this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024

273 points (99.6% liked)

Europe

1550 readers

667 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 4 months ago

MODERATORS

federalreverse

poVoq@slrpnk.net

anzo@programming.dev

273

Neutrality for Ukraine will not bring peace as Russia cannot be trusted to adhere to any agreement, Finland's foreign minister says (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 week ago by 0x815 to c/europe

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen opposes imposing neutrality on Ukraine
Valtonen questions Russia's trustworthiness in adhering to agreements
Forcing Ukraine to accept terms could undermine international system, Valtonen says

Forcing neutrality onto Ukraine will not bring about a peaceful solution to the crisis with Russia, Finland's foreign minister said on Monday, adding that Moscow could not be trusted to adhere to any agreement it signs.

[...]

With the prospect of U.S. president elect Donald Trump seeking to end the conflict as quickly possible and concerns from some allies that the terms could be imposed in Kyiv, one scenario could be to force a neutral status on Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly demanded Ukraine remain neutral for there to be peace, which would de facto kill its aspirations for NATO membership.

Russia trust issues

[...] Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen poured cold water on using the "Finlandisation" model, pointing out that firstly Helsinki had fended off Russia in World War 2 and that despite the ensuing peace had always continued to arm itself fearing a new conflict.

"I'm against it (Finlandisation), yes. Let's face it, Ukraine was neutral before they were attacked by Russia," Valtonen, whose country has a 1,300-km (810-mile) border with Russia, said on the sidelines of the Paris Peace Forum.

[...]

The Ukraine invasion led both Finland and Sweden to abandon decades of military non-alignment and seek safety in the NATO camp.

Valtonen questioned whether Russia could be trusted even if it agreed a deal and said forcing Ukraine's hand to accept terms against its will would tear down the international system.

"I really want to avoid a situation where any European country, or the United States for that matter, starts negotiating over the heads of Ukraine," she said.

"A larger power can not just grab territory, but also essentially weaken the sovereignty of another nation," she said.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 38 points 1 week ago

You mean to tell me the country that broke agreements to do the very thing it's doing is unlikely to keep an agreement?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

There's a difference between "cannot be trusted to adhere" and "can be trusted not to adhere", and Russia is the latter.

[+] Saleh -21 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Question is, what options are there?

If the outcome is Ukrainian NATO membership, Russia has no motivation to accept a negotiated peace. This leaves only two options:

The West abandons Ukraine and Russia conquers all of it.
The West extremely ramps up its effort to support Ukraine, defeating Russia.

Now option 1 still ends up with the problem, that there is a direct NATO-Russia border. This flips around the threat and motivation to move it back. So now the NATO has a motivation to reconquer Ukraine, maybe in 10, maybe in 20 years.

Option 2 could end with the collapse of Russia. Then some 10.000 nuclear warheads are unaccounted for. This creates an incentive for NATO to try and put a stabilizing force into western Russia, while China would probably move in form the East. Imagine having the instability of the Middle East, but with 10.000 nuclear warheads...

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with NATO sharing a border with Russia. NATO is a defense pact. It won't invade Russia to "stabilise" or for anything else. It's all right there in the NATO charter.

In fact NATO has shared a border with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad for decades. And there haven't been any problems. More recently, NATO member Finland has a land border of many hundreds of kilometers with Russia's mainland territory. That doesn't seem to be hurting anyone or anything, except perhaps Mr. Putin's ambitions to one day reconquer Finland.

Edit: I forgot the Baltics! How could I forget NATO members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (since 2004)?

[–] Quittenbrot 16 points 1 week ago

I forgot the Baltics! How could I forget NATO members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (since 2004)?

Don't worry. Everyone does.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

NATO member Finland has a land border of many hundreds of kilometers with Russia’s mainland territory. That doesn’t seem to be hurting anyone or anything, except perhaps Mr. Putin’s ambitions to one day reconquer Finland.

Fun fact: The border is essentially unmanned on the Russian side, they moved pretty much everyone to Ukraine. Doesn't look like they're expecting to be invaded. You may or may not be interested in what military installations exist up on the Kola peninsula and how many roads and rail lines go south.

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Aaah, so maybe Finland could take the opportunity to reverse russia's salami land grab tactics used in recent past.

[–] varyingExpertise 7 points 1 week ago

Old border fence, suspiciously new post feet. Everybody's bored on sunday morning anyway, why not?

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I believe part of joining NATO was settling those claims and giving up on retaking that territory by force.

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

No force required, just you know, push those border booths a bit while no ones looking ;)

(But of course, you are most likely right)

[+] Saleh -20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Every military pact is a "defense pact". And no country with "superpower" or "regional power" ambition accepts another power right on its doorsteps.

I think the best historical example of the 20th century is the Cuban missile crisis. NATO-Nukes in Turkey, Warsaw-Pact-Nukes in Cuba. Both sides feeling threatened. The solution was to remove both missile threats.

And Finland now sharing a border with Russia certainly is not going to make them more fine with NATO in Ukraine. That is not how geopolitics work.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lol sure buddy.

So let's arm Ukraine to their teeths and see the russian "empire" crumble. It's overdue anyway.

Incoming: WW3!!!

[+] Saleh -9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Did you even read what i wrote?

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

There is a fundamental difference between arming a country and permanently integrating it into one geopolitical side. If you are so eager to fight in a war Ukraine can use every fighter. But it is always easy to call for other people to go to war isn't it?

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why would Ukraine need to be neutral? Russians have shown themselves to be hostile and don't respect neutrality. So fuck em.

Also the "oh you want Ukraine in NATO? Then go fight there yourself!!!!!" Is such a fucking obvious russian shill line repeated over and over and over again.

[+] Saleh -8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Neutral Ukraine would mean a buffer between Russia and NATO. Russia claims it feels threatened by NATOs expansion to the East. While it is understandable for countries to prefer being in NATO over under Russian influence, that is how geopolitical security works. The US would never accept say Mexico to join a Russian or Chinese military pact.

There is only two ways to get Russia out of Ukraine:

Either defeat them and drive them out, or negotiate for them to withdraw.

The latter wont happen with categorically demanding Ukraine to join NATO. The first needs much more Western support, in particular more soldiers to fight the war. When you exclude negotiating, not being willing to support your demand of fighting with your own capabilities is cynical. And that also goes to show how the support so far worked. Making grand statements, but when it came to actually giving what was necessary to Ukraine to defend itself, the West always fell short. If Ukraine had gotten proper equipment right away, the war could be over with a military win of Ukraine. Now to not only hold the line, but push back Russia, Ukraine needs far far more support, that the West is clearly not willing to give.

I want a strong Ukraine with fully territorial integrity. Maybe this can be negotiated as the costs of the war for Russia keep increasing. But this needs to offer Russia an out. Denying that out means the only two options left are a military win or military defeat of Russia. Either will be incredibly costly for Ukraine.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

And I don't give two shits about buffers. Russia started this mess, let them sort it out. Russia claims a lot of shit but the reality is - they are the agressors. They had every chance of enjoying free trade, peaceful coexistence but they chose war. So now they get fucked over it. And they deserve every single second of it happening to them. Russia will fracture into a million pieces. They are getting desperate. And you don't win with "desperate" by appeasing those assholes and giving them a second chance to invade in 5 years. 40% of GDP spent on war, and they're still unable to do shit.

[–] Quittenbrot 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

and permanently integrating it into one geopolitical side

I like how you talk about it as if it's about game pieces on a game board. What about the people from Ukraine? How about letting them decide on which "geopolitical side" they want to live?

[–] Saleh -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What about the people from Ukraine? How about letting them decide on which “geopolitical side” they want to live?

Which is why someone in Finland shouldn't be making statements limiting Ukraines decision space. If Ukranians decide to continue the war so they can join NATO, then that is their decision and should be supported.

This brings us back to the problem that the Western support has been lacking and now with Trump becomes even more lackluster. But the West cannot withdraw military support while demanding Ukraine to continue fighting.

As it stands Ukraine will be delivered to the Russian slaughter instead of working on actual solutions.

[–] Quittenbrot 8 points 1 week ago

Which is why someone in Finland shouldn’t be making statements limiting Ukraines decision space. If Ukranians decide to continue the war so they can join NATO, then that is their decision and should be supported.

I read you talking about establishing a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. If this isn't limiting Ukraine's decision space over the head of Ukrainians, what is?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Ukraine, with its 1991 border in NATO!

Russia gets denuclearisation.

World peace follows.

[+] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[+] Saleh -7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And how would "properly armed" be different to NATO? Putin wants Ukraine to be demilitarized. The options for actual reliable self defense for Ukraine are either NATO membership or a nuclear arsenal.

[–] Saleh 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nukes are one option. Otherwise giving Ukraine the ability to rebuild its military and arsenal, in particular defensive weapons like Anti-Air and Anti-Missile capabilities.

[–] Quittenbrot 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A Ukraine with nukes is as bad for Russia as a Ukraine in NATO. Russia wants to rule again over "its" (aka Soviet) lost "sphere of influence". This is textbook imperialism and if that's what you want to defend here, fine. Just don't expect me to agree.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Worse for Russia I'd argue. A NATO member state still lays under the pressure of political power of the pact. Ukraine armed with nukes is something that could go south with a future leadership change for the worse. And despite all the propaganda, Russia very well knows that they aren't actually threatened by NATO - at least for as long as they don't attack member states, which is where the issue lies. They want Ukraine, that's why they don't want them in NATO. Can't invade and annex them anymore once they're part of the pact.

[–] Quittenbrot 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

..which is why we urgently need to dump the general rule of "frozen conflicts prevent accession into NATO" and change them into tailormade agreements. Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine: so far, Russia has an incentive for frozen conflicts to steer these countries on the course it wants. We should no longer allow this.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

The EU accepts countries with border disputes into the union (in fact there's a couple very fun ones between member states, generally low-intensity though, e.g NL and DE even agreed to disagree in perpetuity), the EU is also a defensive pact, trouble being getting into the EU is quite a bit harder than getting into NATO: Vastly stricter rule of law and democracy standards, on top of that trade integration, economics and everything.

OTOH the EU is also not above creating new ad-hoc treaty structures with unimaginative names so a... DCENSV, "Deep and Comprehensive European Neighbourhood Security Vehicle" is absolutely within the realm of possibilities. People are basically waiting for Trump to move while preparing responses for every scenario, very little if any of this kind of preparation will reach the public eye.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

I mean... North Macedonia joined NATO in 1995.

[–] 0x815 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Your option 1 would mean that Russia is going to attack the next country.

Addition: Russia must be defeated and pay for Ukraine's reconstruction, Putin and possibly other war criminals face prosecution, Ukraine's future is in Nato and EU.

[+] Saleh -11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Which country would that be? Russia is not going for a direct confrontation with NATO as it would loose that for sure.

If they get Ukraine they would turn it into a compliant regime as a buffer zone. Using its war-economy is far more profitable in enforcing access to natural resource in Asia or Africa, rather than go to war with Poland or Finland.

[–] federalreverse 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why then is Russia so heavily involved in creating disinformation and helping socially weak, pro-autocratic, isolationist leaders gain power in the West? They are trying to divide and conquer EU and US, because Russian military and economic power wouldn't be enough to take on a united EU/US.

And note that I said economic power as well. Despite present-day Russia being a glorified petrol station to the world, they are trying to realize their "Eurasia" trade zone.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They aren't strong enough to take on each separately, either. For Russia to attain their coveted superpower status they'd need to stop fucking around and actually invest in themselves. They do have more than enough land and resources, they have a reasonably well-educated population, it wouldn't take that long trouble is they're a kleptocracy and the chief kleptocrat thinks being a superpower is measured in land mass.

[–] federalreverse 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My point is they're strong enough to take on smaller individual EU countries with military force. And they can gain mindshare in bigger European countries.

I don't think they're deluded enough to think they can gain a permanent mental grip over the US, but that's irrelevant to their territorial plans anyway.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

The EU is a defensive pact in itself and while "defend our brothers" sentiment is not tightly woven, there's a tripwire cascade. You cannot attack Estonia without every single Finn being personally offended, and you cannot separate Finland and Sweden in military matters, the list goes on and on. The effect flattens out the further away you get but you'd be hard-pressed to find a member thinking twice about sending arms and MREs. Poland would have boots on the ground before Spain gets the call.

Estonia. The fuck has Estonia ever done to anyone. They're essentially a mascot of the EU: Them being, willingly, part of the pack is witness to the EU actually being a post-colonial project. They're way too precious to be left hanging. I can't even bring myself to make an alcoholism joke right now.

[–] Quittenbrot 6 points 1 week ago

Russia is not going for a direct confrontation with NATO as it would loose that for sure.

This is what everyone was saying looking at those 100kish Russian soldiers at the Ukrainian border at the beginning of 2022. "They won't do it, that is not enough men".

And who says it is going to be a open escalation? Remember Crimea? Hacking attacks? Russia is all about destabilisation just below the threshold of clear and open aggression. Them stirring up some bullshit in for example Narva will put the west to the test. And I'm sure there will be a lot of voices on our side warning against an open conflict with Russia just because they seized a small border town in a small country.

It's the same as in Ukraine: if Putin has enough reason to believe it might work, he will try it.

[–] illi@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

I live in one country that could be next. Putin already has useful idiots here daying thay we should leave NATO. Putin also tried to push for these countries thay used to be in the Russian sphere of influence not to be in NATO.

You make one step back and Putin makes two forward.

[–] Melchior 4 points 1 week ago

Russia has very few regional bases of power. Most of Russia is controlled by the Kremlin pretty directly and the parts of Russia lacking direct control also lack nukes. So the most likely option is a bit of maybe even violent infighting in the Kremlin and then the victor rules Russia. The Kremlin would also control nukes, so China is unlikely to invade.

Speaking of nukes, there are 8 launch sites for ICBMs, 3 nuclear submarine naval bases with nukes and two air bases with long range bombers aremed with nukes. So 13 locations need to be controlled. That seems rather possible to me. So honestly I doubt it will be too bad.

Ukraine has seen what the Russians are willing to do to Ukraine, so they themself will try to become part of NATO or the EU as much and as soon as possible. So it is pretty much NATO/EU or Ukraine building nukes, probably even both.

Russia would be weakend and needs some time to rebuilt. A defeat would mean that reconstruction period would take a long time. Looking at demographics and Russias economy maybe never.

[–] gajustempus 1 points 1 week ago

Do I smell Vodka there?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

There's always option 3, which is to allow Russia to continue conquering smaller countries unchecked, which won't work out well for Europe, but has precedent. Kicking the problem along to the future seems to be the status quo these days.

[–] lath@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

To you maybe. To Russia, no way.