61–70 of 521 posts
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
[flagged]
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
I don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of influence or increase tensions with Russia. Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms.
As a Lithuanian... If we weren't in NATO, we'd either have a very very serious problems now. Or be a vassal state like Belarus.
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Russia could also take over all of Ukraine in about a week. I think that qualifies for a great big [Citation Needed].
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
>> just Hah, yeah, that's not a big deal at all, neutralizing Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors, through threats of aggression. Like, who's scared of Russia these days? They're just empty threats. I'd like totally bet my life on it, just empty threats. EDIT: /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be much more effective theater if they actually succeeded? Why pretend to be incompetent?
[flagged]
[flagged]
"If his former exes asked for a restraining order against him, what incentive or assurance does he have for allowing them to break up with him?" The problem is Russia. Russia could be a normal country like its neighbors and make money from trading goods while wooing foreign investors, but Putin took the history books he read too seriously and thinks he can pull another round of territorial conquests. I don't see how…
This is really horrifying how the perspectives on the current directly oppose each other, completely Orwellian.
It's not like it's some ancient history, all of this is following the lessons learned from interactions in the 2000s - when the US had been violating the INF treaty with missile "defence" system in Poland and had uncorked local ethnic conflict with arms supply.
From Russia's point of view the events of 2013 in Ukraine along with the previous grievances (the Second Chechen War, Georgia, NATO missile systems, etc), along with the denial of its pleads of new security agreements - were all a consecutive persistent strategy against it.
And sorry, sue me, downvote me and tell me I'm brainwashed all you want, but this is a fair point - let's not pretend that NATO is a strictly defensive organization and nothing ever more than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These questions are irrelevant. The tactical significance of Finland to Russia is small compared to the resources required to invade it as is. Due to bad cost/benefit ratio it is therefore unlikely for Russia to attack Finland. But now that Finland is part of NATO it has to bear the cost when some other country gets attacked. It's a bad deal.
Russia literally invaded Finland last century
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Nobody in NATO wants to invade Russia and have a nuclear war. 20% of homes there don't even have indoor plumbing. Nobody wants anything from Russia except to not be attacked by them.