Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
41–50 of 218 posts
Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#42Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#43This is an excellent deal for Finland, whose sovereignty is protected. Is it the same for the US? Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? An attack against the US can unleash the end of humanity. I find very risky to leave this at the whims of some out of touch Russian dictator.
Where do you draw the line
Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#44Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#45This is an excellent deal for Finland, whose sovereignty is protected. Is it the same for the US? Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? An attack against the US can unleash the end of humanity. I find very risky to leave this at the whims of some out of touch Russian dictator.
Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#46This is an excellent deal for Finland, whose sovereignty is protected. Is it the same for the US? Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? An attack against the US can unleash the end of humanity. I find very risky to leave this at the whims of some out of touch Russian dictator.
Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#47How many lives would have not been completely destroyed had the powers that be 15-20 years ago gotten their act together?
I should say that IMO Zelinsky is doing as excellent a job as he possibly can with the situation now. The main issue is not joining NATO when it wouldn’t have resulted in war before the process can be completed. And maybe NATO needs a provisional membership process that allows a country to be temporarily considered an ally via a much quicker path so that while it gains full membership it cannot be invaded.
Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#48"I must invade a neighboring country to prevent having NATO on my doorstep" - Vladimir Vladimirovich, master strategist "Whoa, if countries are annexed willy nilly then we better join NATO before it happens to us" - Every single one of those doorsteps
Even without involving Finland, it's worse than that. If he successfully invades and conquers Ukraine, he will certainly have NATO at his doorstep. I doubt this was his real reasoning.
Maybe the plan was to take only as much of Ukraine to show that he could, if he wanted to, take the whole. Effectively turning the Ukraine into a no-mans-land and maintaining the threat of "don't join NATO, or else..." And Finland doesn't have oil to profit from, so he likely had no plans of ever touching that wasp's nest.
I'm not a politician nor military strategist, but I prefer not underestimating powerful people when thinking about their strategies.
Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#49Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the small countries exist and if they cannot rely on big countries for protection against nuclear states, then the only way forward for them is to have their own nuclear weapons. Do you like that world better? Does it lower or heighten the risk of unleashing the “end of humanity”?
I don't accept that dichotomy despite I see value in the argument. Since the invention of nuclear bombs, how many countries without nuclear weapons have lost their sovereignty of those surrounding Russia? Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?
As for Finland during the Cold War, not sure if it had a pathway to NATO, same as modern Ukraine, or if the USSR would give it time to develop a bomb. They treaded carefully and forfeited a great deal of their independence.