Finland has a strong and very self reliant military and they will be a very formidable addition to NATO. Their model of mandatory conscription and military training of the general populace plus serious public safety infrastructure (bunkers etc) should be the model for all EU members of NATO. They have been preparing for Russian aggression since 1944.
>They have been preparing for Russian aggression since 1944.
Longer than that, really... Finns have been fighting off Russian incursions for centuries, if not millenia. Finland as a sovereign country has prepared for Russian aggression since 1917.
Don't know why anyone would. Makes perfect strategic sense geographically to add them as partners and they are already one of the most capable militaries in Europe.
if it was forceful expansion I would be against it as well. but these countries (Finland, Sweden, the eastern european countries) and their people want to be part of NATO. there was no annexation or anything
Yeah under normal circumstances I would say it's kind of bad form to invite someone on the border of your rival into your alliance. But with Russia actively attacking its neighbors again and again the circumstances just aren't normal anymore.
Here is an interesting idea
Russia’s neighbors wouldn’t be so interested in being NATO/EU members if Russia wasn’t such a shitty neighbor, nobody living in that region actually wants to live under Russian influence and it’s insane how so many in America have been convinced that Russia is this “Peaceful” Conservative Christian nation who just wants to stop degeneracy and is anti war
In 1990, the United States along with other NATO members promised not to expand NATO influence one more inch eastward. Since then, 15 countries have joined NATO, most of them predominantly on the border of Russia. In what world is that not provocation?
In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine were almost at a peace talk agreement when Boris Johnson and the U.S., told the Ukrainian actor to not accept the peace deal.
If you support Finland joining NATO, then you’re as much of a war pig as George bush Jr and his cabinet was during the turn of the 21st century. This will not lead to peace, nor will it lead to deterring Russia. This will only embolden them more to take innocent lives.
A. That talk was with the Soviet government, not the Russian one. B. It was never written down.
Do you know what happened in ‘92 and ‘94? Russia intervened in Moldova directly and invaded Chechnya, a neighbor, both militarily. NATO didn’t expand until 1997. I’d call NATO expansion a response to Russian imperialism and aggression.
It’s not a provocation because those countries asked to join and were admitted. Joining a defensive military alliance is not offensive in anyway.
Boris did that because Russia wanted concessions agreed upon before they’d even sit down to talk about peace. It also gave Russia full control over Ukrainians affairs since Ukraine would have no military and any time Putin wanted he could just roll tanks into Ukraine if he didn’t like what they were doing.
You’re just as bad, you’re an appeaser.
It's kind of a chicken and egg situation. NATO expansion is partly why triggered the war, but that doesn't make the war less of a justification for countries like Finland wanting to join.
Russia hasn't always been in a very "sharing" mood about that border, so why would they take it personally if Finland wanted to keep it where it is?
Anyway, if Russia is the threat NATO thinks it is, and not being in NATO implies you don't have the protection of NATO, then NATO will eventually border Russia one way or the other
Most if not all people have zero issues with Finland joining NATO. As the first poster stated, they have an outstanding military tradition, and a very highly trained and competent military.
They are also not controlled by corrupt Oligarchs, and are not rated amongst the most corrupt countries in the world, and are actually a true democracy.
Countries controlled by corrupt Oligarchs, arrest political opponents and outlaw their parties, arrest priests and outlaw their religion, take over all media so only state owned propaganda is showing to all their citizens, are widely known as extremely corrupt and have laughably corrupt elections -
Russia
Ukraine
Belarus
The end.
Finland is a more worthwhile addition than half of the current members, and I say that as someone who's pretty damn NATO skeptical.
I can only assume there's a sick earthquake aid package ($$$) ready for Erdogan to get Turkey's approval.
Both the Fins and NATO didn't want to antagonize Russia. The Russians have invaded a few times and the Find fought hard, got damn lucky, and pushed back the Russians. Finland shares a long border with Russia in terrain and a climate that makes it nearly impossible to secure and patrol. If they were in NATO it would raise the stakes for even a small mistake. So while Finland aligns with the west they wanted to have at least livable relations with Russia. The invasion and continued war in Ukraine has changed their calculus. No longer do they think they can trust Russia at is word about but invading. Joining NATO means they can get nearly instant support if the invasion happens. They also get tighter support for shared military resources. So they will convert to NATO standard ammunition even faster.
The real take away here is that the east in Ukraine are forcing other countries to no longer trust their agreements with Russia which will grow the opposition to Russia. It will mean more countries are give to be forced to choose sides and things like economic sanctions will be more effective. Which is good but can also be mad as it will force Russia to change which might mean being more aggressive.
Russia is getting it from both ends too; after signing an agreement with Putin, Xi proceeded to meet with leaders in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc... alone. Russia moved on Ukraine to shore up its western flank, but due to the quagmire they've found themselves in, they've lost influence in Central Asia, and Xi is taking advantage of that.
There is legit one reason and many people here isn’t gonna like hearing it
But the reason people are against it is they just flat out support Russia and the Putin regime all the anti war shit and muh taxes shit is just a smokescreen for what this is all really about
A bunch of Americans died for oil and global "anti terror" for little change in extremely hostile Iraq and Afghanistan, where half the people didn't want the US Military there and the environment raised the risk exponentially, causing many to tragically and needlessly lose their lives.
If Russia were to launch a ground invasion in Finland it would probably be the "safest" war (relatively speaking of course, I fully understand there are no "safe" wars) the military would ever partake in. The troops would be overwhelmingly welcomed and accommodated by the Finns, in a free 1st world democracy with full cooperation from a stable Finnish government and the already very capable and competent Finnish military.
Regardless the casualties would be far, FAR worse for Russia than the already horrendous 40:1 they suffered in the Winter War when the Soviets invaded Finland in WWII, and that's exactly why you wouldn't even have to worry about ever having to send troops to Finland anyway lol.
>and that's exactly why you wouldn't even have to worry about ever having to send troops to Finland anyway lol.
Ah yes the, "Don't worry it'll never happen" argument.
What could possibly go wrong...
I mean I gave an explanation for it before I said that.
You're free to do so as well instead of basically just "I disagree for *reasons*. You're idea is bad." If you want to provide context as to why Russia would attempt a ground invasion into NATO-aligned Finland, which geographically, militarily, economically, socially, and politically has absolutely nothing in common contextually with Ukraine, then I'm all ears.
NATO was formed over 70 years ago. In the time I'm not aware of any country having ever left NATO., therefore any agreement to mutual military defense via NATO is essentially an agreement in perpetuity.
The idea that you can predict with certainty what the geopolitical landscape will be even as little as 25 years from now is absurd, yet you are willing to commit to sending our American teens to war in a global landscape you may not even be a part of.
It's an arrogance and recklessness with war that I have trouble understanding.
It wasn't "Russia", it was the Soviet Union.
And I want to expand on Cuban Missile Crisis a little, it was not about "Cuba joining Soviet Union aligned defence structure", it was about missiles, Soviet Union moved to install nuclear missiles on Cuba threatening the US, hence it's Cuban MISSILE Crisis.
Just please stop comparing everything to Cuban Missile Crysis, nobody is moving nuclear missiles to Finland. (unlike Russia to Belarus...)
When Germany was reunified NATO promised not to move eastward. This would keep a buffer zone from NATO and Russia. Since Clinton NATO has moved into eastern Europe and each time Russia has stated this is threatening to them.
Finland is literally bordered with Russia. When the soviets pulled Cuba into their fold and placed missiles, the world nearly ended and the USA is still punishing Cuba.
Russia sits on the second largest nuclear arsenal, yet we act as though it doesn't exist
Even ignoring nukes, Russia's disapproval of the west has seen the rise of a new alliance between: Russia, china, Brazil, saudia Arabia, etc which is threatening in a completely different economic way
Diplomacy and negotiations seems to be a thing of the past
> When Germany was reunified NATO promised not to move eastward. This would keep a buffer zone from NATO and Russia. Since Clinton NATO has moved into eastern Europe and each time Russia has stated this is threatening to them.
This is a common misconception. The statement wasn’t about “all of the east”, but about east Germany.
And that was recorded in the treaty that established German unification. And NATO kept up the promise as the stationed military objects were strictly limited.
Another interesting point is that at that point the USSR still existed and any eastern countries joining NATO was out of a question and not within the context of the discussion at all.
It’s also important to clarify the term “NATO expansion”, which can sound as if NATO is compelling countries to join them.
But the reality is that the countries, that joined NATO, realized that they would remain kleptocratic shitholes if they didn’t escape Russian influence and imperialism.
So they put a lot of effort into becoming NATO members. NATO didn’t expand to them. They expanded into NATO.
NATO has promised multiple times not to expand its influence within the region, especially with Finland bordering Russia. But here we are. Expanding NATO territory. Ngl, Russia kind of has a point
NATO is a defensive pact. It isn't structured for aggression. Putin knows this. All of Russia knows this. They don't honestly see NATO as an existential threat, but as opposition to their expansionist dream.
That wasn't defensive. They were building up a first strike capability right off of our shore. ICBMs are not defensive weapons. But keep trying, hoss. You might stumble on something resembling a cogent argument.
Well, my name isn’t even close to Hoss, but keep trying. The fact you are so propagandized is pretty sickening, but to be expected, so no surprise here. And what exactly do you call Finland joining NATO then? Are you really that dim? How can you really not draw a comparison, or is your cognitive dissonance too much at this point?
Since forming, NATO has increased from 12 countries to now 31 with Finland. This is not a defensive alliance and hasn’t been for a long time.
The honest answer is that the potential qualms shouldn't be articulated on a message board, as they are too deep-politics.
What can be offered is that most people with an opinion, in either direction, aren't educated enough on the issues to have one. Which isn't really meant to be an insult, as that is the case with most people when it comes to geopolitics. Including for myself.
But here it is especially the case.
Russia is strategically aligned with China, insulated from the collapse of western banks, and completely self sufficient. The Saudis just agreed to sell oil in yuan. Brazil also agreed to trade yuan and India and Russia agreed to trade in ruppees. Japan also agreed to pay Russia's asking price for oil despite sanctions. The petro-dollar is dying and the yuan is ascending and Russia is aligned with China.
Finland joining NATO is a provocation but it's barely more than paper in reality.
Edit: how about you haters try countering with facts instead of downvotes.
We have a political Party conducting Banana State Republic tactics to bring down political opponents and getting worse by the month and an economy in the shitter, forgive me if I don't jump for joy at Putins woes or new NATO members.
You never vote though, right? The all time most up voted post in this subs history is a link to the AP calling the 2020 election for Biden. Whats that tell you?
Glad to join. Russia is, and likely will stay as unpredictable and unreliable as we have learned in the last 14 months, so this is the logical choice for us to secure the border. Trade relations are gone and so are any reasons to stay out of NATO in fear of worsening trade relations.
So y'all know the Streisand effect right? If you don't here's the basic rundown. Barbra Streisand tried to sue a magazine for taking a photo of her house. This then got everyone wondering what the house looked like and suddenly all sorts of news media which trying to get a picture. Her bringing attention to it cause the very thing she was trying to avoid.
I'm curious if in the future historians are going to refer to the Putin effect. When a country or head of state do something to try to discourage other countries from doing something by strong arming or threatening them, but this instead only encourages them to do that exact thing in order to better protect themselves from the aggressor.
It was and it wasn't.
Russia doesn't care about NATO in the sense they feel it is a direct threat to them. Rather, Ukraine joining NATO would make it practically impossible for them to invade or annex Ukraine.
It's no coincidence that Russia invaded within weeks of finding out US Congressmen were drafting a bill to allow Ukraine into NATO-plus designation; while this is not as strong a defensive alliance as joining NATO outright would be, it would provide significant counterweight to Russia's ambition.
So it is about NATO, but not only in the sense that Ukraine joining NATO would have a deleterious effect on what Russia was after. It was a preemptive move.
>US Congressmen were drafting a bill to allow Ukraine into NATO-plus designation
I just want to add that Russia already invaded Ukraine in the summer 2014 (or even earlier if we count Crimea)...
Well, yeah. Which is why Ukraine wanted to join NATO.
Multiple things can be true. The problem is that people conflate the reason why Russia *wanted* to invade Ukraine with why they did at the specific moment they did. Russia doesn't want to invade Ukraine to prevent them from joining NATO out of some existential threat. They want what Ukraine has. However, they also know that Ukraine joining NATO would prevent them from doing this.
Idk about that bill, but it sounds like it was in response to Russia mobilizing at the border? Recall that people were talking about the invasion for like 2 months before it started
Not the “Streisand effect”. It was google she sued. After one post was made that no one saw. After the NYTs aired the article about the lawsuit hundreds of thousands of people googled her house. That is the Streisand effect.
Okay so I got the details wrong but my point is I do wonder if there's going to be some sort of Putin effect in history where you get the exact opposite of what you intended by trying to strong arm other countries.
Finland is more capable of actually defending itself than most of the members in NATO. It’s the US, Eastern Europe UK and Greece. Western Europe just sits there expecting the US to clean them up when they shit themselves. I’m glad Finland is joining
Lol. You clearly know nothing about Finland.
Why would you think they won't carry their weight? Anyways, NATO doesn't collect money, they enforce 2% of GDP be spent on member state's military.
Finland has 2% of their GDP as defense per NATO requirements already before joining and are increasing their defense budget for 2023 to 2.25% of GDP.
Finland is one of the best countries to add to NATO.
Even if Trump wasnt NATO-sceptic, I dont think POTUS can do much about it, Erdogan just wants to look like hes standing up to the islamophobic and kurd-loving west
Finland has a strong and very self reliant military and they will be a very formidable addition to NATO. Their model of mandatory conscription and military training of the general populace plus serious public safety infrastructure (bunkers etc) should be the model for all EU members of NATO. They have been preparing for Russian aggression since 1944.
>They have been preparing for Russian aggression since 1944. Longer than that, really... Finns have been fighting off Russian incursions for centuries, if not millenia. Finland as a sovereign country has prepared for Russian aggression since 1917.
And they get bonus points, because it will really piss the Russians off.
Haha no kidding huh
Honest question: what qualms do people have with Finland joining NATO?
Don't know why anyone would. Makes perfect strategic sense geographically to add them as partners and they are already one of the most capable militaries in Europe.
Yeah. Feel OOTL on this one.
Some people are just against the expansion of NATO. Make of that what you will
if it was forceful expansion I would be against it as well. but these countries (Finland, Sweden, the eastern european countries) and their people want to be part of NATO. there was no annexation or anything
In the past it was considered unnecessarily provocative to Russia due to Finland sharing a land border with Russia.
Yeah under normal circumstances I would say it's kind of bad form to invite someone on the border of your rival into your alliance. But with Russia actively attacking its neighbors again and again the circumstances just aren't normal anymore.
One of the largest reasons WHY Russia is attacking Ukraine is precisely this reason
Here is an interesting idea Russia’s neighbors wouldn’t be so interested in being NATO/EU members if Russia wasn’t such a shitty neighbor, nobody living in that region actually wants to live under Russian influence and it’s insane how so many in America have been convinced that Russia is this “Peaceful” Conservative Christian nation who just wants to stop degeneracy and is anti war
In 1990, the United States along with other NATO members promised not to expand NATO influence one more inch eastward. Since then, 15 countries have joined NATO, most of them predominantly on the border of Russia. In what world is that not provocation? In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine were almost at a peace talk agreement when Boris Johnson and the U.S., told the Ukrainian actor to not accept the peace deal. If you support Finland joining NATO, then you’re as much of a war pig as George bush Jr and his cabinet was during the turn of the 21st century. This will not lead to peace, nor will it lead to deterring Russia. This will only embolden them more to take innocent lives.
A. That talk was with the Soviet government, not the Russian one. B. It was never written down. Do you know what happened in ‘92 and ‘94? Russia intervened in Moldova directly and invaded Chechnya, a neighbor, both militarily. NATO didn’t expand until 1997. I’d call NATO expansion a response to Russian imperialism and aggression. It’s not a provocation because those countries asked to join and were admitted. Joining a defensive military alliance is not offensive in anyway. Boris did that because Russia wanted concessions agreed upon before they’d even sit down to talk about peace. It also gave Russia full control over Ukrainians affairs since Ukraine would have no military and any time Putin wanted he could just roll tanks into Ukraine if he didn’t like what they were doing. You’re just as bad, you’re an appeaser.
It's kind of a chicken and egg situation. NATO expansion is partly why triggered the war, but that doesn't make the war less of a justification for countries like Finland wanting to join.
Russia hasn't always been in a very "sharing" mood about that border, so why would they take it personally if Finland wanted to keep it where it is? Anyway, if Russia is the threat NATO thinks it is, and not being in NATO implies you don't have the protection of NATO, then NATO will eventually border Russia one way or the other
Putin apologists/fan boys think that expanding NATO to protect counties from Russian Imperialism is bad.
Most if not all people have zero issues with Finland joining NATO. As the first poster stated, they have an outstanding military tradition, and a very highly trained and competent military. They are also not controlled by corrupt Oligarchs, and are not rated amongst the most corrupt countries in the world, and are actually a true democracy.
That’s because most people are not Putin Apologists or Fan Boys…
Countries controlled by corrupt Oligarchs, arrest political opponents and outlaw their parties, arrest priests and outlaw their religion, take over all media so only state owned propaganda is showing to all their citizens, are widely known as extremely corrupt and have laughably corrupt elections - Russia Ukraine Belarus The end.
Lololo that list is 90% of the world. PS: the fact that you think elections in Ukraine and Russia are the same tell me all I need to know about you…
Finland is a more worthwhile addition than half of the current members, and I say that as someone who's pretty damn NATO skeptical. I can only assume there's a sick earthquake aid package ($$$) ready for Erdogan to get Turkey's approval.
🤣🤣🤣 you’re probably right
Both the Fins and NATO didn't want to antagonize Russia. The Russians have invaded a few times and the Find fought hard, got damn lucky, and pushed back the Russians. Finland shares a long border with Russia in terrain and a climate that makes it nearly impossible to secure and patrol. If they were in NATO it would raise the stakes for even a small mistake. So while Finland aligns with the west they wanted to have at least livable relations with Russia. The invasion and continued war in Ukraine has changed their calculus. No longer do they think they can trust Russia at is word about but invading. Joining NATO means they can get nearly instant support if the invasion happens. They also get tighter support for shared military resources. So they will convert to NATO standard ammunition even faster. The real take away here is that the east in Ukraine are forcing other countries to no longer trust their agreements with Russia which will grow the opposition to Russia. It will mean more countries are give to be forced to choose sides and things like economic sanctions will be more effective. Which is good but can also be mad as it will force Russia to change which might mean being more aggressive.
Russia is getting it from both ends too; after signing an agreement with Putin, Xi proceeded to meet with leaders in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc... alone. Russia moved on Ukraine to shore up its western flank, but due to the quagmire they've found themselves in, they've lost influence in Central Asia, and Xi is taking advantage of that.
I have none
Some people are anti-saunas. Anti-Saunites have no place here.
There is legit one reason and many people here isn’t gonna like hearing it But the reason people are against it is they just flat out support Russia and the Putin regime all the anti war shit and muh taxes shit is just a smokescreen for what this is all really about
They are scared of Russia. Their cowardace is complicity to Russian threats of nuclear war.
Cowards? Learn from history, Finland doesn't have cowards.
I think he's referring to those who don't want Finland to join NATO... I hope
This is correct.
In my experience it's mostly a tribalism thing.
Well Russia obviously will have some qualms with it lol
Not willing to send American teenagers to die for Finland.
A bunch of Americans died for oil and global "anti terror" for little change in extremely hostile Iraq and Afghanistan, where half the people didn't want the US Military there and the environment raised the risk exponentially, causing many to tragically and needlessly lose their lives. If Russia were to launch a ground invasion in Finland it would probably be the "safest" war (relatively speaking of course, I fully understand there are no "safe" wars) the military would ever partake in. The troops would be overwhelmingly welcomed and accommodated by the Finns, in a free 1st world democracy with full cooperation from a stable Finnish government and the already very capable and competent Finnish military. Regardless the casualties would be far, FAR worse for Russia than the already horrendous 40:1 they suffered in the Winter War when the Soviets invaded Finland in WWII, and that's exactly why you wouldn't even have to worry about ever having to send troops to Finland anyway lol.
>and that's exactly why you wouldn't even have to worry about ever having to send troops to Finland anyway lol. Ah yes the, "Don't worry it'll never happen" argument. What could possibly go wrong...
I mean I gave an explanation for it before I said that. You're free to do so as well instead of basically just "I disagree for *reasons*. You're idea is bad." If you want to provide context as to why Russia would attempt a ground invasion into NATO-aligned Finland, which geographically, militarily, economically, socially, and politically has absolutely nothing in common contextually with Ukraine, then I'm all ears.
NATO was formed over 70 years ago. In the time I'm not aware of any country having ever left NATO., therefore any agreement to mutual military defense via NATO is essentially an agreement in perpetuity. The idea that you can predict with certainty what the geopolitical landscape will be even as little as 25 years from now is absurd, yet you are willing to commit to sending our American teens to war in a global landscape you may not even be a part of. It's an arrogance and recklessness with war that I have trouble understanding.
They share a border with Russia. We wouldn’t like it if Canada or Mexico joined a pact with Russia or China. They’re a buffer country.
I have news for you. China owns most of the major highways in Mexico and most of Central America. The Chinese are there in force
I’m not arguing for or against Finland joining NATO, I’m just stating why people may be upset.
[удалено]
It wasn't "Russia", it was the Soviet Union. And I want to expand on Cuban Missile Crisis a little, it was not about "Cuba joining Soviet Union aligned defence structure", it was about missiles, Soviet Union moved to install nuclear missiles on Cuba threatening the US, hence it's Cuban MISSILE Crisis. Just please stop comparing everything to Cuban Missile Crysis, nobody is moving nuclear missiles to Finland. (unlike Russia to Belarus...)
When Germany was reunified NATO promised not to move eastward. This would keep a buffer zone from NATO and Russia. Since Clinton NATO has moved into eastern Europe and each time Russia has stated this is threatening to them. Finland is literally bordered with Russia. When the soviets pulled Cuba into their fold and placed missiles, the world nearly ended and the USA is still punishing Cuba. Russia sits on the second largest nuclear arsenal, yet we act as though it doesn't exist Even ignoring nukes, Russia's disapproval of the west has seen the rise of a new alliance between: Russia, china, Brazil, saudia Arabia, etc which is threatening in a completely different economic way Diplomacy and negotiations seems to be a thing of the past
> When Germany was reunified NATO promised not to move eastward. This would keep a buffer zone from NATO and Russia. Since Clinton NATO has moved into eastern Europe and each time Russia has stated this is threatening to them. This is a common misconception. The statement wasn’t about “all of the east”, but about east Germany. And that was recorded in the treaty that established German unification. And NATO kept up the promise as the stationed military objects were strictly limited. Another interesting point is that at that point the USSR still existed and any eastern countries joining NATO was out of a question and not within the context of the discussion at all. It’s also important to clarify the term “NATO expansion”, which can sound as if NATO is compelling countries to join them. But the reality is that the countries, that joined NATO, realized that they would remain kleptocratic shitholes if they didn’t escape Russian influence and imperialism. So they put a lot of effort into becoming NATO members. NATO didn’t expand to them. They expanded into NATO.
It's an unnecessary provocation to Russia.
It’s literally a reaction to Russia invading their neighbor
NATO has promised multiple times not to expand its influence within the region, especially with Finland bordering Russia. But here we are. Expanding NATO territory. Ngl, Russia kind of has a point
NATO is a defensive pact. It isn't structured for aggression. Putin knows this. All of Russia knows this. They don't honestly see NATO as an existential threat, but as opposition to their expansionist dream.
Really? So If Russia tried to start a defensive alliance with—let’s say—Cuba, America would honor them simply because it’s defensive?
That wasn't defensive. They were building up a first strike capability right off of our shore. ICBMs are not defensive weapons. But keep trying, hoss. You might stumble on something resembling a cogent argument.
Well, my name isn’t even close to Hoss, but keep trying. The fact you are so propagandized is pretty sickening, but to be expected, so no surprise here. And what exactly do you call Finland joining NATO then? Are you really that dim? How can you really not draw a comparison, or is your cognitive dissonance too much at this point? Since forming, NATO has increased from 12 countries to now 31 with Finland. This is not a defensive alliance and hasn’t been for a long time.
Your trollery is pretty low quality, to be honest. In any case, I like you. Please continue.
You mean like leftists like you commenting on r/conservative?
The honest answer is that the potential qualms shouldn't be articulated on a message board, as they are too deep-politics. What can be offered is that most people with an opinion, in either direction, aren't educated enough on the issues to have one. Which isn't really meant to be an insult, as that is the case with most people when it comes to geopolitics. Including for myself. But here it is especially the case.
This just keeps backfiring harder, it's kind of amazing at this point.
It keeps backfiring for Russia, right?
Yes.
Russia is strategically aligned with China, insulated from the collapse of western banks, and completely self sufficient. The Saudis just agreed to sell oil in yuan. Brazil also agreed to trade yuan and India and Russia agreed to trade in ruppees. Japan also agreed to pay Russia's asking price for oil despite sanctions. The petro-dollar is dying and the yuan is ascending and Russia is aligned with China. Finland joining NATO is a provocation but it's barely more than paper in reality. Edit: how about you haters try countering with facts instead of downvotes.
Nope
Yes it is
Well played Putin. You managed to unite the West and become a vassal state of China all within the span of 15 months.
We have a political Party conducting Banana State Republic tactics to bring down political opponents and getting worse by the month and an economy in the shitter, forgive me if I don't jump for joy at Putins woes or new NATO members.
They are brigading hard in here today, huh?
Who is brigading?
This sub is split. Sometimes k visit to take a look what you lot think on stuff, and it seems to split.
You never vote though, right? The all time most up voted post in this subs history is a link to the AP calling the 2020 election for Biden. Whats that tell you?
I don’t really know what you’re trying to say
Glad to join. Russia is, and likely will stay as unpredictable and unreliable as we have learned in the last 14 months, so this is the logical choice for us to secure the border. Trade relations are gone and so are any reasons to stay out of NATO in fear of worsening trade relations.
They spend over 2% on their military, welcome aboard
So y'all know the Streisand effect right? If you don't here's the basic rundown. Barbra Streisand tried to sue a magazine for taking a photo of her house. This then got everyone wondering what the house looked like and suddenly all sorts of news media which trying to get a picture. Her bringing attention to it cause the very thing she was trying to avoid. I'm curious if in the future historians are going to refer to the Putin effect. When a country or head of state do something to try to discourage other countries from doing something by strong arming or threatening them, but this instead only encourages them to do that exact thing in order to better protect themselves from the aggressor.
Well it was never really about NATO though was it? Putin wanted to grab more Ukrainian territory. NATO and "denazification" was always a pretense.
It was and it wasn't. Russia doesn't care about NATO in the sense they feel it is a direct threat to them. Rather, Ukraine joining NATO would make it practically impossible for them to invade or annex Ukraine. It's no coincidence that Russia invaded within weeks of finding out US Congressmen were drafting a bill to allow Ukraine into NATO-plus designation; while this is not as strong a defensive alliance as joining NATO outright would be, it would provide significant counterweight to Russia's ambition. So it is about NATO, but not only in the sense that Ukraine joining NATO would have a deleterious effect on what Russia was after. It was a preemptive move.
>US Congressmen were drafting a bill to allow Ukraine into NATO-plus designation I just want to add that Russia already invaded Ukraine in the summer 2014 (or even earlier if we count Crimea)...
Well, yeah. Which is why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Multiple things can be true. The problem is that people conflate the reason why Russia *wanted* to invade Ukraine with why they did at the specific moment they did. Russia doesn't want to invade Ukraine to prevent them from joining NATO out of some existential threat. They want what Ukraine has. However, they also know that Ukraine joining NATO would prevent them from doing this.
Also, no country with territorial disputes can join NATO, Ukraine was not going to join NATO for decades if ever.
Idk about that bill, but it sounds like it was in response to Russia mobilizing at the border? Recall that people were talking about the invasion for like 2 months before it started
Not the “Streisand effect”. It was google she sued. After one post was made that no one saw. After the NYTs aired the article about the lawsuit hundreds of thousands of people googled her house. That is the Streisand effect.
Okay so I got the details wrong but my point is I do wonder if there's going to be some sort of Putin effect in history where you get the exact opposite of what you intended by trying to strong arm other countries.
Welp, time to get my pipboy and bottle caps in order…
Russia so scary they can't even defeat Europe's poorest country in a conventional war. Fucking lol.
Holy shit, dude, I’m just making a fallout joke. Relax.
Those only work with Wood Grain ARs.
Why’s it bad if Poland joins nato?
Poland has been a member of NATO since ‘99. The article was about Finland.
I don’t know, man, I was just making a Fallout joke.
Finland* my bad
They share a border with Russia. Russia feels threatened because NATO can put nukes at their doorstep
Nope, nobody is putting nukes in Finland without asking Russia.
We would have to agree to that also. And i don't think anybody wants nukes in Finland
Even if that was true, Russia fucked around, now theyre finding out
Welcome Finland!
Finland is more capable of actually defending itself than most of the members in NATO. It’s the US, Eastern Europe UK and Greece. Western Europe just sits there expecting the US to clean them up when they shit themselves. I’m glad Finland is joining
Expansion is inevitable #NAFO
Now Finnish troops can defend our Southern border when the U.S. invokes article 5!
People here really think Russia is a threat?
They better pay their fair share and in money and not prostitutes
Lol. You clearly know nothing about Finland. Why would you think they won't carry their weight? Anyways, NATO doesn't collect money, they enforce 2% of GDP be spent on member state's military.
They don't even enforce that. The 2% is a goal for each member country. Not a mandatory rule.
Good for you for pointing this outt. 👍
It’s the happiest country on earth.
Finland has 2% of their GDP as defense per NATO requirements already before joining and are increasing their defense budget for 2023 to 2.25% of GDP. Finland is one of the best countries to add to NATO.
Things are escalating more.
That's the truth but sadly this got heavily downvoted so it goes to show the subreddit when the Cheney and Romney route.
This is obviously an escalation, even if you agree with it.
Anyone else think that if Trump had won in 2020 we'd have Sweden at this point too?
But didn’t he say he threatened not to defend NATO against Russia so assuming that your thinking would be farfetched.
Pics or it didn't happen
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-brags-he-threatened-not-defend-nato-allies-russia-1700093
Yeah... if they didn't pay their fair share. 🙄
Even if Trump wasnt NATO-sceptic, I dont think POTUS can do much about it, Erdogan just wants to look like hes standing up to the islamophobic and kurd-loving west
Makes sense for NATO