351–360 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turkeye is balancing things. They also closed it for NATO and did it after Russian ships arrived.
What would NATO ships do there? "Balancing" would only make sense if NATO was directly a part of the conflict.
Russia made the best move to get Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Did NATO hire Putin? It almost seems like some sort of reverse psychology thing… Russia saying "We forbid you to join NATO" is one of few things that would get these countries to join NATO. "Don't tell us what to do!" What is Putin's play?
He's been very clear: before the second Ukraine invasion he criticised Lenin for allowing the SSRs to exist and for accepting the loss of Imperial Russia by e.g. accepting Finnish independence. His ambition is to restore Russia to (at least) its pre World War I borders, which would involve the obliteration of nations such as Ukraine and Finland.
Up until now he has zero push back on the butcheries in Chechnya, little pushback on previous atrocities in Ukraine or Syria or shooting down civilian airliners, and he no doubt expected the same this time around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why are we pretending conventional war between NATO and Russia is a thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it is not a contract, because it is not contractually binding. It is more a promise to help. And Churchill promised to help Finland in WW2 and did not keep his promise.
How could Britain realistically have helped Finland militarily in WW2?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that NATO already has to care about that border. Finland joining NATO just makes that reality easier to handle.
They only have to care about the Finnish border in a military fictional grand plan sense not a everyday practical sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what would be really helpful here? Links to sources to know what the heck you're talking about. Preferably Wikipedia pages or something like that. And no, "do your own research" is not a valid answer.
Quoted post unavailable.
Your claim was: "NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity."
The first seems to be a link collecting data points for civilian casualties. I don't see any NATO actions on there; and in any case it's missing the further evidence that war crimes and human rights abuse occurred.
The second page, on the front page anyway, has nothing about NATO whatsoever as far as I could tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The CIA has entered the chat. If you are not a Ruzzian troll go to a subrredit for n eastern country and ask the people there what they think about NATO and Russia, like go to r/romania . I assure you we don't need CIA propaganda to understand the danger Russia was and is for our freedom and unfortunetly for our brothers in Moldova that got screwed hard and might get cewed more in future but the Russians. Though I c…
I live in Eastern Europe, its why I have a balanced view of the situation. There are as many states in this region who want to ally against NATO because of its war crimes and crimes against humanity - however I wager those states are not on your radar since you clearly live inside the media bubble created for you by the literal makers of bombs to be dropped by NATO forces in future wars .
Didn't Russia (last month) threaten Finland/Sweden with 'consequences' should they decide joining NATO? Wondering what would those be. Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do large amount of Americans think that " We all know Russia will win."? Also, Finland builds its army? As in, NATO seems to be so eager on Finland joining cause they think they will gain something too.
I don't know, I'm not American, and don't care that much. I was referring to this part: > I'm just tired of the USA paying for everything when we don't have the money. Which seems to be one of the things that made the previous President the President.
The people who whine about NATO members "not paying enough" seem to think all the other NATO countries have got rid of their armies and are defended only by US troops permanently stationed there. That's not how it works: They all have their own defense forces. Trump was whining that those are not big enough (and he was probably even [at least mainly] right there), but that just means that if there is a war in any NATO country, it will only be able to do "too small a part" in its own defense, and the other ones (yes, given their size, mainly the USA) will have to help more than they otherwise would. But until that happens, this "missing money" doesn't actually come out of any US budget; it's just not being spent at all.
For once, not even "just another one of Trump's lies", but certainly a huge over-simplification by / for the more naïve of his followers.