Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

SoyViking ,
@SoyViking@hexbear.net avatar

The problem with the Danes is that they have been so sheltered for so long that the concept of their actions having consequences simply don't register any more. Everything is going to be welfare, roast pork and padding ourselves on the back for all eternity, war and disaster and calamity is something they have in "the warm countries", it will never affect us.

alcoholicorn ,

So what happens if some Danish military bases get bombed or a frigate gets sunk with dozens of dead? Does Denmark pull back or call for WWIII?

maynarkh ,

I doubt Russia would escalate in that way. If it happens, I'd imagine a "tit for tat" thing happening, where the Nordic countries sink the Russian Baltic Fleet and say that they consider the matter resolved.

alcoholicorn ,

When you say nordic countries, you mean sweden, norway, and finland would do a massive escalation, and open themselves up to retaliation? Surely they'd do the calculus and see there's nothing to gain and a lot to lose? I've heard the political situation in the EU was not great, but I expect that kind of hawkishness here on the other side of the planet, not from the countries that actually stand to lose anything.

Skua ,

Well considering both the EU and NATO have articles of mutual defence, they've already agreed to it twice (or once, for Norway and Iceland). I'm not sure sinking a ships qualifies as an escalatory response to bombing bases and sinking ships though. At that point the escalation has already happened.

maynarkh ,

But you don't understand, if a Russian soldier shoots a NATO soldier, that's realpolitik, if a NATO soldier shoots back it's

ESCALATION

maynarkh ,

It's not hawkish, it's the opposite. If there is no retaliation, then that signals that NATO is a joke, and bombing member states is fair game. If we don't shoot back, we lose our own protection, and we are much, much closer to war.

Nobody wants a precedent where NATO is called into question. Remember when there was a stray Russian missile that went into Poland, and immediately half of NATO leadership was there, and it was quickly swept under a rug? If Poland pulled the trigger there, NATO would have went to war.

The point is, Article 5 is not escalation, it's the status quo. If someone gets attacked, we all retaliate. Fucking that up would actually be a massive escalation against peace in Europe.

420blazeit69 ,

Retaliation is the opposite of hawkish? Are you listening to yourself?

maynarkh ,

The only reason there is no war between NATO member states and Russia is NATO itself. If a NATO member gets attacked and NATO does not retaliate, NATO ceases to exist. If there is no NATO, there is no defence for the Baltics, no defence for Moldova, no defence for Poland, and no defence against the stated goal of Russia, the finlandization of the whole of Europe.

A policy of retaliation against warmongers is a policy of promoting peace.

Tankiedesantski ,

Ukraine: "I consent."

Denmark: "I consent."

Russia: "Was there somebody you forgot to ask?"

The myth of consentual flights of F-16s into Russian territory.

BrikoX OP Mod ,
@BrikoX@lemmy.zip avatar

Same way Russia forgot to ask Ukraine, Ukraine forgot to ask Russia. Seems fair.

Tankiedesantski ,

forgot to ask Ukraine

After how many Minsk Agreements mediated by the OSCE would you consider Ukraine properly "asked"?

BrikoX OP Mod ,
@BrikoX@lemmy.zip avatar

The same ones that Russia and Ukraine hates? They can't even agree on the meaning of them, since they are such an ambiguous mess that doesn't specify anything.

Tankiedesantski ,

Skill issue. Were I the Ukrainians I simply would have negotiated a better treaty.

BrikoX OP Mod ,
@BrikoX@lemmy.zip avatar

Skill issue on Russia's part too. Let's be fair here.

Tankiedesantski ,

No doubt. Russia placed too much faith in the OSCE and France and Germany approaching the process in good faith. Merkel later came out and said that the Minsk process was just a time-buying exercise so that NATO could arm Ukraine as a proxy against Russia.

Ukraine, of course, knew that it was being armed and trained and had the carrot of NATO and EU membership dangled before it. Circling back to the original point, the fact that Ukraine was being armed and trained at such a rate is good evidence that Ukraine absolutely knew what was about to happen.

BrikoX OP Mod ,
@BrikoX@lemmy.zip avatar

Russia placed too much faith in the OSCE and France and Germany approaching the process in good faith.

I'm not sure if you're calling Putin a stupid man that is easily manipulated or incompetent. No politician ever in their lives did anything in good faith, Putin included. You must be very naive to think that.

<...> good evidence that Ukraine absolutely knew what was about to happen.

That's an empty speculation. Knowing and preparing for a possibly are completely different things. Also, if you note the timing on the war, it stared a month before a US company was about to start extracting oil and gas from the Ukraine territory and cut off Russia from Europe as supplier. The reason for the invasion was pure greed and not some stupid notions of NATO expansion or cries for help from Russian separatist groups.

Slotos ,

I'm not sure if you're calling Putin a stupid man that is easily manipulated or incompetent.

They are parroting Russian propaganda. The one where “the west” is stipid, cunning, strong, and rotting all at the same time.

Skua ,

Well since neither of them included any sort of language to the effect of "Russia gets to invade if the terms of this agreement aren't upheld", I'm gonna go with more than two. Especially considering DPR forces kept pushing for Debaltseve after both agreements.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • globalnews@lemmy.zip
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •