Sweden and Finland's decision will forever change the landscape of Europe.

Russia had hoped the Ukrainian invasion would send the message that it was anti-NATO expansion and that no one would attempt such an expansion to continue beyond present borders. Well, Sweden/Finland have called Russia's bluff and they themselves are now seeking to join NATO. As a response, Russia has declared that they could increase their nuclear arsenal in the Baltics.

This is not a good development for the US however. As long as the matter was strictly Ukraine, a new security apparatus could have been born. But now we have Sweden/Finland being brave all of a sudden and basically sticking their nose into the European conflict out of a misguided sense of self preservation.

Much like the memorandum that brought us into the crisis, article 5 rears its ugly head the more the contest zones expand. The hotter the war in Europe becomes, the more we seem to be dragged into it, again. Let's be brutally honest, without article 5 both Sweden and Finland joining this conflict would be suicide on the part of both countries, both subject to being liquidated by the Russians after neutrality was assured for a century.

The only reason both countries could have for doing this, would either be A: private assurances of acceptance into the alliance or b: The US guaranteeing Sweden/Poland through private channels, or C: both.

After it looked like it could just be a regional war, European countries pushed the ante and now we have to ask ourselves the question: Is it worth joining the European side in this hot war? Macron is trying to somewhat soften the blow, but it's already too late. The War in Europe is now hot.

My thing is, after being on the side of the allies in WWI and in WWII, we have liberated Europe for the past 100 years and our reward was fledgling and weak European security. Ontop of this, the odd development over the past 15 years was in spite of their weak security they had a bone to pick with the Russians and vice versa, expecting us to pick up the tab.

And well, because of "who we are", we will of course pick up the tab. But can we afford to? The country with massive inflation challenges and shortages fighting a hot contested war in Europe to guarantee the safety of smaller European States.

“The difference between being a partner and a member is very clear, and will remain so. There is no other way to have security guarantees than under Nato’s deterrence and common defence as guaranteed by the alliance’s article 5,” she said.

Of course, Washington has itself to blame. Our failure to be more diplomatic, or to hold more of a stake in a region that will automatically force us into its geopolitical arena has led to the current crisis. If the European nations/continent felt there was a substantial price to US Security, they would either A: Enable that price(open and expanded access to the European markets/outright membership) or B: Actually also engage in diplomatic solutions to end the crisis.

But we already are a merchant, we're just an unpaid merchant which is worse. I demand that we at least get our "salary" as a national merchant of power in Europe, it's only fair and right to the continued sustenance of the US.

 

You seem to be under the incorrect impression that increasing nuclear arsenal is about just... saying it... and... voila! It's done.

Must I remind you that attempting to increase their nuclear arsenal (at the time, to keep up with the U.S.) is what brought down the USSR? They can't! Not all the oil in the world would give them enough funds to maintain their current arsenal and increase it. Especially when Europe is expected to move faster than us (we are lagging behind) away from fossil fuels.

The threat that Russia poses to Democracy is not in the least bit "misguided". Russia IS a threat. And Putin shows as many signs of respecting "neutrality" as he does of respecting human rights and international law. Unfortunately defending democracy has a cost. But we (also Europe) are better off assuming that cost now, when our economy is strong, than in an uncertain future when we might be in the middle of a recession.

What has changed the landscape of Europe forever is not Finland's of Sweden's decision, but Putin's decision.

 

Finland and Sweden were in doubt about the territorial intentions of their huge neighbor. Putin reduced those doubts. No wonder they want to take steps to preserve their sovereignty. Finland already had a dose of expansionist intentions from the same country.

 

Our economy is strong at a time when our buying power couldn't be lower(increasing inflationary pressure)? Yes, Putin's aggressive decision obviously pre-empted this moment but it's not as though it came as a surprise or a shock, Putin's Russia gave the world its red lines and we continually cross them fearing absolutely no consequence from what we acknowledge to be an antagonist power.

This is exactly what led up to the world wars: A little bit here, a little bit there. Ah, no one cares until oh crap(insert international incident), they do care. NATO previously stated it wasn't going to put military boots on the ground, while at the same time Biden promised to defend "every inch" of Nato land. but said land increases with each new NATO member.

How is it that we the West do not see where this is headed?

 

~ Good idea — and the only fair way to go about this. Unfortunately President Trump was the only one seeking to establish this . Capitola Hill seems content throwing U.S. taxpayer's money around with abandon ...

 

What do you mean unpaid? We are by far the biggest arms dealer in the world, and its not even close. Heck, Finland (the topic here) agreed to buy 60 F35 fighters to replace their existing 60 F18s. And yes, they will pay for them, as do our other clients. Ukraine is receiving gear for now, but they too will become a paying customer once the war is over.

 

Wait a minute. Wasn't this about Finland and Sweden joining NATO?

My point is that, wherever this is headed, that's not going to change because those two countries join NATO. In fact, their joining is likely to be GOOD in the struggle against Putin.

 

So we may be getting payment in the form of the arms being paid for, but to me this is merely just paying for the arms they receive. Is that enough of a price for US involvement? See, it helps out the arms merchants, but as far as the greater economic good(where goods are redistributed. IE: Manfacturing military weapons as opposed to manufacturing domestic goods), we lose out overall. There's a reason why pro-military countries very rarely couple that up with pro-economic countries.

To me, I've always wanted us to reverse the engine: To be a prominent pro-economic engine, and supplying US forces with that. I tend to find that the most powerful or long lasting countries are able to do this. England/UK was as prominent as long as it was because not only of its exports but it continued to produce in the heart of the United Kingdom.

I don't want to enter an arms race with Russo/China, I want to enter a financial race with them. And if we win the financial race, we will win the arms race by default. Whereas by contrast, we may temporarily win an arms race but lose the financial race.

I want to join the European Union(Actually, in my pro-imperial view, I'd want to take it over outright.) Failing that, I want the European Union to finally agree to unilateral trade with US/EU. That's what the Trump Administration tried to achieve as well. Our biggest trading partners cannot necessarily be with Mexico/Canada(the USMCA or NAFTA 2.0 benefits them more than us. Mexico/Canada don't really have goods to export to us.)

Since we are the largest guarantor of European Security, it is only fair that we have that large of a stake. It would allow us to expand the US market and even yes, it'd be logical to put US military bases to defend our European ground. Logistics become easier if we have a true foot in the door.

 

Arms manufacturers part of the economy, its just a different product compared to cars, or farming equipment. They employ people and they pay taxes, etc. The US taxpayer buys military gear for the US Military, but now for international clients. Finland pays the US manufacturer.

Unilateral deals are typically imposed, not agreed upon. Or they are used in reverse as a form of foreign aid, like US lowering restrictions for bananas from Uganda. A bilateral (mutual benefit) trade agreement (TTIP) was agreed upon, - practically zero tariffs both ways,- but Trump tore up the agreement, and imposed more import taxes on US consumers instead. As expected, it made things worse, and anyone who is pro-capitalism would agree it was a stupid idea.

 

Honestly, it was clearly a mistake to play along with Russia on restricting NATO membership for Ukraine. Now that Putin has invaded Ukraine, his poor performance has erased any fear of the Russian military. Finland and Sweden have a much more modern army and air force than Ukraine, and obviously the NATO Alliance would wipe out Russia in a couple of months.

Putin is threatening to place nukes closer to Finland and Sweden, but he was already flying them over Sweden a month ago.

 

Intertwining alliances are what lead to World War I.

A little dispute in one part of Europe ended up pulling the whole continent into a huge war.

 

The thing is(in general) if you look at our trade imbalance, we are much more an importer than an exporter. As far as the global economy is concerned(Warren Buffet had a great segment on this, if you want a non-Trumpish prospective) , because we're way more of a buyer our true access to the global economy is less than half. When you combine that with our lack of productivity overall, it kills us.

We need the nations of the world to buy our products, and we need to reinvigorate our own markets not only to be self-sustaining in the future, but also to be able to have access to those markets. I fear a future where we're like North Korea, who doesn't have access to the markets or where Russia is right now.

I will agree that taxing imports was a boneheaded idea, and did not increase exports in anyway. But the issue(for a long time now, through the 90's and that means pre-orange bad man) is that Asia and Europe have restricted their market access for many years. To me, we've devoted blood and life to Asia and Europe. That should be paid in kind with universal access to their markets.

 

US is #2 exporter in the world, so its not like no one is buying our stuff. And not only do we sell goods, we also sell services.

US it probably the last country to end up like NK, so If say the fear is irrational.

Like I said we had a zero tariff deal with EU and it was torn up as was the deal with Asia (excluding China). We had those agreements, only to be discarded without any rational reason. All they needed was fine-tuning and a signature.

 

Well if all it needed was a fine-tuning, then the opportunity to come back to the table should exist. I believe strongly that the EU-US should be partners, or at least that the partnership should have greater economic consequences for both continents, provided our defense of Europe. It just doesn't make sense for us to have American bloodshed for another continent, only for a problem to rise up again later.

When this problem is resolved, it should be resolved in a way that won't again invoke the US into the position of defense. What did the world do prior to the US existence in 1776?

 

I think you're kinda warping history to make your point. The US and the USSR were allies in WW2 but at the same time we knew it was a tenuous alliance and that the USSR had other plans for Europe.

 

Peace would bankrupt the US - War at any cost!!

 

I’d say the landscape has already changed. Significantly. All countries like Finland and Sweden are doing is adapting to that change before they fall victim to it

 

Indeed we do have the largest share of the arms market ..less than we used to have .. and will decline further in the future .. but 36% is huge. Russia at 18% is not to shabby either. Sales shold get a boost from the war..

curious bout Ukraine though .. how are they going to be paying once they become a paying customer .. Rubles ?

 

I’m all for them joining NATO. They have 1st world economies and democracies and very competent militaries for their size. Russia would go through them to get to the Atlantic and Norway which is an original nato member so we’d intervene there as Norway becomes indefensible if we waited for Russia to conquer Sweden first.

 

We need to strengthen NATO. It has only 30 countries at present and 30 times the GDP of Russia, so it is right to feel threatened by Russia.

 

I didn't mention anything about the USSR(or even WW2 in the op.) Our security assurances over Europe for the last century were made. Yes, I feel the cold war was a mistake(one that largely put us where we are today.) But this is about the NATO-EU/Russia spat that we are unfortunately inexorably tied into whether we like it or not and how we need to prevent this from ever happening again. Much less so for the fate of the European Union and more so, for US prosperity.

And as I had been arguing: If we are to continue European security assurances, we need stake in the game. We need something that will make it meaningful for our security to involve ourselves in the European war theater. Article 5 only means something if it's invoked, if it isn't invoked it has no meaning. But if it is invoked, then we are compelled to enter war.

Like I said in the OP: It's a good move for Sweden/Finland if it feels threatened, but it's a bad move for the US. Technically, there is no NATO without the US and technically we are its attack dog.(A fact that was reported by Reuters, and something that is the Russian position as well.) It's seen to all that we are the bane of NATO military power. So when they say Article 5, they don't mean Poland, Romania or Germany. it means us.

It's a sacrificial disposition we could have afforded with a healthier economy and a healthier war machine without rivals. We don't have the same opportunity we did in the 60's-80's. At the very absolute minimum, if we don't want to have a stake in the game then we need to resolve this growing spat before it gets out of control(if it isn't already). And the Swedish/Finland decision made that harder, not easier.

What's needed now is diplomacy, game stakes diplomacy at the highest level. Ironically, because of the Swedish/Finland decision my attention is away from Ukraine and towards those two. Their neutrality is an asset to the West, and it truly is to their security interests. I would open up dialogue between Sweden/Finland/Russia in attempts to get a Swedish/Finnish guarantee, that is the reason they joined NATO in the first place.

If we can assuage Sweden/Finland and get them to back down and return to neutral status, that is the best for all. Them joining the umbrella nations and growing the contested zones is not in American interest. As a part of these bigger talks, we then return to the problem of Ukraine which I believe is a problem with a simple solution, one that presented itself as early as 2014.

If Russia's issue is that Ukraine should be solidly independent, then that can be recognized by both the West/Russia. As I said in a different post: We should recognize Crimea, and the other breakaway regions and in exchange for that the sovereignty of Ukraine should be recognized. It doesn't do Ukraine any good to have separatist elements inside of the Ukrainian State, but nor does it do Russia good to remain in a war state with Europe.

Honestly, I see Ukraine ending up like North/South Korea or that of north/south Vietnam, etc. There may even come a time where the two separate Ukraines could trade with each other and the EU gets what it wants anyway, but so do the Russians.

There's a way out of this, but it requires diplomacy, tact and a willingness on all sides to concede something.

 

Europe is our ally. Stopping Russian aggression is in our interests. Clearly we DO have a stale in the game. And Article 5 has been invoked, in defense of the US.

Because remaining neutral worked out so well for Ukraine? Putin has shown himself to be a dumb wild animal. You can't negotiate with that. You have to beat him and cage him.

Sweden and Finland joining NATO makes the alliance stronger and greatly reduces the threat of Russia attacking those countries while greatly increases the consequences for Putin.

Russia started this war. They need to back off. Period.

 

News to me, unless you're referencing the ill fated War in Afghanistan. Yeah, that is something the Russians will actually point to: "Afghanistan isn't a part of the North Atlantic, yet NATO participated in the American war?" We can acknowledge Putin's tyranny, but acknowledge the reality that the political power in Russia is represented by that tyranny, and in that tyranny the goal is simple. A: They'd rather NATO not exist at all, or B: Save that, they'd want NATO as far away as possible.

A is absolutely out of the question. But B? We can swallow that. No, we *should* swallow that. Being continually dragged into the European conflict, just because "they're our ally" is the reason we're in this mess. We entered WWI, WWII and now the Ukrainian mess is occurring. Our policy(our actual policy) over the last 100 years has been to solve this problem, and it hasn't worked. As an American Nationalist, as an aka "far-right extremist". I am not happy, I'm not happy at all. Not with Moscow, not with Brussels. Not with any actor in that arena. And were I in power, our policy would double down to solve this issue, by any means necessary. We swore that Europe would not engage in this behavior, and where we're not holding our end of the bargain is holding them to theirs.

"Who we are" got us here. So now, we must dissolve the conflict and then our ties to it. I wish I had been a person of age and influence during the Budapest Memoradum. I would've screamed my lungs out at an absolutely stupid proposal.

With what coalition exactly? Oh, wait, would that be NATO? Don't we see that every path leads down to Moscow saying "See, we knew that was the intent."? So long as we're tied down, we're always going to have a foot in the door. NATO is now a thorn in American foreign policy. It's no longer an asset to us, as Article 5 is a risk. In truth, we are at the precipice of an outbreak of WWIII, and it's because we're doubling down on the strategy that hasn't worked in 100 years.

It only does those things if the Russians perceive a cost. Here's the issue with our sanctions strategy: They lose teeth eventually. In fact, they may already have. If sanctions start predominately affecting the poor and downtrodden Russians, we risk creating a new Shah-like revolution in Russia(IE: our failure in Iran.). We really, really need to start using the past more as a precursor to our foreign policy decisions. It could result in massively strengthening Russian fanaticism or dedication to Putin. Or it could result in a new, greater war hawk that is even more violent than Putin.

Again, it was blatantly obvious why Sweden and Finland would/is about to join NATO. The reality however is, it's a bad move for us and it's actually a bad move for them if the Russians aren't intimidated. When Putin says that NATO encrouchment is a red line, and then follows that up with the Ukrainian invasion, I don't see how Sweden/Finland(without US support) couldn't see it as anything but a suicide pact to join NATO.

As I said: All Sweden/Finland is doing is expanding the contested zones. We do not want the contested zones to expand. From an American prospective of limiting the scope of the war, and staying out of the war I would have strongly worded to Sweden and Finland that the US would not vote yes under any condition.

 

I didn't quote you OP. In the post I did quote, yeah, you kinda did...."provided our defense of Europe" and then confirmed it with "Our security assurances over Europe for the last century were made".

No, it wasn't. If it wasn't for the cold war there wouldn't be a Europe. There would just be the USSR.

You don't think we have a stake in the game? That's.......that's...... odd

I agree

 

To be fair, I alluded to the overarching history which does include the world wars and the cold war in between. Now, let me stipulate my position towards the cold war: The war against the Communist bloc was unnecessary, in the sense that the democratic system couldn't really be upended just by virtue of communism's existence. And the proof of that is the existence of China. Though communism has fallen, a communist country can still exist. Democracy was never under the threat of communism, that was just a zero-sum game taken up by the war hawk Republicans(and the various think tanks.)

But what actually happened? To quote Zbinigew Brezeziski: What would we rather have, the Soviets or the rag tag fighters? Well, given 9/11, given the massive capabilities of jihad/terrorism and our priorities to defense, the Soviets were never really able to threaten the homeland space(Cuba notwithstanding.)

So yes, in world history the muhajeeden materialized as a much greater threat and thus the cold war in many ways ended in US defeat. Had we simply coexisted with the communist bloc, even as big as the USSR was that would leave for fewer smaller states. One major issue today(and where I agree with my political mentors, whom I cannot name due to their extremism), is that small states are more problematic than big ones, as they can only exist if the big states permit it.

In many ways, our expansion secured our existence for if we hadn't expanded, Canada would have and we'd have this problem ourselves. Ukraine shows us the geographical problem of being a smaller nation.

This is why what Sweden and Finland is doing is reckless. They know that Putin's Russia objects, and that the war in Ukraine is in large part due to this objection. We can disagree, shout and pout as much as we want to Putin but Russia's decisions is a part of their calculus. If I were a Swedish or Finnish prime minister, rather than join NATO I'd get reassurances on our neutrality to Russia and Russia in turn can guarantee those reassurances. Only failing that, would I consider joining NATO.

But apart from that, the bigger problem for me is that again, it inches us ever closer to the war. We heard Biden publicly to "defend NATO land". Well, NATO land has now expanded. I do not want NATO land to expand. The more it expands, the more the likelihood of war increases. The US should empirically vote 'no', and urge Sweden and Finland to engage in high level talks with the Russians on the state between Sweden/Finland and Russia.

They can report on those talks and then we can proceed from there if there's an actual military threat to Sweden and Finland. Now is the time for us to make the correct moves, not the emotional ones.