Interesting “development”:
Neutral Finland, Sweden warm to idea of NATO membership : NPR
“Development” not in that this happened in the last few days so much as more info since Jan that might be fueling some of what Putin is afraid of regarding NATO.
The problem with any ‘nuclear war’ logic is that assumes there’s a line where we can appease Putin up until that line, and he will never cross that line.
I don’t think that line exists. Either Putin is willing to use nukes, or he isn’t, and there’s not much the West can do to influence him shy of allowing him to do whatever he wants.
Let him commit war atrocities, take Ukraine, what if he then decides to take Moldova, then Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia? Finland? Where is the line crossed?
Czechoslovakia, OK
Poland, too much
We crossed the line when we allowed nuclear weapons to exist
Did they rename them freedom fries?
Yes, The Economist pointed out when they did the spray-painting (before they attacked) that this essentially guaranteed that they were definitely going to attack because there would be no other possible reason for doing so.
I didn’t realize that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia didn’t join until 2004. I thought it was almost immediate after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
That said, I gather it’s a long slow process (other than East Germany, anyway).
I mean in the sense that anything can feel like anything else to anyone, sure I guess. To a rational person, no, it can not.
I imagine it would have been easier for the Eastern Bloc non-USSR countries (such as East Germany, Poland, Hungary etc.)
I don’t think East Germany really had to do anything, did they? I mean, other than reunite with West Germany which was already a NATO member. Unified Germany didn’t have to re-apply for membership or anything, did they? I was a teenager when this went down, but there’s certainly no separate dates listed among NATO members / join dates. It just lists Germany in 1955… no mention of the difference between West Germany and Germany.
Why easier for Poland and Hungary than the Baltic states? More established borders???
Possibly because Poland and Hungary were never Soviet Republics whereas the Baltic countries were? Poland and Hungary may therefore have been viewed a bit differently from the Baltic countries even though they were all Warsaw Pact countries.
Certainly those things are true, but why would that impact NATO membership?
I think everyone knew that the Baltic states were unwilling Soviets. I don’t think that was held against them.
For those interested in the issue.
NATO might well be considered aggressive.
Consider the US and its Monroe Doctrine. ANY FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE is considered aggression against the US. Is that rational? Does it matter?
No mention of why the Baltics had a harder road to admission than Hungary or Poland though, which was my question.
That was a whole lot of words to say “they really super-duper wanted to be in NATO” which was obvious and altogether logical on their parts.
From a different article, it appears as if the main reason Poland and Hungary got NATO membership earlier was simply because they started their organized lobbying efforts earlier and formally applied earlier than the Baltic States. The time to get approval after formal application was similar.
Wikipedia referenced this article on the expansion of NATO membership -
“Russia was particularly riled by the expansion of Nato to the Baltic states, which were formerly in the USSR and viewed from Moscow as part of the “near abroad”. That phrase, commonly used by Russian politicians, implies that ex-Soviet states should not act against Russia’s strategic interests.”
Regarding East Germany, the article referenced by Wikipedia is behind a paywall but Wikipedia states “To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the former East Germany.”
I think it’s a case of “don’t poke the bear”, when delaying the admittance of NATO members. That is, don’t antagonize Russia unnecessarily by signing up former bits of their country to their archenemy organization too quickly.
I suppose this is one way to get cannon fodder.
Not “more established borders” so much as “proximity to Russia (proper)”.
Poland and Hungary had other states between them and Russia, so there’s a host of other logistical issues that would make it “easier” for them to join NATO sooner than the states that share a (significant) border with Russia. IIRC, especially for Poland, they had resources to the extent that they could fund military resistance, which I don’t think existed for the Baltic states.
On a related note, here is an article from 2018 that has some interesting insights about Russia’s economy.
What holds Russia back?. Understanding Russia in the modern… | by Mattias Bouvin | Medium
This is the expectation Putin communicated, IMO.