@Lazycog @eighthave indeed. And AFAIR the neutrality of #Finland after #WWII was, basically, forced by conditions of negotiations rather than voluntarily chosen. And now Finland decided to join #NATO - probably because they remember their history quite good.
The purpose of soviet invasion to Hungary and Czechoslovakia was completely different.
@nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online Austria's neutrality was also forced by a deal between the Soviet Union, France, UK, and USA. But it has worked, and is immensely popular in Austria now. Finland's situation now is quite different than both Ukraine and Austria. Finland was already spending more on than NATO's 2% requirement, and it has a long border with Russia. It will be interesting to see how the Finns feel about NATO when they have to join in some pointless yet devastating invasion like Afghanistan.
@eighthave @Lazycog "But it has worked" when you don't lock your door, but there is no thief, technically it also "works".
Before ca. 1990, there was actually no choice for Austria, then before ca.2000 there was no need (the Cold war was like "won"), later there was no sense (Austria found itself mostly between democratic EU/NATO which would obviously not plan invasion). Technically, the discussion now is purely theoretical, even if hypothetically russia occupies Poland and Czechia, the formal Austria status would not be too much important anymore (I mean, that the course of military actions on such scale would be barely dependent on formal questions).
But the things are notably dependent on the geographic location.
@nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online yes exactly, Austria was forced by military invasion and occupation to become neutral. That occupation was mostly Russians and directed from Moscow. Now, neutrality is immensely popular with Austrians, and all but one minor political party fully support it. It can work very well, much better than any military alliance, so #Ukraine really should keep it in consideration, especially because its clear they won't be allowed into #NATO any time soon.
@eighthave @nanoelquant @Lazycog I think Ukraine's NATO membership will depend on how the war ends and whether it is the people's democratically expressed wish. If Russia is in turmoil I think NATO membership would offer more stability to the region.
@peterjsefton @nanoelquant I agree that it all hangs on how the war ends. Perhaps NATO could bring stability there. Based on the past decades, it looks more likely that NATO countries would continue to push for instability in Russia if they think they can get away with it. And if Putin falls, it looks like a sure thing that NATO countries will be pushing to help choose the successor, like in the early 90s. I think stability in the region would require a stalemate with a negotiated peace.
@eighthave @peterjsefton "I think stability in the region would require a stalemate with a negotiated peace" You think wrong. Because we have had a negotiated peace, recognition of borders, strategic friendship, security assurances and all other bullshit. In 2014 russians wiped their asses by the long list of such papers, which would probably not even fit to one post here, and did what it did. So no, we need more solid guarantees, and the history shows that there are only three things able to stop them - weapon, weapon, and even more weapon. Practical security assistance would also help.
And two more things. 1st - the person of putin is not crucial there, when he dies, it will not necessary mark any chances to better. Sorry not sorry, I unfortunately know russian language and therefore can read what they are writing. putin dies, they will appoint some kadyrov, prigozhin or another moron. 2nd - we don't necessarily need stability in russia. If permanent instability keeps them weak and locked within their borders - great.