Russia says Finland, Sweden could face consequences if countries move to join NATO

[sanman]

Total horseshit. NATO is mutual defense pact. It is not an offensive pact. It has not ever unilaterally launched offensive operations against any Soviet or Russian interest or state. It poses no direct threat to Russia so long as it doesn't militarily attack any of it's members.

Bullshit. NATO discarded its defensive charter when it attacked, occupied and dismembered a non-NATO Slavic country back in 1999.
NATO declared that its goal was to eventually incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into the organization, proactively pushing itself up to Russia's doorstep.

But it's high time we dispense with the cognizant dissonance surrounding what Putin's true motives really are and that is colonial expansion via the steady reacquisition and control of areas formerly of the USSR. Whether Putin is actually crazy or not doesn't really matter. What matters is understanding the internal rationality of his action to see the salient points of it as relates to not only Ukraine, but beyond it and to the US and the West. Time we recognize that Putin's ambitions are global in nature rather than merely local. We tend to avert our gaze from radicalism. We don't want to believe that the worst is possible. On another continent perhaps but not here. That Russia will never attack the US or it's NATO allies when the reality is that it already is and has been engaging in attacks upon us and them.

"Avert gaze from radicalism" -- you mean like when Biden ran away from the Taliban with pants around ankles, and chose to blame it on Trump? Buck Never Stops With Biden, especially not over radicalism.

Biden has suddenly just now sent a high-level delegation to Taiwan -- they're over there right now -- and they're firmly telling the Taiwanese to start making as many conciliatory gestures to Beijing as possible, to reduce chances of China invading Taiwan. They want to appease the Dragon so that they can now turn back toward fighting the Bear.

You gotta give credit to Xi Jinping, for instigating Putin into invading Ukraine. Xi's a clever guy, and knows exactly how to deflect America away from confronting him. He knows Americans very well. Bunch of Asian kids dying in Asia is just another Oxfam commercial -- but white kids dying in Europe is a call to arms -- "whoa, shit just got real!"
Xi knows not only how to change the focus of headlines, but also how to reset the narrative in the US. He knows that corporate America will help promote that Bear-first narrative, because they're heavily invested in China, and have a strong incentive to keep US-China ties smooth for commercial reasons. Confront radicalism, my ass.

 

[Grand Mal]

Don't mess with the Finns.

Putin's drunken drafted troops would find out what Finn snipers could do...

My ex-mother-in-law was German, from a village in Poland. Her four brothers all served in the German army, one had been on an island in the Baltic where they didn't do much except trade artillery fire with the Russians on the nearby island. When he was home on leave he told how they hadn't heard from the Russians for days so they went for a look-see and found the Russians all dead, many knifed in their sleep. The Finns had come in the night.

 

[Lursa]

And the Russians could just keep extending..and taking losses, and having their finances ruined.

Kiss Putin some more.

I think both should continue to threaten that...so that Putin sees that it wont just end with the Ukraine. That it will be them next.

 

[Carjosse]

The Finns would be extremely stupid to consider joining NATO now since that is the exact reason why Ukraine was invaded.

And to those that think Finland won the Winter War, you'd be sadly delusional since Finland had been beaten so badly they ended up ceding more territory to Russia than Stalin had initially asked for.

Finland and Sweden are in the EU, they would be protected under its common defense agreement.

 

[PoS]

Finland and Sweden are in the EU, they would be protected under its common defense agreement.

What common defense agreement?

And I spoke too soon about Russian military capabilities. Mea culpa.

Looks like the Ukrainians have a chance.

 

[Carjosse]

What common defense agreement?

And I spoke too soon about Russian military capabilities. Mea culpa.

Looks like the Ukrainians have a chance.

EU members are obligated to defend each other in the event of aggression by an outside power.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What common defense agreement?

Try looking HERE.

And I spoke too soon about Russian military capabilities. Mea culpa.

Having some direct knowledge of how Russian conscripts are trained and of how Russian soldiers are treated, I most certainly did not expect any Russian military action to be carried out with the skill and elan that a newly graduated USMC troops would operate.

Looks like the Ukrainians have a chance.

Assuming that they survive long enough and that the Russians don't actually get the steamrollers moving.

PS - I recommend Michael Kofman's "Russian Performance in the Russo-Georgian War Revisited" as a quick introduction to the internal problems that the Russian military faces.

 

[Lursa]

Threats of this nature cause me to wonder if Putin isn't just a wee bit worried about the consequences of his move into Ukraine. Would the oligarchs support him if he dropped a nuke or two into Europe?



Looks like an invitation from NATO's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to attend a video conference has upset Putie Boy

Threats like this, IMO, show that in no way should we believe Putin when he says he just wants Ukraine or even "eastern" Ukraine.

 

[American]

Threats of this nature cause me to wonder if Putin isn't just a wee bit worried about the consequences of his move into Ukraine. Would the oligarchs support him if he dropped a nuke or two into Europe?



Looks like an invitation from NATO's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to attend a video conference has upset Putie Boy

Bone-chilling? Who comes up with this bullshit.

 

[PoS]

Try looking HERE.

I dont see any wording that requires EU members to come to each other's aid if one of them gets attacked. Can you quote the relevant passage?

 

[sanman]

I dont see any wording that requires EU members to come to each other's aid if one of them gets attacked. Can you quote the relevant passage?

"An attack on one of Merkel's governing coalition partners is an attack on all"

 

[Peter King]

"An attack on one of Merkel's governing coalition partners is an attack on all"

You mean the leader of Germany that has chosen not to run in the December election of 2021? So no, she does not have a governing role any more because she is now a private person with no political role.

 

[yankintx]

Threats of this nature cause me to wonder if Putin isn't just a wee bit worried about the consequences of his move into Ukraine. Would the oligarchs support him if he dropped a nuke or two into Europe?



Looks like an invitation from NATO's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to attend a video conference has upset Putie Boy

I am now of the mind it may be time to consider a no fly zone in parts of Ukraine, to protect the refugees leaving, let's see Putins reaction. I think Putin would not move against the West, let's poke the Bear a bit.

 

[EnigmaO01]

It takes a special kind of arrogant false importance to tell an independent nation if they join NATO they will suffer the consequences.

But then again he did attack Ukraine.

 

[OscarLevant]

The point was that any country that is outnumbered 50+ to 1 tends to lose any war that it gets engaged in.

Your response was "not if they are NATO", which means that you don't have an understanding of what NATO is because when you consider a NATO country's strength, you have to consider the strength of ALL of the NATO countries.

That is what a "defensive alliance" is all about.

[Assuming, of course, that you can actually count on the members of the "defensive alliance" to actually honour their commitments to the "defensive alliance" - which isn't necessarily a sure thing with some countries.]

that's what I meant, a country, as a member of Nato, has strength in the alliance far greater than not as a member.

 

[jgarden47]

THE WINTER WAR (1939) - USSR vs FINLAND
- FROZEN BODIES OF SOME OF THE 167,978 RUSSIAN KILLED OR MISSING DURING ITS ATTEMPT TO INVADE FINLAND
- TOTAL CASUALTIES (DEAD, MISSING, WOUNDED) TOTALED APPROXIMATELY 400,000
- AN ESTIMATED 10% OF RUSSIAN TROOPS SUFFERED FROM "FROSTBITE" - UNPREPARED
FOR THE -45*F TEMPERATURES

 

[vanceen]

Obviously you didn't notice that the strength of the "anti-war" movement during the US-Vietnam War plummeted once the threat of being drafted and sent to Vietnam vanished.

The "anti-war" movements for both Afghanistan and Iraq didn't really gain much traction until the American people began to realize that the US wasn't going to fulfill any of its "war aims" in either country.

Effectively what you had was an "I am against a war that I might have to fight in." movement and an "I am against a war that we aren't going to win." movement.

Are you this cynical about everything, or just the US?

It's hardly surprising that the strength of the anti-war movement declined after massive troop withdrawals started in 1973. By 1975 there weren't a lot of Americans left there.

And in fact the immediate war aims (whether they were justified or not) were achieved very quickly in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What people got sick of was committing troops to a fight with an insurgency that had every prospect of going on forever.

American people have opposed various wars for various reasons. Some probably aligned with your world-weary explanations, but probably not many. Some were pacifists, some were communists. Many (and I can't prove it, but I think most) of the people against war were opposed to our sons and daughters dying for dubious causes.

 

[jgarden47]

"The Winter War" - USSR vs Finland (30 November 1939 - 13 March 1940)
-
- USSR suffered an estimated 400,000 casualties (dead, wounded, missing) in just 14 weeks in its attempt to invade Finland

- like the Germans 2 years later on the "EASTERN FRONT," neither the Soviet troops nor their military equipment were able to cope with winter weather as cold as -45*F

- despite Finland's 5:1 numerical advantage in casualties, it signed the "Moscow Peace Treaty" in March 1940, ceding 9% of its territory - as the price for preserving its sovereignty

- the humiliating performance of the Russia's military, courtesy of the Finns, should not have been totally unexpected - the leadership of the USSR's armed forces had been decimated during Stalin's Purges of the 1930's, replaced by political "cronies" who may have demonstrated unswerving loyalty, but incompetent in military matters

- the inadequacies of Red Army's performance in 1939-1940 didn't pass unnoticed - this Soviet military's "debacle" against far smaller adversary only confirmed the perception that it would be no match agaInst Nazi Germany's legions

- just 15 months after the USSR and Finland had signed the "Moscow Peace Treaty," Hitler would launch "Operation Barbarossa" against Russia in June 1941

*******************************************************************************************************

1) Fast forward to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 - just as in Stalin's inept attempt to conquer Finnd in 1939, once again the inadequacies of the Russian military are on full display to the world!

2) Any military action taken against Finland and Sweden by Putin, would be infinitely more complex to execute than that of Ukraine - requiring the co-ordination, deployment and resupplying of armed forces on a scale far beyond any level of expertise that the Russians have demonstrated thus-far!

3) Putin, like Stalin, prides himself as the pre-eminent political master-mind on the world stage - decades of being surrounded by an inner-circle of "yes men," dedicated on telling him what he wants to hear, isolates these leaders who eventually lose touch with reality, believing in their own infallibility

4) What rationale leader with a 12th ranked economy and a 4th rate military would threaten and challenge NATO - where the USA, alone, invests more on its armed forces in a month than Putin's Russia does in a year?

 

[Bum]

Russia says Finland, Sweden could face consequences if countries move to join NATO​

Filthy russian threats...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I dont see any wording that requires EU members to come to each other's aid if one of them gets attacked. Can you quote the relevant passage?

Always happy to oblige​

​

Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)​

​

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.​

​

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.​

​

You might also find "Article 42.7: An explainer - What does France's invocation of Article 42.7 – the EU's mutual defence provision – mean for the EU and its member states" that starts out with​

​

Article 42.7 is the mutual defence clause of the Treaty of the European Union. It derives from the Article 5 of the Brussels Treaty that created the Western European Union, a mutual defence organisation which was incorporated in the EU in 2011.​

​

to be of interest.​

 

[KingLeo]

Seems like Putin is giving Finland and Sweden an excellent reason to join NATO.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Are you this cynical about everything, or just the US?

Just about everything - except good Scotch.

It's hardly surprising that the strength of the anti-war movement declined after massive troop withdrawals started in 1973. By 1975 there weren't a lot of Americans left there.

The US stopped drafting people for the US-Vietnam War on December 7, 1972. The "anti-war" movement declared victory and went home.

And in fact the immediate war aims (whether they were justified or not) were achieved very quickly in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

If by "immediate war aims" you mean "the military defeat of the country" then you are almost correct (the US never did "pacify Afghanistan").

Beyond "the military defeat of the country" there is no concrete evidence that the US government actually had any plans for either Iraq or Afghanistan (it did have a lot pf platitudes).

What people got sick of was committing troops to a fight with an insurgency that had every prospect of going on forever.

Which "insurgency" are you talking about?

1. The one in Vietnam were the native Vietnamese were attempting to throw out their French colonial government (which France [assisted by the United States of America] had forcibly reimposed on Vietnam after the Vietnamese had liberated it from French colonial control?
2. The one in Afghanistan which didn't start until AFTER the US invaded and conquered Afghanistan (and which anyone who had even basic knowledge of Afghan history would have known was inevitable [and unbeatable])?
3. The one in Iraq which didn't start until AFTER the US invaded and conquered Iraq?

American people have opposed various wars for various reasons.

Some have.

Some probably aligned with your world-weary explanations, but probably not many.

Possible.

Some were pacifists, some were communists.

True. And some were Republicans, and some were Democrats, and some were Christian, and some were Jewish, and some were Muslim, and some were ...

Many (and I can't prove it, but I think most) of the people against war were opposed to our sons and daughters dying for dubious causes.

MOST of the people who were against America's wars were the "sons (and daughters)" who were likely to be the ones sent of to exotic foreign lands to kill people they had never met for reasons that were (on a good day) dubious or (on a bad day) down-right false, by people who made sure that their own family members were not being forced to go off and risk being harmed in those wars.

A lot of the parents of those who opposed America's wars called those who opposed them "cowards", and "commies", and "traitors" (except for their own kids, of course, who were merely "confused").

 

[PoS]

Always happy to oblige​

​

Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)​

​

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.​

​

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.​

​

You might also find "Article 42.7: An explainer - What does France's invocation of Article 42.7 – the EU's mutual defence provision – mean for the EU and its member states" that starts out with​

​

Article 42.7 is the mutual defence clause of the Treaty of the European Union. It derives from the Article 5 of the Brussels Treaty that created the Western European Union, a mutual defence organisation which was incorporated in the EU in 2011.​

​

to be of interest.​

Oh, well thats news to me. I never knew the EU had such a clause. I thought they were just an economic bloc.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The brutal invasion of Ukraina have led to a surge in support for NATO membership in both Finland and Sweden, especially in Finland the support have increased from 28 percent a month ago to 53 percent supporting membership today.

https://www.thelocal.se/20220301/sweden-and-finland-see-historic-surge-in-support-for-nato/

There Sweden are now also ramping up the military spending. That for example the island Gotland with a strategic position in the middle of southern part of the Baltic sea was almost entirely demilitarized while now you are seeing a strong build up of the defense of the island.

 

[snakestretcher]

Total horseshit. NATO is mutual defense pact. It is not an offensive pact. It has not ever unilaterally launched offensive operations against any Soviet or Russian interest or state. It poses no direct threat to Russia so long as it doesn't militarily attack any of it's members. But it's high time we dispense with the cognizant dissonance surrounding what Putin's true motives really are and that is colonial expansion via the steady reacquisition and control of areas formerly of the USSR. Whether Putin is actually crazy or not doesn't really matter. What matters is understanding the internal rationality of his action to see the salient points of it as relates to not only Ukraine, but beyond it and to the US and the West. Time we recognize that Putin's ambitions are global in nature rather than merely local. We tend to avert our gaze from radicalism. We don't want to believe that the worst is possible. On another continent perhaps but not here. That Russia will never attack the US or it's NATO allies when the reality is that it already is and has been engaging in attacks upon us and them.

Indeed; the Cold War never really ended, and the West has been continually fighting proxy battles against 'communism' ever since the end of the second world war, notably in the Americas and elsewhere.