91–100 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Finland's doing this only because of Russia's actions. I can't imagine anybody vetoing Finland's membership. In fact, the more the merrier^Hstronger.
Current Croatia's president Zoran Milanović is planning to veto this. Parliament and PM is against veto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Finland's doing this only because of Russia's actions. I can't imagine anybody vetoing Finland's membership. In fact, the more the merrier^Hstronger.
Current Croatia's president Zoran Milanović is planning to veto this. Parliament and PM is against veto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Germany said they will be under protection from NATO as soon as they start the procedure.
UK has also made written guarantees to protect Finland (and Sweden) during the application process. In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members.
Really? Why is this true of Finland but not Ukraine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a completely different league of dislike. It's not like American TV shows aren't playing on Finish TV, or cinema hardly plays Hollywood movies. If there was a true dislike, it should affect media consumption.
People consume what's available, and what's available is US media. Nobody in the west can catch up to the US in media production because the US is the biggest producer of English language media. English language media has the largest market in the west because English is spoken by nearly everyone as a second language, and US media reinforces this English language status, since people pick up the language due to its a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i am not an american, nor russian. i come from a third world country far from this drama. to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia? blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates…
I've never seen or heard anyone complain about Russia banning American companies.
"Russia says it's blocking Facebook in alarming new censorship push" blocking facebook is censorship but blocking RT is defending free speech? nice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is much talk about Russia not wanting Finland in NATO but why would NATO want Finland in NATO with yet another expensive border to patrol. "Buffer states" work both ways.
The current Baltic NATO states and Norway are much easier to defend having control over the Baltic Sea, plus Finland has a considerably strong military that now joins to strengthen NATO, so it should be a win-win for the both sides.
Look at the map, the NATO doesn't have much land borders with Russia. With Finland joining... the length of land border will multiply. This will surely pose a challenge.
There is much talk about Russia not wanting Finland in NATO but why would NATO want Finland in NATO with yet another expensive border to patrol. "Buffer states" work both ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Finland's doing this only because of Russia's actions. I can't imagine anybody vetoing Finland's membership. In fact, the more the merrier^Hstronger.
Current Croatia's president Zoran Milanović is planning to veto this. Parliament and PM is against veto.
Usual caveats that I'm not a diplomat, don't have all the facts, etc etc., but this doesn't seem like a rational move for Finland or NATO. The UK just yesterday agreed to protect Finland in the event of an attack, and the UK's involvement would likely bring in many other NATO powers anyway, so arguably they're getting protection they'd otherwise have to pay for for free. And actually, officially joining NATO will hav…
> The former USSR states in Eastern Europe have until now (or until the early 2000s NATO expansion at least) served as a half-decent buffer zone between the West and Russia, and we've had peace. I think you should go and tell Ukrainian people that their country is a buffer zone meant to act as a burnt ground, and they are not allowed to work towards joining the alliances and economic systems that they want to join in…
I didn't say we should dictate policy to Ukraine - they're a sovereign state like the rest of us. That doesn't mean we have to let them join if they want to, just like we don't have to let Russia invade a sovereign state without sanctions. I noted in my comment that there was actually peace in Eastern Europe before NATO expansion. NATO could easily have used that as a reason to disallow the membership application from Ukraine, but I think we were too determined to quell Russia's and Putin's global influence so we let it happen. Was it even necessary? If Russia had attacked Ukraine in the 90s, would the West not have responded in a similar way to how it is doing now? Not sure what NATO has gained here. In my opinion diplomacy is all about recognising the world isn't perfect, and, when there is a need to, holding your nose and letting bad people run their countries as an alternative to something worse. Yes it's a tragedy what's happening in Ukraine right now, and yes Putin is a tyrant who would ideally not be in charge (weird that I now feel the need to have to say that, because it should be self-evident to all rational people).
> EDIT: yes, I downvoted, and here's my share of a comment.
Was my post low effort or malicious?
Usual caveats that I'm not a diplomat, don't have all the facts, etc etc., but this doesn't seem like a rational move for Finland or NATO. The UK just yesterday agreed to protect Finland in the event of an attack, and the UK's involvement would likely bring in many other NATO powers anyway, so arguably they're getting protection they'd otherwise have to pay for for free. And actually, officially joining NATO will hav…
Finland should have applied for NATO 10 years ago or in 10 years, not now with the tense situation. They are essentially stating that Russian gov. is aggressive enough to be a threat to them in the future but not agressive enough right now to create a "border dispute" to prevent NATO membership. My take is that they should just have stayed out of the Russia US power game completely.
10 years ago, it was reasonable to believe that Russia would never invade a neighboring country, so joining NATO wasn't seen as necessary or preferable to maintaining neutrality.
10 years in the future, based on what we're seeing now, Russia may have already invaded/attacked Finland and it would be too late to join NATO.