Hesgeth is an absolute disgrace. They want a meritocracy? LOL with such appointments. I have no doubt his original comments were merely a script he was given. And Gabbard, do you, as many do, think she has some connection to Putin/Russia? Sad and dangerous times. Your point about Finland is spot on!
"And Gabbard, do you, as many do, think she has some connection to Putin/Russia?"
I haven't seen any direct evidence. I think she is just a little dumb and falls into conspiratorial pro-Kremlin thinking naturally - without any need for actual Kremlin handling/conversion.
"side note: he even repeated the Kremlin line that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations was the cause of this war. We have previously and repeatedly debunked this theory.."
Is there any differences Russia has with its opinion of Finland versus Ukraine? If you have the time I'd greatly appreciate a reply or substance that you could point to for why this is the case.
From a 5 minute google search (20th century examples alone) it would seem Ukraine has a bonded relationship from its trade, history, language, borders, world wars, etc. Finland is a country of 5 million with the Baltic Sea as a barrier to mainland NATO/western Europe while Ukraine is 4x the size with exact borders to Russia and access to euro markets
I am interested in your perspective and am relived to see there is such a thing as "conspiratorial pro kremlin thinking" amongst the discourse rather than russia russia russia all the time
You are right that the two countries are very different.
But in terms of security, Finland's ability (as a NATO member) to block Russia's baltic / Arctic fleet is a bigger danger than what Ukraine had hitherto posed in the Black Sea (even prior to 2014, they had an agreement that allowed Russia to access Crimean Sevastopol port for its Navy).
In fact, a lot of Russia's naval doctrine is developed to preempt a blockade in the north/baltic.
Ukraine had strong cultural affinity with Russia = precisely why it was really never a security threat to Moscow.
Putin's obsession with Ukraine stems from 1) imperialist ambitions and made-up rationalization that Ukraine truly belongs to Russia (Putin is not hiding his intent/motivations. You can read his July 2021 essay on the Kremlin's website) and 2) the threat to Putin's regime that would have been posed from Ukraine's EU membership and subsequent democratization: if fellow Slavs can live in a stable democracy with rule of law, then the pressure on Putin's regime to democratize would be immense - his argument that Slavic nations/Russian world have ''different'' values would be undermined.
Arguably, Ukraine's EU membership and not NATO, was a bigger threat to Russia. This + imperialism drove Putin. But with Finland, actual security worries - hence why Finland remaining in EU but not in NATO was a strategic objective.
Well, ironically, invading Ukraine (claiming faux security concerns) led to actual strategic defeat vis-a-vis Finland. With all that said, Finland too is not a direct/imminent security threat to Russia - hence why there is no panic in Moscow.
All of this to say that NATO and Ukraine was not a security threat to Russia prior to the invasion.
Thanks for the reply, very detailed and knowledgeable.
From your summary both Ukraine and Finland are very different and comparing one geopolitical strategy in the shoes of Russia to Finland vs Ukraine isn't very much of a basis for an argument of a faux security concern if not comparable to each other
Is there any amount of realistic cause you attribute to Ukraine NATO membership for the provocation of the war/invasion?
On another note; while the strategy to announce to your opponent's ground of negotiation concessions is kind of ridiculous...based on the last few days of MSC, Trump Oval questions, etc. Could this be US way of negotiating against the European proper of handing this war off to them and not even speaking to Putin negotiation? Trump has been clear in months of '24 that this war will end during his presidency. Euro shouldering the burden of a past admin war was the expectation I've been waiting on for months as US pivots to East Asia and cleanup in ME. I don't really have a basis for that thinking other than my novice observations of the news cycle.
"If you want this war (Euro/Ukraine) you can have it but the US is not going to be apart of the Buzz saw for much longer. If you can't decide or won't decide we'll negotiate on what we think will end it"
Hesgeth is an absolute disgrace. They want a meritocracy? LOL with such appointments. I have no doubt his original comments were merely a script he was given. And Gabbard, do you, as many do, think she has some connection to Putin/Russia? Sad and dangerous times. Your point about Finland is spot on!
"And Gabbard, do you, as many do, think she has some connection to Putin/Russia?"
I haven't seen any direct evidence. I think she is just a little dumb and falls into conspiratorial pro-Kremlin thinking naturally - without any need for actual Kremlin handling/conversion.
"side note: he even repeated the Kremlin line that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations was the cause of this war. We have previously and repeatedly debunked this theory.."
Is there any differences Russia has with its opinion of Finland versus Ukraine? If you have the time I'd greatly appreciate a reply or substance that you could point to for why this is the case.
From a 5 minute google search (20th century examples alone) it would seem Ukraine has a bonded relationship from its trade, history, language, borders, world wars, etc. Finland is a country of 5 million with the Baltic Sea as a barrier to mainland NATO/western Europe while Ukraine is 4x the size with exact borders to Russia and access to euro markets
I am interested in your perspective and am relived to see there is such a thing as "conspiratorial pro kremlin thinking" amongst the discourse rather than russia russia russia all the time
Thanks!
Hi Matt, great question!
You are right that the two countries are very different.
But in terms of security, Finland's ability (as a NATO member) to block Russia's baltic / Arctic fleet is a bigger danger than what Ukraine had hitherto posed in the Black Sea (even prior to 2014, they had an agreement that allowed Russia to access Crimean Sevastopol port for its Navy).
In fact, a lot of Russia's naval doctrine is developed to preempt a blockade in the north/baltic.
Ukraine had strong cultural affinity with Russia = precisely why it was really never a security threat to Moscow.
Putin's obsession with Ukraine stems from 1) imperialist ambitions and made-up rationalization that Ukraine truly belongs to Russia (Putin is not hiding his intent/motivations. You can read his July 2021 essay on the Kremlin's website) and 2) the threat to Putin's regime that would have been posed from Ukraine's EU membership and subsequent democratization: if fellow Slavs can live in a stable democracy with rule of law, then the pressure on Putin's regime to democratize would be immense - his argument that Slavic nations/Russian world have ''different'' values would be undermined.
Arguably, Ukraine's EU membership and not NATO, was a bigger threat to Russia. This + imperialism drove Putin. But with Finland, actual security worries - hence why Finland remaining in EU but not in NATO was a strategic objective.
Well, ironically, invading Ukraine (claiming faux security concerns) led to actual strategic defeat vis-a-vis Finland. With all that said, Finland too is not a direct/imminent security threat to Russia - hence why there is no panic in Moscow.
All of this to say that NATO and Ukraine was not a security threat to Russia prior to the invasion.
Thanks for the reply, very detailed and knowledgeable.
From your summary both Ukraine and Finland are very different and comparing one geopolitical strategy in the shoes of Russia to Finland vs Ukraine isn't very much of a basis for an argument of a faux security concern if not comparable to each other
Is there any amount of realistic cause you attribute to Ukraine NATO membership for the provocation of the war/invasion?
On another note; while the strategy to announce to your opponent's ground of negotiation concessions is kind of ridiculous...based on the last few days of MSC, Trump Oval questions, etc. Could this be US way of negotiating against the European proper of handing this war off to them and not even speaking to Putin negotiation? Trump has been clear in months of '24 that this war will end during his presidency. Euro shouldering the burden of a past admin war was the expectation I've been waiting on for months as US pivots to East Asia and cleanup in ME. I don't really have a basis for that thinking other than my novice observations of the news cycle.
"If you want this war (Euro/Ukraine) you can have it but the US is not going to be apart of the Buzz saw for much longer. If you can't decide or won't decide we'll negotiate on what we think will end it"