Finland says debate on NATO membership 'will change' after Russian invasion

No, their actions are what rewards them with my lack of concern

 

No one cares if you feel concern for the Russian position or not. However it's a diplomatic reality, and ignoring that is a good way to stumble into a war.

 

NATO's sole purpose is to protect itself from Russia.

 

They’re begging for a war. They’re threatening two more countries now. That is from being weak not from posturing

 

*L*

Russia should stop being so aggressive.

 

OK that's really non responsive.

 

There is no better or good Russia than a defeated Russia, on its knees.

 

Do you know what the Budapest Memorandum is?

 

Yes, and if you are going to bring that up it's because you clearly think it's a defense treaty with Ukraine.

It isn't.

 

It was most definitely a guarantee to their safety. How else are you suppose to take it?

 

What was the guarantee? What did we promise to do?

 

I would point to point four…

Provide assistance during an act of aggression. One could argue we have assistance with weapons but it’s not enough in my opinion being one of the signers is the party of aggression

 

I think NATO is a threat because the US is a large, influencial partner. If a country is a NATO partner, there is another location to launch missles from. I think Russia is going about it the wrong way, for numerous reasons, but this is really all about Russia feeling threatened and renewing history----Make Russia Great Again!
Kind of catchy, huh?

 

By admitting Baltics and Poland....Russia considers that within its borders.

 

Putler seems to think so?

 

Poland is not Russia, as well as Baltic states, but Poland border is closer to the Russian border, than a German one. Same for Baltics states. If you draw a border line of NATO states in 1991 and say in 2011, you will find that the line came closer to Russian borders.

 

Well...Russia should've taken that into consideration....that will be a hardened security threat now.

 

While I would never question Finland's right to join whatever alliance it wants, this seems like it would be a miscalculation to me.

Russia, despite their abhorrent actions here, do have some legitimate grievance over the Eastward expansion of NATO. Would the US tolerate a Soviet allied state on their borders? We already know the answer: they won't tolerate it anywhere in North or South America.

I don't know what the solution for long term peace is - but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve encircling Russia with NATO states.

 

NATO is not threatening. It's not aggressive. It is a defense organization.

Botox midget is nothing but a paranoid liar who is on a mission to retake control of a slavic nation he thinks is essential for him to control. Nothing more.

 

I guess it depends what you're willing to sacrifice for NATO membership.

 

If NATO is not aggressive why not to stay it in the borders of 1991, when Soviet Union collapsed?

 

It expanded because it is open to accepting membership and several former Soviet countries sought its protection. That is in no way aggressive.

 

Yes, it is open to countries. But in this way by expanding the membership the security of Russia is sacrificed for the gained security of other countries. For me that seems not to be fair. At least the countries that join NATO can not deploy the missiles on their territories until some real threat come to them. Now tell me, what was the threat from Russia, when US installed missiles in Poland in 2004?

 

This is untrue.

 

It should be noted that the one land on this earth that has, until now, had the most success in repelling russian invasions or at least slowing them down and inflicting a huge amount of pain upon russian soldiers is: Finland.

So, it may be a good idea to listen when Finland, which rarely pipes up, speaks.