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

Why NATO is recognized as a threat - I actually do not know. May only guess-because once the country is fully surrounded by NATO, US will try to force Russia to do what is only beneficial to the US. Maybe I am wrong.

 

NATO didn't cause it, but it was the primary reason Putin made the decision he did. Similar to how the treaty of Versailles pushed Hitler to do what he did, though the circumstances are much different. Alliances that become too powerful and dominating will always destabilize the world and provoke conflict, not stop it. It is better to keep NATO no larger than it is now.

And NATO certainly attacks. There have been many examples of that in the last few decades.

 

Yea, we did : Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the UN Security Council Resolution 1199 and North Atlantic Council activation order gave us the green light to bomb Miloševićs ass.

Who agreed with Putin's march of murder in Ukraine? His second cousin?

 

In this case it does not matter who gave you a green light. What matters is that US broke an integrity of the sovereign state. Sweep your own porch first.

 

In parts it is well-reasoned that Russia takes NATO as a threat. Think about the anti missile shield installed in Eastern Europe under Bush Jr. in 2007 ... who told that this is not against Russia but against these evil Iranian missiles threating Europe.
Everyone who has not a vacuum in his head knew and knows that this was a pure lie ... and so Russians too!
Iranian missiles had not the range for it and it is very questionable if they have now.
And then came the next lie about that it is against North Korean missiles ... which was and is the same way a rediculous lie.

Unfortunately, both ... Russia and China ... try again and again to have exactly this influence on the decisions of other sovereign countries.
Sweden and Finland are considering giving up 70 years of neutrality (Sweden has always been neutral) and joining NATO.
Putin is already getting upset about Sweden and blatantly threatening them!
In the case of China, we had the case that the spokeswoman for the Chinese embassy in Australia openly demanded that the Australian government should stop critical reports about China in the Australian media! Incredibly outrageous, isn't it?
Think about it, that Putin openly stated that he wanted to go back to the 1997 situation... so at a time when none of the Eastern European NATO members were already in NATO! That says it all...even if he can completely forget about that requirement. Hell freezes more likely as that will happen!

 

Thats true ... it is not only Russias guilt and I have wrote this many times here now, incuding reasons why not.

But on the other hand there is such a bunch of Russian Propaganda lies and half truth milling around in moment ... incredible!
One example is this NATO has cheated on Russia NATO expanding to the East ... a total lie! When the former Russian Presiden Yeltsin gives his OK to it in 1993, then it is OK, no matter if the following Putin suddenly doesn't find it OK.

Which encirclement please? If you are talking about the expending of NATO to the former Warsaw Pact members, then it is a lie ... see above!

And which missiles please? If you are talking about the anti missile shield then you are right ... but if you want to tell that there are nuclear missiles, then it is a lie, because there non!

 

No. You are confusing attacks by nato members country with nato article 5. Being part of Nato is the assurance that IF you are attacked and invoke article 5, the rest will come to your aid. Any country can declare war independently, but if it's the attacker it cannot invoke article 5.

When UK and France attacked Libya, even though they're both Nato, didn't meant it was a Nato operation. Neither of them were attacked or invoked article 5. When 9/11 happened, it was a Nato operation since the USA was attacked. It was the first time it was invoked.

 

Why isn't Russia a part of NATO??..I'm sure Russia is asking that question. I'm fairly certain if Russia was a part of NATO, Russia wouldn't be threatened by Ukraine being a part of NATO and Russia wouldn't be threatened by every other country on its border being a NATO country.

You realize a competent geopolitical negotiator could've prevented the invasion of Ukraine?? Why didn't anyone negotiate with Russia or, at least, see Russia's side to this before the invasion of Ukraine? It's baffling how stupid world politicians are anymore.

 

Russkis did ask to join NATO once....when Putinka first became president.....but it was one sided from the start ,and the Russkis tried to dismiss everyone else's concerns at the time....seems Putler had issues with "rules".....he thought they don't apply to him.

 

Is that even a serious question?

 

Well if the rule of NATO was to basically hate Russia, I'm sure Russia and Putin weren't too enthusiastic about that rule. Why shouldn't a rule of NATO be to combat any aggression by any member of NATO?? Why shouldn't a rule be to combat aggression of NATO?? Why is the only rule of NATO to combat aggression of Russia?

 

Article 5 can be invoke if your country is attacked by anybody, not just russia. The only time it was invoked was after 9/11 and the agressor wasn't russia!

 

Russia not being a part of NATO seems to be the problem. Er, at least, NATO needs to acknowledge the needs of Russia.

 

Russia being the agressor is the problem. If it didn't have an history of occupying its neighbors there would be no need for Nato.

 

If Russia was a part of NATO and Russia felt, for example, NATO was being aggressive to Russia (allowing Ukraine into NATO, for example), that would also activate article 5. You see the point I'm making?

 

No. You need to be attacked.
And for Russia to be in Nato, they'd have to show that they won't attack any other members.

 

NATO is anti-Russian. Period.

EDIT: Maybe there was not a possibly for negotiations before the invasion. However, I highly doubt there was no possibility for negotiations between NATO and Russia and I highly blame geopolitical politicians from both NATO and Russia for not even trying to negotiate or even acknowledge the problem before the invasion.

I mean, NATO and Ukraine knew there was a problem for how long?? For example, just how long were Russian troops at the borders of Ukraine before Russia invaded?

 

You are. The only dog the US has in this fight is the price of oil. If the US was doing only what would benefit the US, then we would be reversing everything that Biden has done to US oil production in the last year. This time last year, the US was oil independent, and now we have returned to the days of importing oil. If we kickstarted oil production in this country, we could offset the rise in prices caused by Russian actions. Last year we were able to export our surplus oil. That surplus oil could be sold to NATO Nations and put a crimp in Russian oil revenues. This would far more damage to the Russian economy then all the sanctions combined.

But like the US, NATO does not have a dog in the fight. Ukraine is not a NATO nation. Now, if Putin is really looking to restore Russia to the USSR glory days (which never really existed) he will have to take Lativa, Lithuania and Estonia. All three of these countries are NATO members. An attack on anyone of these states is an attack on NATO itself and will be met with the full force of NATO. Then you will see that NATO is indeed a power to be reckoned with.

 

If the UK bomb France tomorrow, France can invoke article 5 and the rest will come in her defense. It isn't against Russia. The only time it was invoked was after 9/11 against the taliban and afghan.

 

It seems that NATO membership is the only thing that can protect a country from being attacked by Russia.

 

There was no surprise in the attack on Ukraine. if Russia waited for a response or even negotiations from NATO but NATO refused, there is blame to be laid at the feet of NATO.

 

This is how Russia feels especially with all the asinine talk of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. Russia let itself be well known on this issue and NATO didn't respond.

 

Finland would be a fool not to demand NATO membership right now.

The only thing that can protect a nation from Russian aggression is NATO membership

 

Nobody forced those countries to join NATO.

 

Uhh...no it wasn't to "hate" Russia....the club had rules and if one member had grievances of any sort....it had to be addressed....apparently back them...the Russkis figured they were "equal" to the US....all others claims be damned .

They also had an "issue" that if being a member of the ....club...meant armed foreign militaries on Russian territory was a no go....so it's OK for Russkis to put its members in others but not the other way around.....sorry Mac....don't work that way? NATO is a western org....Western rules.