8 ms·

So the short version is: Russia felt threatened and invaded. It didn't do that for any of the Baltic states. It didn't do that when Finland aligned with NATO

by fatbird 1mo ago

So the short version is: Russia felt threatened and invaded. It didn't do that for any of the Baltic states. It didn't do that when Finland aligned with NATO by joining the PfP in 1997, or joined NATO in 2023. All that had to happen was for Ukrainian leaders to say they wanted to join NATO, and that caused such a perception of undermined security that it demanded the extinction of Ukraine? How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO, and 1/3rd of Russian land-based nuclear weapons are within 400 km of that border. Sweden is also in NATO, so the Baltic sea is an all-NATO sea except for St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad. They have over a million casualties, lost more than half their tanks and AFVs, and are struggling to avoid general mobilization, all to occupy an area in Ukraine a little smaller than the state of Colorado--an area that is now completely in ruins. What remains of the Black Sea Fleet is in hiding in Novorossiysk, beaten by a country that has no navy. The Russian economy survives by selling deeply discounted crude oil to China and India, liquidating its gold reserves (73% gone to date), and drawing down its foreign currency reserves. In the Russia/China relationship, Russia is now the subordinate partner, dependent on China to buy its crude and sell it materials for its war effort (Khrushchev spins in his grave). Europe is rearming and cutting any remaining energy ties to Russia. Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Talk about idiocy.

thisislife2 1mo ago
> Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions. All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ... > How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ... Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now. Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians. Contrast that with Ukraine's current leadership that still buys the fake flattery of the west that "they are winning" and "Russia is losing", even while facing the stark reality that Russia already holds around 20% of their territory ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting-how-much-territory-does-russia-control-in-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting... ), has nearly destroyed 40-50% of their industrial capacity ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukraine/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... , https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-deindustrialization-strikes/ https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-de... ), and that their western backers will not send a single soldier to fight alongside them (even as the Ukrainians have to fight North Koreans helping the Russians - https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-moscow/ https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-... ). See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?
- mopsi 1mo ago
  Your narrative on the Winter War is very flawed. For starters, it was not fought before WWII, but from late November 1939 to mid-March 1940, which puts it between the invasion of Poland and the fall of France. It was a part of the broader joint German-Soviet attack on smaller European democracies in the early part of WWII. The secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed in August 1939 between Germany and the USSR that divided Europe left the USSR free hands to invade Finland. Immediately they began pressuring Finland and conducting false-flag operations like the shelling of Mainila to accuse Finland of hostility and demand concessions. When the talks broke down, the Finns woke up on 30 November 1939 to the surprise of Russian bombers dropping their loads on Helsinki. So much about "choice". Pinning this on "the false assurances of then western powers" is just rubbish (with a very modern smell), nor was there anything comparable to the international coalition currently supporting Ukraine. Finland was very much alone. Even the Swedish state hesitated and lot of support that is counted in statistics as "Swedish" came through volunteers instead. The war ended not because "they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego", but because Russians had broken through the main defensive line and the situation had become critical for the Finns and making territorial concessions was considered the less risky option. The Finns were afraid that if the war dragged on, Germany would enter the war in support of the USSR. Germany was about to invade Denmark and Norway (April 1940), after all. Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant. When the major fighting broke out on the eastern front in 1941, Finland fought three years to regain their lost territory in the Continuation War of 1941-1944, and the USSR ultimately settled for far less than Russia is demanding from Ukraine. The situation is nothing comparable to Ukraine's present day, because Russia has been stuck for years, the defensive lines hold well and the risk of sudden breakthrough is minimal, while Ukraine is able to deliver increasingly severe and disruptive strikes on the Russian rear. Since the introduction of improved drones in February-March 2026, the balance of power has been visibly tipping in favor of Ukraine, and the FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles that are expected to enter service in the coming months will shift that even more so. As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out, but because the unprovoked nature of the war against Ukraine and the scale of it proved neutrality as an unviable option. There's simply no hope for any country in Europe to avoid such invasion without betraying their independence and becoming a colony of Russia, nor to stand against such onslaught alone. Even with pooled European resources and additional support from all parts of the world, it's still very difficult, as we can see from the news. Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out, because that did little to slash Russian ambitions, but left Ukraine without much stronger foreign support in the initial stages of the war. There's a reason why from the arctic tip of Norway down to the hot deserts of the Middle East, not a single neutral country remains on Russian border anymore. What you are suggesting is exactly the kind of recipe that led to this war: isolate your country from allies and hope Russians don't come to attack you. That is not a responsible statesmanship.

by fatbird 1mo ago

thisislife2 1mo ago

> Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014? Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions. All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ... > How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ... Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now. Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians. Contrast that with Ukraine's current leadership that still buys the fake flattery of the west that "they are winning" and "Russia is losing", even while facing the stark reality that Russia already holds around 20% of their territory ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting-how-much-territory-does-russia-control-in-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting... ), has nearly destroyed 40-50% of their industrial capacity ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukraine/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... , https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-deindustrialization-strikes/ https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-de... ), and that their western backers will not send a single soldier to fight alongside them (even as the Ukrainians have to fight North Koreans helping the Russians - https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-moscow/ https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-... ). See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?

mopsi 1mo ago
Your narrative on the Winter War is very flawed. For starters, it was not fought before WWII, but from late November 1939 to mid-March 1940, which puts it between the invasion of Poland and the fall of France. It was a part of the broader joint German-Soviet attack on smaller European democracies in the early part of WWII. The secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed in August 1939 between Germany and the USSR that divided Europe left the USSR free hands to invade Finland. Immediately they began pressuring Finland and conducting false-flag operations like the shelling of Mainila to accuse Finland of hostility and demand concessions. When the talks broke down, the Finns woke up on 30 November 1939 to the surprise of Russian bombers dropping their loads on Helsinki. So much about "choice". Pinning this on "the false assurances of then western powers" is just rubbish (with a very modern smell), nor was there anything comparable to the international coalition currently supporting Ukraine. Finland was very much alone. Even the Swedish state hesitated and lot of support that is counted in statistics as "Swedish" came through volunteers instead. The war ended not because "they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego", but because Russians had broken through the main defensive line and the situation had become critical for the Finns and making territorial concessions was considered the less risky option. The Finns were afraid that if the war dragged on, Germany would enter the war in support of the USSR. Germany was about to invade Denmark and Norway (April 1940), after all. Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant. When the major fighting broke out on the eastern front in 1941, Finland fought three years to regain their lost territory in the Continuation War of 1941-1944, and the USSR ultimately settled for far less than Russia is demanding from Ukraine. The situation is nothing comparable to Ukraine's present day, because Russia has been stuck for years, the defensive lines hold well and the risk of sudden breakthrough is minimal, while Ukraine is able to deliver increasingly severe and disruptive strikes on the Russian rear. Since the introduction of improved drones in February-March 2026, the balance of power has been visibly tipping in favor of Ukraine, and the FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles that are expected to enter service in the coming months will shift that even more so. As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out, but because the unprovoked nature of the war against Ukraine and the scale of it proved neutrality as an unviable option. There's simply no hope for any country in Europe to avoid such invasion without betraying their independence and becoming a colony of Russia, nor to stand against such onslaught alone. Even with pooled European resources and additional support from all parts of the world, it's still very difficult, as we can see from the news. Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out, because that did little to slash Russian ambitions, but left Ukraine without much stronger foreign support in the initial stages of the war. There's a reason why from the arctic tip of Norway down to the hot deserts of the Middle East, not a single neutral country remains on Russian border anymore. What you are suggesting is exactly the kind of recipe that led to this war: isolate your country from allies and hope Russians don't come to attack you. That is not a responsible statesmanship.