Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/373/ Take a Stand: Be Neutral! ft. Lily Lynch (Patreon)

Published:
2023-10-31 08:00:04
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Some files exceed the archive size limit and weren't saved: 1 file. Please note these limits are in place to keep this site running long term, without costing a fortune. You can favorite the creator though, certain milestones increase the limit.

Content

On NATO expansion and the end of neutrality

[Patreon Exclusive]

Lily Lynch is back on the pod to talk about Northern and Eastern Europe and growing hawkishness. We discuss:

Why did Sweden and Finland give up decades of neutrality - and why now?

What happens with an enlarged alliance in light of the conflict in Ukraine?

How does the current moment compare to the apogee of the Non-Aligned Movement?

Why were the realists right?

How is tech mythology helping to build 'digital nationalism'?

Why is there beef over grain between Poland and Ukraine?

And what the hell are the "skin suit of social democracy" and the "Waluigi of neutrality"?

Links:

Joining the West, Lily Lynch, Sidecar

The realists were right, Lily Lynch, New Statesman

The EU’s great power delusions, Lily Lynch, New Statesman

Guns, grain, and history, Lily Lynch, New Statesman

Tech-Mythologies, Lily Lynch, Sidecar

Imperfect Unity, Lily Lynch, Sidecar

Files

Comments

Riku

Why did Finland join Nato. Few key developments: -Media frenzy in the spring of 2022 that tied the war in Ukraine to the Winter war, which has been the key ”founding myth” of the country since the ninties. A fear that Putins master plan was actually the invasion of Finland (yes, really). This was tied to the fear of ”being left alone” as in the Winter War, and created a sense of urgency. Less to do with Atlantic solidarity or Ukraine itself. -As NATO membership gained popularity, and as it is usually associated with the Coalition party, the center left goverment didn’t want the next years election to involve a discussion about the subject. So a quick application was useful. -In general in Finland these types of foreign policy questions are however rarely ”politicied”, and are made as a forced ”consensus”, a certain code of Omerta. No actual discussion took place, only after the application the question of US bases, Finnish soldiers role in conflicts and so on were discussed.

Davka Smolah Collective

I wish there had been a bit more in here putting Phil and Lily into dialogue on how the interactions between geopolitical neutrality and sovereignty have changed over time. Are countries really being dragooned into NATO out of purely ideological compulsion, or is there a rational, material explanation. Is there some sense in which between globalized markets (bringing in Russian business, say), neutrality, and sovereignty, you can only pick two?

Pickibun

I think the conversation about neutrality neglected the historical difference between Finland's and Sweden's politics of neutrality. In the past, Finland's neutrality was largely imposed on it by external forces (predominately Russia) after gaining independence after the First World War. Finland was compelled to sign neutrality treaties. Sweden, meanwhile, began its policy of neutrality in the 19th-century in order to manoeuvre itself between the emerging regional powers such as imperial Germany, tsarist Russia and Great Britain. These historical circumstances, which produced the politics of neutrality, have shaped the way neutrality is perceived in the countries' separate public spheres and why the abandonment of them have looked very differently. This is not to say that Lily misrepresented what has happened but it gives a further explanation as to why and how.

Christoph Iselin

Swiss neutrality is an interesting case study for neutrality. A useful tool during times of European empire waging war on land and to prevent the country from splitting during WWI, its actual implementation has been more tactile and inward-looking since 1945. Today, neutrality is primarily a battle cry of the right against any kind of global non-economical integration, be it NATO, EU, UNO or America-led sanctions (Swiss trading with SA during apartheid was obviously done based on neutrality). For the left, it's paired up with the "Swiss humanitarian tradition" to argue for more money for NGOs, aid and against selling arms. But this podcast and similar local Swiss (left-wing) discussions in Switzerland about neutrality and "Realism" point to a deeper issue on the left, the lack of a foreign policy which goes beyond pacifism, vaguely pointing towards dysfunctional international bodies and lamenting civilian suffering. In the face of a weakened Western hegemony and the absence of any global non-tankie leftwing forces, "realistic" criticism of the US and daydreams about neutrality as a political alternative "outside of US hegemony" remain the only options.

Richard R

A disturbing account, I think, given rising tensions in multiple regions. Neutrality never sounded so lovely. I agree with Eli that it would be very interesting to dialogue between ideological and material accounts of what's driving sovereignty out as polarization digs in.

Blake

The non-aligned movement was always a farce, not just because it was tacitly encouraged by the US, as Lily already mentioned, but because none of its member states were willing to lift a finger when one of the others was in trouble. When Nkrumah and Sukarno were overthrown the military got away scot free, and India was not even supported with words the various times that it was attacked by Pakistan because inter-Muslim solidarity trumped any kind of officially established diplomacy.