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

You are rambling. I suppose backing the likes of Putin & the Taliban might produce such ramblings. Part of you knows there is no moral position that denies nations the ability to protect themselves from an aggressive dictator like Putin. Maybe let that part write your posts.

 

NATO responded to an attack on a NATO member (the US), and subsequently attempted to help Afghanistan set up a free, independent, democratic government, not the kind of puppet regime that the US sadly used to rely on in decades past and which Putin still relies on.

 

No, it has nothing to do with NATO. Yes the U.S. decided after WWII to become the planetary police force. Not a particularly good idea but it involves the U.S. in many conflicts that it didn't start. Your anti-Americanism doesn't bother us Americans. We are used to it.

 

That attack on the US was done by an organization called Al Qaida.
NATO won that war in 3 weeks or something, maybe less.
The US wasn't attacked by Afghanistan, but NATO did attack it for 20 years.
And them 20 years were for a regime and cultural change.
Russia is now going for a regime and cultural change of it's own.

 

You're indoctrinated and so fail so see things clearly as I am.
NATO rightfully attacked Al Qaida for 3 weeks because they attacked the US.
And than NATO illegally raged war against Afghanistan for a regime and cultural change.
That offensive war of NATO lasted 20 years. Nothing you post seems to argue against it.

And so it stands that NATO also is an offensive alliance.
To call it just for defense is the same as that bs claim from russia of it's peace keeping forces.

And with that, I do not support Putin one bit. Far from it, while I also oppose what NATO did to Afghanistan.

 

We attacked the Taliban for 20 years. Arguably a form of mission creep that should have been avoided, but of course it's always easy to make these judgments after the fact.

 

And I am calling that attack, an offensive war. It was about a regime change and a cultural change.
It's sad, but true. And I do not recall NATO having some kind of divine right to demand what culture and government should be removed.

 

Every regime in Afghanistan was a puppet regime .. same as it ever was .. Same as in Iraq .. Seems we got something in common with Putin - perhaps this can help solve our differences

 

Sure, but that regime had given support to the terrorists who attacked us and were themselves terrorists and brutal autocrats. It was a gamble to see if we could free the people of Afghanistan from them and have it work out, and we lost that gamble. We spent a very long time in denial of this as well. We failed to learn the lessons of the Soviet Union's attempt to impose a government on Afghanistan, and Putin failed to learn the lesson of our failed attempt.

 

You are in denial about the USSR's role as a Nazi ally in destroying Poland. And yes, the Poles are careful about the Germans too. Their bad luck to be between you.

 

USSR was not a Germany ally, at least not more than UK, France and Italy that signed Munchen treaty with Germany and no more than US, which financed Hitler before WW2.

 

That's all BS. Only the USSR had a treaty of alliance with Nazi Germany: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them. ...

Its clauses provided a written guarantee of peace by each party towards the other and a commitment that declared that neither government would ally itself to or aid an enemy of the other. In addition to the publicly-announced stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included the Secret Protocol, which defined the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence across Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland. The secret protocol also recognised the interest of Lithuania in the Vilnius region, and Germany declared its complete disinterest in Bessarabia. The rumour of the existence of the Secret Protocol was proved only when it was made public during the Nuremberg Trials.[10]

Soon after the pact, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September, one day after a Soviet–Japanese ceasefire came into effect after the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.[11] After the invasions, the new border between the two countries was confirmed by the supplementary protocol of the German–Soviet Frontier Treaty. In March 1940, parts of the Karelia and Salla regions, in Finland, were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. That was followed by the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertsa region). Concern for ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians had been used as pretexts for the Soviets' invasion of Poland. Stalin's invasion of Bukovina in 1940 violated the pact since it went beyond the Soviet sphere of influence that had been agreed with the Axis.[12]​

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_ненападении_между_Германией_и_Советским_Союзом

Отличительной чертой договора являлся прилагаемый к нему секретный дополнительный протокол о разграничении между сторонами сфер интересов в Восточной Европе на случай «территориально-политического переустройства». Протокол предусматривал включение Латвии, Эстонии, Финляндии, восточных «областей, входящих в состав Польского государства»[1], и Бессарабии в сферу интересов СССР. Литва и западная часть Польши были отнесены в сферу интересов Германии.

Подписание договора завершило период охлаждения советско-германских политических и экономических отношений, вызванного приходом к власти в Германии НСДАП и Адольфа Гитлера. Получив осенью 1938 года в Мюнхене очередное наглядное свидетельство того, что великие державы не готовы учитывать мнение СССР в европейской политике, советское руководство было крайне заинтересовано в срыве тенденции европейской консолидации, не учитывающей советские интересы. В этом смысле продолжение германской экспансии в начале 1939 года отвечало интересам Москвы, так как резко повышало заинтересованность обеих европейских военно-политических группировок в соглашении с СССР, тогда как советское руководство могло выбирать, с кем и на каких условиях оно будет договариваться с учётом своих интересов[2].​

 

USSR did what it considered most suited to its security interests. To have a treaty about non-agression does not mean to be an ally.
You have a one sided biased view. Ja ja. US and UK that time were angels and USSR and Germany were the only evil..

 

Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
Look it up.

 

Dimon, as I said, UK, France and Italy were not less the allies in this case when signed the Munchen agreement which provoked intervention in Chehoslovakia.

 

Sorry, but Munich was an attempt to avoid war, however misguided. And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was indeed a treaty of alliance, your denial notwithstanding.

 

Deleted.

 

Jack, real alliance for Germany was Italy with Mussolini,who was involved in Munich agreement and Japan. Thus the statement that Mussolini attempted to avoid the war seems to me not realistic. At the same time the peace treaty with Germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was an attempt of USSR to delay the war which was clearly inevitable. And in the end, it was Nazi Germany that first attacked Poland and unleashed WW2, and not USSR.

 

Dress it up however you like. The fact remains that only the USSR concluded a treaty of alliance with Nazi Germany.

 

Going back to the topic, it seems Putin's actins are doing the exact opposite of what he envisioned.

Finland, Sweden brush off Moscow's warning on joining NATO
Finland and Sweden have brushed off warnings from neighboring Russia that their possible joining NATO would trigger “serious military-political consequences” from Moscow
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ush-off-moscows-warning-joining-nato-83126927
Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said Saturday that “we’ve heard this before.”

“We don’t think that it calls for a military threat,” Haavisto said in an interview with the Finnish public broadcaster YLE. “Should Finland be NATO’s external border, it rather means that Russia would certainly take that into account in its own defense planning. I don’t see anything new as such” in the statement delivered by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Haavisto said.

Finland has a 1,340-kilometer (830-mile) land border with Russia — the longest border shared by any European Union member state and Russia.

Russia Is Driving Sweden and Finland Closer to NATO
Moscow’s aggression may have permanently changed Nordic security debates.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/02/russia-sweden-finland-nato-ukraine/

 

They didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and so didn't attack the US.
They were even willing to hand over Bin Laden for a trial under sharia law in a neutral country.
If they accepted it, and hauled that guys butt to Saudi Arabia, it would have mean a sure execution and no war.
The US declined.

Road to hell is paved with good intentions. And you show you do not get it either. The US gambled with the lives of 100,000's of Afghanistans to set them free fighting the Taliban... while the thing is. Taliban = Afghan people. While the NATO has no rights to decide what culture gets to rule in an independent country somewhere on the globe. Let's get this also straight... there are more terrible countries in the world, while Afghanistan got trillions of natural resources in the ground ready to be exploited. The US army surveyed the land to make an estimation what the protentional is. Hello neo-colonialism.


Back to the original point of some poster: "No, it <NATO> is offering nations protection from Russian aggression."
It's that too, while it's also used to just push western neo colonial kind of rule.

 

Yet Russia has threatened “serious military-political consequences” already.