USAF budget still supports Strategic Air Command.
Yes, NATO’s ability to project power independent of the US might be limited, but for a conflict in their own backyard they don’t need to project very far. NATO is great for the defense of Europe and at the very least not a liability elsewhere. Plus, some of the NATO countries do have some power projection capability of their own, which can add to the balance abroad.
NATO is the best ally to have—perhaps even discounting the US altogether—if you’re on Russia’s border. Unless of course you’d rather be a Russian vassal state a la Belarus. In which case the time for allies has already come and gone.
“The Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” NATO.
A coup to overthrow Russian President Vladimir Putin is underway and can’t be stopped, according to Ukraine’s military intelligence chief.
Also:
Putin has spent decades making his regime “coup-proof.”… [T]he existence of the FSB, the FSO, and The Rosgvardia serve to protect him.
In summary: A coup will take out Putin. Unless it doesn’t.
I think he was specifically talking about what would happen if the American mainland was attacked. The amount of forces brought to bear internally from the US – I would assume the full might of all branches of the US military – would surely dwarf any allied troops on the ground. In that sense, it really is kind of a one-way alliance from the US perspective.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. /Seinfeld
And yet guess who was the first and only state to date to invoke Article 5, calling for collective defense?
Announcing your coup in advance seems like a poor strategy for coup-ing.
I mean, it wouldn’t surprise me if they have guys out there looking to take people out but an assassination squad is different from a coup. That requires people on the inside.
Minus some crazy news out of Russia in the next day or two, I think I’ll write this one down as them just screwing with Putin.
How many troops did NATO send over to us on our soil?
Depends. If it causes Putin to go full-on paranoid and start taking out loyalists, it could lead to an actual coup.
I should think they sent… as many were requested (to our soil specifically). But I’m not sure why that is the relevant criteria. Does the fact they further sent troops to the much more dangerous country of Afghanistan as part of their “defensive” commitment to the US somehow make their contribution lesser?
I would simply urge you to take care when referring to NATO as a one-sided alliance (with the burden to the US and the benefit to Europe). Whether that’s how it gets spun or not, the actual blood spilt on call for the alliance—the one and only invocation of article 5–has been at America’s behest, not Europe’s.
I’m not sure if you’re serious or not, but Finland and Sweden are far more defendable, far less-likely to be attacked, and far more capable of self-defense, than NATO nations such as the Baltic states, and yet the Baltic states have sat safely in NATO for 15 years now without ever being attacked by Russia.
Finland and Sweden have as strong a case for joining the alliance as can be. And yes, if in NATO, they are worth America fighting for on their behalf.