deleted by creator
I wonder why Finland would do such a thing. Oh, what’s that, the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939? It’s almost like people don’t like being invaded.
Oooooh, looks like the history lesson wasn’t welcome from the folks who like to avoid how imperialist the Soviet Union was and just want to make it the pure hero of WW2.
You sure are upset.
They already cooperate heavily with NATO. Officially joining/signing some documents now doesn’t change much from Russian perspective
It does change things from the Finnish side. It brings them under the Article 5 umbrella. Ukraine also cooperated with NATO, but lacked the Article 5 umbrella, now look where they are. Given that Russia (via the Soviet Union) has a history of invading Finland and shows a renewed appetite for invasions, it seems pretty prudent to get some insurance.
Having a CIA and Soros NGO orchestrated color revolution referred to as “Euromaidan” with the aim of installing a USA friendly puppet government and then waging war against the Donbass at the doorstep of Russia, and laboring plans to station short range missiles with nuclear warheads again (remember the Cold War?)… Seems like asking for an invasion. As a matter of fact, to me it all seems like the invasion was wanted by the USA to ostracise Russia from the world economy and bleed it militarily.
It will change that Russia won’t be able to onvade them without waging war on NATO
I don’t think Russia really had a plan to “onvade” them
deleted by creator
Neither did they have any plan to invade Ukraine… Not arguing whether or not this invasion was justified, but it is happening, and wouldn’t have happened if Ukraine was in NATO.
Ambitions to join NATO was literally the reason Russia invaded Ukraine.
wow so original
Ukraine had no official ambition to join NATO before the Crimea annexation.
Ukraine had no official ambition to join NATO before the Crimea annexation.
“Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008.”
Learn your history before you talk about such things
What about you read the rest of the same Wikipedia paragraph instead of isolating the sentence that seems to make you right?
Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country non-aligned, was elected President. Amid the Euromaidan unrest, Yanukovych fled Ukraine in February 2014. The interim Yatseniuk Government which came to power initially said, with reference to the country’s non-aligned status, that it had no plans to join NATO.
(I stop here as the rest concerns what happens after Russian invasion)
So OK, I didn’t write it in the best possible way (as it couod be read as “Ukraine had never made any plan to join NATO ever”, which was not my intention) but my point is still correct : just before the invasion, Ukraine had no such plans.
Maybe you consider that having had a plan to join NATO 4 years before justifies annexing a part of the country?
Crimea annexation happened as a direct response to the government in Ukraine being couped by the US.
The Maidan revolution happened because of aborted economics ties with EU, and the Maidan government wanted to strengthen economic relations with EU. There was no clear intention to integrate NATO.
Putin is the best salesman for Nato there is.
Noooo you have to believe it’s the West intervening in these polls and using propaganda to sway public opinion so NATO can expand their borders eastward in preparation for a proxy war with Russia
A possible Swedish application for Nato membership would raise backing in Finland to 83 percent.
A clear position by the Finnish president and the government backing membership raise support by around the same margin, to 82 percent.
I don’t really see why people think there’s any real significance to Finland or Sweden joining NATO as these countries don’t have any significant military power.
Finland has a disproportionately powerful military and the Baltics have been especially happy about Finland’s possible accession.
In absolute terms, Finland has a tiny military compared to Russia, US, or even Ukraine.
I think Russia has shown us that absolute numbers don’t mean much if most of it collects rust. And even if we accept absolute numbers at face value, Finland isn’t tiny. Namely 900k reservists (of which 280k can be mobilized quickly) and largest artillery in Europe behind Ukraine and Russia. Baltics are especially happy about the new F35 jets we decided to acquire.
That’s a really weird assessment of the state of the war that appears to be entirely divorced from reality. The numbers clearly do matter, and I’m not sure where this notion that Russian equipment is collecting rust comes from exactly. If anything, that applies to NATO equipment given that NATO stopped doing regular exercises a while back.
The reality of the situation is that Ukrainian army was funded, trained and equipped by NATO to be interoperable with NATO forces. It’s a NATO army in all but name. It was by far the biggest active army in NATO, aside from US, and the only European army to see real combat for the past 8 years of the civil war.
This army is currently being taken apart by Russian forces, and even western media is slowly starting to accept this fact. If you don’t believe me then wait a few months and it will become obvious what the state of things is.
If Ukrainian army can’t stand up to Russia, then I see no reason to think that other European militaries would fare any better given that they don’t have the same level of training or experience that Ukrainian military had.
Furthermore, Russia chose to go into Ukraine with a much more measured approach than what we’ve seen from NATO in places like Iraq or Libya. This would certainly not be the case if Russia was at war with NATO countries.
At the end of the day, continuing on the same path that got us war in Ukraine is pure insanity. The west needs to find a way to coexist with Russia and to take each others concerns seriously. The alternative to that will be a world war and a potential nuclear holocaust. People who refuse to understand this are a danger to all humanity.
deleted by creator
That is an excellent question you pose. Please tell us how countries should coexist with the US empire that’s been at war for 225 out of 243 years of its existence.
You’re making it out as if Russia is some outlier, as if the west has not normalized going around the world and invading countries. Please, tell us how we’re supposed to deal with NATO countries that have destroyed and plundered nations around the globe for decades. The west murdered over 6 million people with its war on terror alone.
Get off your high horse, and stop pretending that you have some sort of moral superiority here. The reality is that nations will act in what they see as their interest. Russia is no different in this than “civilized” western nations that killed countless millions in their pursuit of world domination.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
