Yes. At one point — Streetlight

By a few, over the course of 20 years. Russia is systematically brutal over the course of as little as three months, coming close to numbers for a 20-year conflict. And what does any of that have to do with Finland and Sweden seeking security against Russian brutality? There's no counterargument there, it's just whataboutism to brush Russia's acts under the rug. We're not seeking security against the US because there's no risk of them murdering, raping, and killing our children. Russia has proven to be systemic about such acts.

We're not seeking security against the US because there's no risk of them murdering, raping, and killing our children. — Christoffer

Yeah because you benefit from them doing so elsewhere.

You simply don't understand what systemic brutality means.

So Olivier5's simplistic argument that because Russia has killed people in Busha it is a threat to Finland is nonsensical. — Isaac

You are the simplistic one to argue that this is the only reason. You don't know shit about our situation but you act as though you do.

The only reason to prefer a US alliance over a Russian alliance is because the US is our thug.

I'm convinced that will bite us in the ass when eventually US power truly wanes and they will be juxtaposed against China. I do not want to be pulled into that war just because we're in the same "defensive" alliance when we're fully aware the US warmongers are only too happy to wage war on the flimsiest of grounds.

The best thing for the EU members is to leave NATO and get our own central army and create an independent, third force.

Yeah because you benefit from them doing so elsewhere. — Streetlight

What the fuck are you talking about? We're seeking security against Russia because they're actually breaking our borders, conducting cyber-attacks, and are an active threat. You know nothing of our situation and make stupid arguments like that as some kind of counterargument to why we seek security against Russia. The brutality of Russia is there, there's no denying it, so why is the US act in any shape or form as a counterargument to why we seek security?

It's simultaniously both entirely unsurprising and completely shocking that people have not yet recognized that the US is the greatest threat to world peace without compare.

You asked a question and I answered it. Now you seem very upset to have had it pointed out that your preferred murderers and rapists are nice enough to leave you alone on account of you benefitting from them.

The only reason to prefer a US alliance over a Russian alliance is because the US is our thug. — Benkei

Nato alliance is an alliance of 30 nations, 32 with Finland and Sweden. It's you people who conclude it to be led by the US only, because that fits your narrative better. And you can also just say that we prefer that alliance because Russia are brutal and unpredictable. That we seek such alliances because Russia is an actual threat, compared to the US. Who the fuck wants to be friends with Russia?

By a few, over the course of 20 years. — Christoffer

Which comes back to @boethius's point about Nazis. You act as if there's some threshold of war crimes below which we stop caring about them, stop seeing them as any indicator of action needed to be taken.

Russia is systematically brutal over the course of as little as three months, coming close to numbers for a 20-year conflict. — Christoffer

Around 4,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first few days of the US invasion, so if we're doing a like-for-like, they beat Russia hands down.

And what does any of that have to do with Finland and Sweden seeking security against Russian brutality? There's no counterargument there, it's just whataboutism to brush Russia's acts under the rug. We're not seeking security against the US because there's no risk of them murdering, raping, and killing our children. — Christoffer

That is exactly the argument. Russia's brutality in Ukraine is not sufficient reason for Finland to seek security from them in the same way as the US's brutality in Iraq isn't. There's no credible threat of the US invading Finland in the way it did Iraq. There's no credible threat of Russia invading Finland in the way it did Ukraine.

You asked a question and I answered it. Now you seem very upset to have had it pointed out that your preferred murderers and rapists are nice enough to leave you alone. — Streetlight

I answered it too. But the argument was about Finland and Sweden seeking security. I don't give a fuck about your whataboutism. If I point out the brutality of Russia and your argument is to just "but the US though", disregarding everything else being said, then I pointed out that you are comparing 20 years of a multination complex conflict that involves a lot of shit that the US absolutely should be criticized for... to systemic brutality comparable in numbers over the course of just three months. Scale that up to 20 years. Scale that up to multiple nations invaded by Russia. That's what we seek security against.

But I guess you cannot understand the reasons we have to seek such security, because it's easier to strawman our entire region to fit your narrative.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/under-trump-u-s-military-ramps-cyber-offensive-against-other-n1019281

And breach of air space is something that has been going on for decades. The US does it too. Both countries test response times of fighter jets and radar range.

Nato alliance is an alliance of 30 nations, 32 with Finland and Sweden. It's you people who conclude it to be led by the US only, because that fits your narrative better. And you can also just say that we prefer that alliance because Russia are brutal and unpredictable. That we seek such alliances because Russia is an actual threat, compared to the US. Who the fuck wants to be friends with Russia? — Christoffer

Your inability to realise the US leads and other nations follow reflects a poor understanding of the inner workings of NATO. The only country in NATO involved in the militarisation of space is the US (against international treaties). When Trump (who nobody takes seriously) says "spend more", NATO members saluted and spend more. Where the hell do you think this sort of things come from?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_190862.htm

Attacks on space assets (e.g. taking out one or more satellites) may lead to article 5 invocation.

You underestimate to what extent the US sets NATO's agenda.

Scale that up to 20 years. Scale that up to multiple nations invaded by Russia. That's what we seek security against. — Christoffer

Scale that up since WWII and globalize it and you'll get roughly to where the US stands with things. But they tend to kill brown people instead of good ol Europeans so I'm sure you'll be fine.

And of course it's a great argument for security to think: Russia invaded because of concerns over NATO expansion. In respose, we should expand NATO more.

Also considering that NATO only continues to exist so that the US can commit mediterranian war crimes without UN sanction is probably also a good reason to not volunteer oneself to a club of war criminals.

Around 4,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first few days of the US invasion, so if we're doing a like-for-like, they beat Russia hands down. — Isaac

You can't seem to understand what's compared here. Bombings should be criticized, everything the US did should be criticized, but it's not comparable to multiple Russian troops systematically raping and executing civilians from village to village, town to town. The difference here is the intention, what they actually do, systematically in Ukraine.

And breach of air space is something that has been going on for decades. The US does it too. Both countries test response times of fighter jets and radar range. — Benkei

I don't give a fuck about the US, I'm talking about what Russia is doing to us and what we seek security against. This constant "but the US" kind of argument to just steer everything away from Russia like this as some kind of counter-argument to why we seek security against Russia is just stupid.

You underestimate to what extent the US sets NATO's agenda. — Benkei

And you ignore the reasons Finland and Sweden seek security in Nato.

You don't give a fuck because you don't want to accept the choice you're making is between two evils. It is and you'd be better off not joining NATO and lobby for an independent EU military alliance in which all EU members and their citizens would have a democratic say.

And of course it's a great argument for security to think: Russia invaded because of concerns of NATO expansion. In respose, we should expand NATO more. — Streetlight

Or, you can just respect Finland and Sweden's will to seek security against Russia. This is the problem with you people, you don't know shit about us or how the discussion is going here. You don't know the ethical debate, you just strawman two entire nation's to fit your simplistic narrative about Nato vs Russia.

You don't give a fuck because you don't want to accept the choice you're making is between two evils. — Benkei

Wow, and I'm being called simplistic and black and white. Seriously.

It is and you'd be better off not joining NATO and lobby for an independent EU military alliance in which all EU members and their citizens would have a democratic say. — Benkei

Shit, you really do know nothing about our situation. And you really do not understand how slow the EU is. You really do not understand why the act to seek security needs to happen now and not in a few months or years.

Or, you can just respect Finland and Sweden's will to seek security against Russia. — Christoffer

Or I could like, not. There is every reason to disrespect a bunch of morons propagandized by an American war machine gleefully parading dead Ukranians around to help secure its geopolitical primacy.

Wow, and I'm being called simplistic and black and white. Seriously. — Christoffer

That's almost a response to what I said. It's nice to see how the cognitive dissonance is getting you to foam at the mouth though. From the "mind your manners" to swearing and ad hominems. Well done.

Shit, you really do know nothing about our situation. And you really do not understand how slow the EU is. You really do not understand why the act to seek security needs to happen now and not in a few months or years. — Christoffer

I obviously know more than you do which is why you get aggressive without offering any type of argument.

Or I could like, not. There is every reason to disrespect a bunch of morons — Streetlight

You know you speak of two nations and their people right now? Independent nations who seek security for themselves. So you call us morons for doing so. You can go and fuck yourself.

Oh go have a sop about it cry baby.

You're the one advocating the acceleration of Russian antagonism while wearing the hat of 'security'.

From the "mind your manners" to swearing and ad hominems. Well done. — Benkei

I'm just putting myself on the level of this cesspool thread since that's the only language you people seem to understand. The one where you call us Swedes and Finns stupid and morons and being slaves under the US. There's no wonder there's mostly just you people left in here.

I obviously know more than you do which is why you get aggressive without offering any type of argument. — Benkei

Oh, please enlighten me on the politics and cultural discussion within Finland and Sweden, please enlighten me about what we who live here don't understand or know about what is going on here.

Oh go have a sop about it cry baby.

You're the advocating the acceleration of Russian antagonism while wearing the hat of 'security'. — Streetlight

I'm not advocating anything other than our right to defend our nations. You argue we have no such right.

Joining a club of war criminals whose actions percipitated a deadly war for the sake of a third party seems like a bad way to defend yourself.

Joining a club of war criminals whose actions percipitated a deadly war seems like a bad waybto defend yourself. — Streetlight

What should we do then? In this black and white world of yours, what action should we take to guarantee our security?

Last I checked the Russians were bogged down fighting on the corner of a fifth-rate tractor powered nation, with GPSs duct taped to the dashboard of their planes (probably UK pripaganda but the point stands), so maybe you shouldn't use your own pants-shitting to advance the interests of the most deadly power on Earth?

Last I checked the Russians were bogged down fighting a fifth-rate power, with GPSs duct taped to the dashboard of their planes, — Streetlight

Exactly... why do you think getting into a security alliance is important to be done now and not after Russia rebuilt its military capability? Even if China is careful not to support Russia now, whenever this conflict is over, Russia will be deep in bed with China and be able to rebuild through such technological collaborations.

And also, if you stretch time long enough, no one is free from having blood on their hands. The only thing people can do through time is to show what consequences such blood has, and what guilt that surfaces. Do you think Russia cares about what war crimes their troops did? You seem to have missed the mountain of backlash the US got, the cultural shame and criticism against the perpetrators of those acts. If all have historical blood on their hands, there's nothing no one can do to be actually morally good, because there's little morally good choice to be made in the world today. What I define as being less bad than bad are the ones actually reflecting on past sins. Those who ignore such acts and don't care about atrocities being made are the ones truly being the worst.

If you think you can be morally clean in anything you argue you are delusional. It's impossible to combine this grey area with your black and white worldview. It's impossible for you to balance any morality on a scale of bad and less bad. Therefore you will never understand the debate going on in Sweden and Finland and only view these things through the illusion of your uncorrupted morality.

we're talking about the extent to which they kill civilians in wars, not what colour their flag is, — Isaac

No. We are talking about Finland's and Sweden's reasons for trying to join NATO. And I was pointing at the war in Ukraine as proof that Russia can't be trusted to be a good neighbour, thus that Finland and Sweden had good reasons to join NATO. Then you wrote something irrelevant about the US.

No. We are talking about Finland's and Sweden's reasons for trying to join NATO. And I was pointing at the war in Ukraine as proof that Russia can't be trusted to be a good neighbour, thus that Finland and Sweden had good reasons to join NATO. Then you wrote something irrelevant about the US. — Olivier5

Exactly. You can mention that there's a nice restaurant in Berlin and people in here start arguing that it depends on if it's on the west or east side because of such and such behavior of the US in the past and therefore just look at how bad the US is and... nothing really concrete to do with the goodness of the restaurant you mentioned.