I don't write here with dual personalities, so notice what I say. I don't think Russia will destroy Finland.

Why would Russia want to invade Finland and Sweden? Again, as far as we've seen, Russia's military has been quite bad at war. Why then go after these countries? — Manuel

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. If Russia hadn't started a large scale invasion of Ukraine this year, both countries surely wouldn't be applying for NATO. Both have leftist administrations in power, who would have had no desire to join NATO and face the wrath of Russia otherwise. But things change.

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — ssu

Didn't answer the question at all.

Russia doesn't want Finland and Sweden to join NATO, so they make threats of military action if they try to. The question @Manuel asked was why Russia would want to invade Finland at all. What Finland has to fear from Russia if they don't join NATO.

And sure, one should fear countries and organizations that have nukes, especially if they tend to be aggressive, as Russia and the US/Europe have shown.

I’m not sure fear is the right word here. Protect from might be more appropriate.

The lines are being redrawn between Europe and Russia and a new Cold War/Iron curtain built. It is the only way to stop the proxy wars. Which are to destabilising.

Russia won’t invade Finland, it will send in infiltrators. Haven’t you realised yet that Russia knows that the planet is warming making their northern coasts viable for exploitation and development. While many tropical regions will become inhospitable. This will turn Russias focus towards the Barents Sea. Finland had better watch out.

Yep. Destroying Finland has always been Russia's dream. Right at the top of Putin's agenda. — Apollodorus

Easy to say when you live in a country either far away from Russia, or protected by NATO. People have a right to take steps to defend themselves. What the Finns do will depend on how the Finns feel, not on how you feel or how Chomsky feels about the threat they face.

Russia won’t invade Finland, it will send in infiltrators. — Punshhh

Eh? What does 'send infiltrators' mean, and how does joining NATO defend against it?

Eh? What does 'send infiltrators' mean, and how does joining NATO defend against it?

Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014.

Like the infiltrators they sent into Donbas prior to the special military operation in 2014. — Punshhh

To lead which separatist movement?

And again, how does joining NATO prevent this?

I’m not going down your rabbit hole.

It's not a rabbit hole. Your arguments are just shit. The question was why Finland wants to join NATO and you can't provide a reasoned answer, so you resort to pretending the question is somehow flawed. A neat tactic if the question were sufficiently complex, but here it just makes you look stupid. The question is too simple to play that trick on.

I asked why Finland would want to join NATO if it had no credible threat (other than the one levied if it joined NATO), you answered with a threat which seemed to a) lack credibility and b) not be solved by joining NATO.

I asked you to answer both counter-arguments and your failure is evident in your reaching for inappropriate rhetorical tricks instead of just answering.

Russia will also shoot lazer beams from the moon and also make acid rain from the heavens and also whatever made up trash I can make my imagination conjure so Finland should totally join NATO.

Also the Russians are doing very very very very badly in this war, which can obviously be reconciled with the fact that they will expand this war into other countries, and this sentence does not in any way make anyone who utters it look like a fucking monkey.

--

Can't wait till the US sends Palestine weapons to fight Israel murdering its journalists.

Hey! How is Skippy doing?

I asked why Finland would want to join NATO if it had no credible threat — Isaac

What I want to know is why oh why the UK remains in NATO, since there are no credible external threats to the security of Great Britain that I can see... Internally, the self-determination of Northern Ireland and Scotland may become an issue, but NATO won't help you on that.

Yep, there's no end to Russia's superpowers...

... except apparently in Ukraine, where they're useless as shit because Ukraine is their kryptonite and the Ukrainians should definitely keep fighting because they're definitely going to win any minute day year decade now...

Just a few more Javelin's and we can be assured Marillyn Hewson's new yacht world peace.

I can't think of a single good reason why the UK, or anyone else is in NATO. The entire monstrosity should be abolished as many strategists have suggested almost from the day it was conceived.

:up:

Well, here's an issue you would actually be somewhat competent to speak of: do lobby for the UK to leave NATO asap. But once again, what the Finns do will depend on what the Finns want. The opinions of Australian kangaroo buggers and retarded UK behaviorists are totally irrelevant to it.

what the Finns do will depend on what the Finns want. — Olivier5

No shit. Any more primary school level insights into human behaviour you'd like to share with us, or would you like to join in the actual discussion about what the Finns ought to do, not what they will do.

the actual discussion about what the Finns ought to do, not what they will do. — Isaac

Ought to do? From an ethical standpoint, or from a geopolitical, strategic planning standpoint? Let's assume the latter, as ethical considerations have limited applicability in politics.

From a strategic standpoint, the Russian attempted invasion of Ukraine and the extent of war crimes committed there by their troops is an objective reminder that Russia is a very very dangerous neighbour. Finns have excellent reasons to be concerned, therefore.

If this is agreeable, then the question becomes: is joining NATO likely to improve Finland's security from the obviously significant risk of a potential Russian military operation, or not?

The answer to this question is in my view positive, which is why I do support my own nation's membership in NATO. Being part of it means that Russia cannot attack you without attacking the rest of NATO. It provides very strong security.

Russia is a very very dangerous neighbour. Finns have excellent reasons to be concerned, therefore. — Olivier5

Finally caught up with the conversation from 10 posts ago... well done. So the question asked was, given how badly you think Russia are doing in Ukraine, how nearly destroyed you think their army is, how weak you think their generals, how low you think their morale... and this in a country you believe Putin clearly has wanted to invade for years... what exactly is the military threat to Finland? A ramshackle army of thugs trot up to the border with a handful of half-bombed tanks to be dispatched with a few Javelins (borrowed from our good friends at Lockheed, at 'mates rates')? How does such a threat require the full might of NATO and not, for example, the sheer pluck of an invaded people backed by the constant supply of weaponry Ukraine is currently benefiting from - ie the exact same circumstances you're now arguing are a safe bet for Ukraine to defeat Russia?

And since Russia has threatened military action against Finland if it does join, there seems to be one very simple method of avoiding invasion available... Oh, I forgot - some of the things Putin says are true and some of them aren't. We'll have to ask @ssu which that was, he seems to have the authority for determining on such questions.

The answer to this question is in my view positive, which is why I do support my own nation's membership in NATO. Being part of it means that Russia cannot attack you without attacking the rest of NATO. It provides very strong security. — Olivier5

If it's that simple, then why hasn't every country in the world joined NATO? More specifically Finland and Sweden. If there are no downsides and only an increased security, then what's stopped them up to now? If you're to attempt anything more than an entry-level assessment strategically (I was actually talking ethically, but we'll go strategic if you want - though we'd have to defer to experts, neither of us are qualified here), then one which assumes there's no downsides to be weighed against the benefits is simpleminded at best, at worst simply disingenuous.

What exactly is the military threat to Finland? — Isaac

Look at what the Russians did in Busha. Who in his right mind would want the same thing for their people?

why hasn't every country in the world joined NATO? More specifically Finland and Sweden. If there are no downsides and only an increased security, then what's stopped them up to now? — Isaac

Because they were afraid of Russia's reaction. But Russia is now tied up in Ukraine so there's a window of opportunity right now.

I was actually talking ethically — Isaac

Read Macchiaveli already.

Look at what the Russians did in Busha. Who in his right mind would want the same thing for their people? — Olivier5

Look at what the Americans did in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan... 22,000 civilian casualties - who in their right mind would want the same thing for their people?

Do you now feel compelled to join an alliance to protect you from America?

Ought to do? From an ethical standpoint, or from a geopolitical, strategic planning standpoint? Let's assume the latter, as ethical considerations have limited applicability in politics.

From a strategic standpoint, the Russian attempted invasion of Ukraine and the extent of war crimes committed there by their troops is an objective reminder that Russia is a very very dangerous neighbour. Finns have excellent reasons to be concerned, therefore.

If this is agreeable, then the question becomes: is joining NATO likely to improve Finland's security from the obviously significant risk of a potential Russian military operation, or not?

The answer to this question is in my view positive, which is why I do support my own nation's membership in NATO. Being part of it means that Russia cannot attack you without attacking the rest of NATO. It provides very strong security. — Olivier5

There seems to be a cognitive dissonance among Russian apologists in which they want to point out that Russia is an independent nation that is acting out of defense against things like Nato. At the same time, they cannot grasp or accept that nations like Sweden and Finland are looking for security against Russian aggressions, unquestionably and brutally proven by the invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes they have committed. The fact is that Russia is the invader and the risk to the baltic region, Finland and Sweden is quite real, proven by the constant aggressions on our borders, the constant cyberattacks, and propaganda against us. These things are not new, they've been going on for years, long before Sweden and Finland even considered joining Nato, which has never been a thing really, instead, it has been something both Sweden and Finland were against in the past.

But since Russia has shown to be brutally moral degenerates on the battlefield, it's not only a risk of military battles but also of brutal attacks on civilians, meaning Russia could attack civilian populations and not just concentrate on military targets. This means that the security measures required to defend against Russia need to be much larger than both Finland and Sweden can muster, even with the now increased defense budgets. Especially in Sweden, where these risks have been downplayed by the apathy of supposed neutrality we've had for 200 years.

But now, both Finland and Sweden are seriously looking at joining Nato for the specific reason of increasing our security against the brutality of Russia. Anyone saying that this act is pushed by the US or that we are puppets of the US or any dumb shit like that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. They don't know how the national discussion is going, what the ethical debate is, or what Russia is doing every day to our nations. They simply need to shut the fuck up and stop trying to think they understand something they clearly don't. It's laughable to hear people from other nations trying to speak down on the efforts to join Nato as some kind of slave behavior under the US. For all the talk of viewing the complexity of this conflict and criticizing anyone for being too black and white because they view Russia as "bad", it's remarkable how stupid their analysis of Finland- and Sweden's will to join Nato is, or the history of our nations. It's proof that they don't have any real insight or knowledge of what they're talking about and therefore they're just talking out of their asses.

It provides very strong security. — Olivier5

It certainly seems basic common sense reinforced by current events that to be an unaligned neutral buffer state between two larger powers, is to label oneself a potential battleground. No one with any sense wants to live in No-Man's-Land between two armies - hence the name. Or you could choose to join POTATO, or whatever the Sino-Russian defensive alliance is called.

There's no comparison between the US and Russia. Russia is a brutal militaristic fascist regime, the US is just a somewhat imperfect (sick) democracy. How many folks are fleeing the US to go live in Russia nowadays? Not very many, but quite a few are fleeing Russia right now to go pretty much wherever they can afford to go.

Look at what the Americans did in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan — Isaac

Did the US go through villages and towns to specifically loot, rape, execute and kill children? And on top of that, you are referring to close to 20 years of conflict. If the rate of the atrocities Russia conducts were to be continued over the same time period, what do you think their numbers would be? The US bombed blindly resulting in this, they should be criticized for it. But what Russia is doing are the most brutal forms of war crimes, brutal acts of terror that's the worst you can think of. It's not even comparable in the way you're trying to do it.

And it's also the same kind of bullshit whataboutism that has no relevance to the actual argument you are trying to counter. Russia conducts these war crimes, these acts of terror, and Finland and Sweden find security in joining Nato to not let such things happen to us. The US won't kill us, Russia could, that's why we seek security. Get that through your skull.

Did the US go through villages and towns to specifically loot, rape, execute and kill children? — Christoffer

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/13/middleeast/yemen-children-school-bus-strike-intl/index.html
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/iraq/syria-danger-us-white-phosphorus
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/white-phosphorus-over-raqqa/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/12/american-marines-accused-war-crimes

If the rate of the atrocities Russia conducts were to be continued over the same time period, what do you think their numbers would be? — Christoffer

Given that the wars in question were not in constant high battle and estimates are around 7,000 for civilian deaths in Ukraine at the moment, I should think it would be something within the same ballpark.

But what Russia is doing are war crimes, brutal acts of terror that's the worst you can think of. It's not even comparable in the way you're trying to do it. — Christoffer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

The US won't kill us... — Christoffer

Exactly.

So @Olivier5's simplistic argument that because Russia has killed people in Busha it is a threat to Finland is nonsensical. The US has killed people in it's wars, they are no threat to Finland. Simply having killed people in wars is insufficient to render that country a threat to any other. There must be a credible strategic interest and chance of success. Neither seem to be present with regards to Finland. In fact, the most credible risk to Finland that we've had any presage of is military action is they do join NATO.

Did the US go through villages and towns to specifically loot, rape, execute and kill children? — Christoffer

Yes. At one point, a full 90% of drone strikes in Afghanistan targeted civilians. The person who leaked that figure is now in jail. The other person who exposed American war crimes is also languishing in jail, on the cusp of being extradited to the US to languish even more. The famous 'shock and awe' campaign at the start of the second Iraq war murdered more than 7000 Iraqi civilians. Guantanamo bay is still in operation, to this day. Afghanistan is in a famine after the US stole $7b USD from their state coffers. @Issac has mentioned more.

You're just bootlicking for your preferred war crime committer.

There's no comparison between the US and Russia. Russia is a brutal militaristic fascist regime, the US is just a somewhat imperfect (sick) democracy. How many folks are fleeing the US to go live in Russia nowadays? Not very many, but quite a few are fleeing Russia right now to go pretty much wherever they can afford to go. — Olivier5

Yes. They've got different flags too. Unfortunately for your top notch erudition on that, we're talking about the extent to which they kill civilians in wars, not what colour their flag is, or how many immigrants they get.

It's astonishing the ease with which the thinnest coat of whitewash absolves all crimes for some. A paper thin veneer of 'democracy' cack-handely draped over US warmongering and all the the sickening death and misery it causes is apparently thereby absolved.