Remember when the Swedes occupied Finland for 600 years, suppressed the speaking of the Finnish language and began colonizing whole regions of the country?
Remember how after they gained their independence from Russia, the Finns fought a brilliant guerilla war against the Soviets in order to prevent their country from being subsumed by another foreign empire?
And their defense against that is to give up their political, military and economic sovereignty, first to the EU, and now to NATO, alongside the country that used to be their imperial overlord?
Every country in NATO has lost their sovereignty except the US, because every country in NATO has effectively outsourced its national defense to the US. And that model doesn't even work well for the Americans.
Finland just fucked itself by choosing a side when they could have remained politically neutral, which is all the Russians wanted from them. It's all the Russians wanted from Ukraine, too, but our glorious leaders couldn't stop financing coups and installing leaders more favorable to them.
You are deliberately and dishonestly conflating Russians and Soviets as if they're the same thing. The USSR was an ideological, expansionist globalist power that more readily resembles the monstrosity that has subsumed the West in the past couple of decades. Russia is a regional power with a strong sense of nationalism that has reacted to incessant provocations from NATO in the only rational way it could. If NATO didn't want this to happen, then it should have stayed the fuck away from Ukraine.
It's all the Russians wanted from Ukraine, too, but our glorious leaders couldn't stop financing coups and installing leaders more favorable to them.
Some populist leftist on Jimmy Dore had a fairly brilliant comment.
There are no coups in the US because the US does not have an American embassy.
The USSR was an ideological, expansionist globalist power that more readily resembles the monstrosity that has subsumed the West in the past couple of decades.
George Kennan, the architect of the Cold War, said the following:
“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
Unfortunately, his differences may have been with communist totalitarianism, but American differences were always about Realpolitik.
Finland just fucked itself by choosing a side when they could have remained politically neutral,
Considering Russia has always been attacking them, or provoking them... I think sides were already picked.
Besides, why appease the loudmouthed bully? Did it work with BLM? Did it work with Antifa and BLM in Seattle and CHAZ? Did it work with the cuckery of Nazi Germany? After all what is one insignificant country like austria, just give it to the Nazis... Poland? Bah! Give it to the Nazis! France? Insignificant! give it to the Nazis! England? Insignificant too! Maybe the Nazis would stop at England!
Russia and the soviets are still the same. They are still expansionist. They are still belligerent.
NATO provoked Russia by continuing to exist after the USSR collapsed along with NATO's professed reason for existing. It also did so by expanding into former Soviet countries after promising the Russian leadership they wouldn't.
This behaviour put booster rockets on Russian nationalism, which was on the ebb in the 90s, and actually paved Putin's road to power.
Your efforts to paint the Western globalists as the good guys here are not grounded in reality.
So far, Nato hasn't caused problems to any of its members. It certainly helped keep them safe from Russian meddling for the most part. I am saying most part because Russia still kidnapped Estonian citizen, still invades or violates airspace, territorial waters and land of nato member countries... But it would be far worse if they weren't nato. We just have to look at Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia as examples. Even in small parts Chechnya too.
Imagine having a “peaceful progressive global alliance against the evil tyranny of Russia”… and your organization is then routinely gatekept and systematically extorted by an abusive and backwards Muslim nation. Such a thing might almost shred your credibility on the world stage - if you had any up start.
It would be nice, but Turkey is just trying to blackmail them into cracking down on Kurdish rebels/terrorists and lifting sanctions against Turkey that it claims they have.
Just saying that Turkey is not doing this out of altruism or to save the world or what have you. Nothing in world politics ever is, but this is more blatant than usual.
If they do, they would also have to break their own rule against helping NATO members that are at war, because they sure as hell do not want to be nuked to smithereens. They're just willing to risk it to push their agenda.
If Russia bought its time, NATO would have dissolved in a few decades. Many countries were even getting rid of tanks, planes and more. The UK was famous for canceling upgrades to planes(nimrod is a good example) because they saw no use in the current world.
In the 1990s, Russia being a total mess 'proved' that NATO was needed. Russia attacking a fake country like Ukraine 'proves' that NATO is needed. And Russia trying to prevent itself from being further encircled by NATO will also 'prove' that NATO is needed.
I actually agree, but NATO needs to stay out of former Soviet Republics and Finland. This can only create trouble where none exists.
If Russia bought its time, NATO would have dissolved in a few decades.
I doubt that very much. Like I said, NATO was expanding even when Russia was doing nothing. Furthermore, dissolving NATO is also not the best idea, as something like a German rearmament would surely lead France and the UK to feel threatened.
Staying out of former soviet republics just guarantees that Russia can do to them what is doing to Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine.
Germany was also cutting backs in costs of their army. Everyone was. They weren't even bothering in paying nato, which made Trump visit them and force them to pay up.
Staying out of former soviet republics just guarantees that Russia can do to them what is doing to Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine.
Nothing at all? Georgia picked a fight with Russia and got predictably crushed, because Darth Cheney told them that the Empire of Lies would support them, and Bush had a rare moment of lucidity and decided against it (allegedly).
Ukraine and Moldova, I'm not getting into that, but the Russian actions there are not exactly unreasonable. What is unreasonable is risking nuclear war over a tiny, belligerent country like Lithuania or Latvia, which now feels comfortable making second-class citizens of 40% of its population.
Germany was also cutting backs in costs of their army. Everyone was. They weren't even bothering in paying nato, which made Trump visit them and force them to pay up.
Let's be real, it's never going to be used. And cutting back is not going to be permanent. At some point supposing that NATO were canceled, some country would decide to rearm, for whatever reason, and other countries would face the security dilemma. And we would be in big trouble again.
One could say the same for Poland, it gives them reason to invade Belarus and Kaliningrad, since Belarus is an insignificant beligerent country. Since they seem to have made many of its citizens second class. One could also say the same for Finland invading Russia and getting back some of its lost territory.
It opens up a whole can of worms.
Maybe in the far future they would rearm. But NATO would be gone and putin would have had his wishes made.
Remember when the Swedes occupied Finland for 600 years, suppressed the speaking of the Finnish language and began colonizing whole regions of the country?
Remember how after they gained their independence from Russia, the Finns fought a brilliant guerilla war against the Soviets in order to prevent their country from being subsumed by another foreign empire?
Finland doesn't remember.
It does, that's why they don't want to be victim of yet another soviet or Russian invasion.
And their defense against that is to give up their political, military and economic sovereignty, first to the EU, and now to NATO, alongside the country that used to be their imperial overlord?
I don't see any nato country lose their sovereignty... Do you?
The Finns are well aware of how bad Russians are. They don't want a repeat.
Frankly, just listen to most former soviet countries people and you will see their disdain and sometimes even hatred towards the Russians.
Every country in NATO has lost their sovereignty except the US, because every country in NATO has effectively outsourced its national defense to the US. And that model doesn't even work well for the Americans.
Finland just fucked itself by choosing a side when they could have remained politically neutral, which is all the Russians wanted from them. It's all the Russians wanted from Ukraine, too, but our glorious leaders couldn't stop financing coups and installing leaders more favorable to them.
You are deliberately and dishonestly conflating Russians and Soviets as if they're the same thing. The USSR was an ideological, expansionist globalist power that more readily resembles the monstrosity that has subsumed the West in the past couple of decades. Russia is a regional power with a strong sense of nationalism that has reacted to incessant provocations from NATO in the only rational way it could. If NATO didn't want this to happen, then it should have stayed the fuck away from Ukraine.
Some populist leftist on Jimmy Dore had a fairly brilliant comment.
There are no coups in the US because the US does not have an American embassy.
George Kennan, the architect of the Cold War, said the following:
Unfortunately, his differences may have been with communist totalitarianism, but American differences were always about Realpolitik.
Considering Russia has always been attacking them, or provoking them... I think sides were already picked.
Besides, why appease the loudmouthed bully? Did it work with BLM? Did it work with Antifa and BLM in Seattle and CHAZ? Did it work with the cuckery of Nazi Germany? After all what is one insignificant country like austria, just give it to the Nazis... Poland? Bah! Give it to the Nazis! France? Insignificant! give it to the Nazis! England? Insignificant too! Maybe the Nazis would stop at England!
Russia and the soviets are still the same. They are still expansionist. They are still belligerent.
https://de.style.yahoo.com/style/35-jahren-gab-helmut-schmidt-085800674.html
Where has NATO provoked them? I can in turn share many, many, many facts and evidence of Russia actually provoking NATO.
In fact, I have collected quite a few throughout the years!
https://theaviationist.com/2020/09/12/the-italian-typhoons-supporting-nato-baltic-air-policing-in-lithuania-intercept-a-russian-il-20m-elint-aircraft/
https://theaviationist.com/2018/11/05/heres-the-video-of-the-russian-su-27-that-performed-an-unsafe-intercept-on-a-u-s-ep-3e-aircraft-earlier-today/
https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/31/video-showing-russian-su-27-flanker-turning-into-a-u-s-air-force-f-15c-emerges/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31795/american-destroyer-sounds-collision-alarm-as-russian-ship-gets-aggressive-in-the-middle-east
http://www.news.com.au/technology/russian-fighter-jet-blasts-us-navy-poseidon-with-its-engine-wake/news-story/c82ae462035a0dfae177608caed4acd2#
https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/03/russian-jets-violate-swedish-airspace/
And direct violation of borders:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/19/russia-jails-estonian-police-officer-allegedly-abducted-border-eston-kohver
https://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/35518/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29078400
NATO provoked Russia by continuing to exist after the USSR collapsed along with NATO's professed reason for existing. It also did so by expanding into former Soviet countries after promising the Russian leadership they wouldn't.
This behaviour put booster rockets on Russian nationalism, which was on the ebb in the 90s, and actually paved Putin's road to power.
Your efforts to paint the Western globalists as the good guys here are not grounded in reality.
Well, Russia provoked all the other countries by continuing to exist...
Russians are globalists. They keep provoking other countries. I proved it.
You’re not wrong. But it’s making a deal with the devil.
So far, Nato hasn't caused problems to any of its members. It certainly helped keep them safe from Russian meddling for the most part. I am saying most part because Russia still kidnapped Estonian citizen, still invades or violates airspace, territorial waters and land of nato member countries... But it would be far worse if they weren't nato. We just have to look at Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia as examples. Even in small parts Chechnya too.
Imagine having a “peaceful progressive global alliance against the evil tyranny of Russia”… and your organization is then routinely gatekept and systematically extorted by an abusive and backwards Muslim nation. Such a thing might almost shred your credibility on the world stage - if you had any up start.
Turkey really doesn’t belong in NATO.
Make Byzantium Great Again.
It would be nice, but Turkey is just trying to blackmail them into cracking down on Kurdish rebels/terrorists and lifting sanctions against Turkey that it claims they have.
Just saying that Turkey is not doing this out of altruism or to save the world or what have you. Nothing in world politics ever is, but this is more blatant than usual.
Turkey is known as a backstabber. I do wonder if they will finally choose the subpar su-57.
More two clients for the US Military-Industrial-Complex.
fuck nato.
I think Russia will not like it, and this is definitely an escalatory step, but Finland joining NATO is much less bad for Russia than Ukraine.
Just like always, the usual "North Korea" routine.
https://i.imgur.com/AeAHcl5_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
If Russia declares war on them, even if it does not attack, they cannot join NATO, correct?
Good idea, but all it would do is show everyone that NATO has no problem with breaking their own rules.
If they do, they would also have to break their own rule against helping NATO members that are at war, because they sure as hell do not want to be nuked to smithereens. They're just willing to risk it to push their agenda.
It will prove that NATO is needed.
If Russia bought its time, NATO would have dissolved in a few decades. Many countries were even getting rid of tanks, planes and more. The UK was famous for canceling upgrades to planes(nimrod is a good example) because they saw no use in the current world.
In the 1990s, Russia being a total mess 'proved' that NATO was needed. Russia attacking a fake country like Ukraine 'proves' that NATO is needed. And Russia trying to prevent itself from being further encircled by NATO will also 'prove' that NATO is needed.
I actually agree, but NATO needs to stay out of former Soviet Republics and Finland. This can only create trouble where none exists.
I doubt that very much. Like I said, NATO was expanding even when Russia was doing nothing. Furthermore, dissolving NATO is also not the best idea, as something like a German rearmament would surely lead France and the UK to feel threatened.
Staying out of former soviet republics just guarantees that Russia can do to them what is doing to Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine.
Germany was also cutting backs in costs of their army. Everyone was. They weren't even bothering in paying nato, which made Trump visit them and force them to pay up.
Nothing at all? Georgia picked a fight with Russia and got predictably crushed, because Darth Cheney told them that the Empire of Lies would support them, and Bush had a rare moment of lucidity and decided against it (allegedly).
Ukraine and Moldova, I'm not getting into that, but the Russian actions there are not exactly unreasonable. What is unreasonable is risking nuclear war over a tiny, belligerent country like Lithuania or Latvia, which now feels comfortable making second-class citizens of 40% of its population.
Let's be real, it's never going to be used. And cutting back is not going to be permanent. At some point supposing that NATO were canceled, some country would decide to rearm, for whatever reason, and other countries would face the security dilemma. And we would be in big trouble again.
One could say the same for Poland, it gives them reason to invade Belarus and Kaliningrad, since Belarus is an insignificant beligerent country. Since they seem to have made many of its citizens second class. One could also say the same for Finland invading Russia and getting back some of its lost territory.
It opens up a whole can of worms.
Maybe in the far future they would rearm. But NATO would be gone and putin would have had his wishes made.
This will enlighten you why Russia is acting the way it is. https://de.style.yahoo.com/style/35-jahren-gab-helmut-schmidt-085800674.html
Team Women sticks together.