• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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
The only consequence they'll face is a Putin pout as he is powerless to so much as take Ukraine with lacking conscripts and outmaneuvered armor while his economy goes into full meltdown, even as his legions of evil desperately try to make up for their incompetence, failure, and lost ground and time by committing war crimes with relish and abandon.

Let him pound sand and eat shit. As stated prior, Russia under his rule is a rabid animal that can and must be caged by NATO on every European border; it's exactly what he deserves. There must be no concessions gained by his reckless actions, only painful and crippling losses that should inspire nothing but regret and remorse and stand as an abject lesson to any others who would dare try to fulfill their geopolitical ambitions in this way.
 
Oh, well thats news to me. I never knew the EU had such a clause. I thought they were just an economic bloc.
Well, one should learn something new every day.

Of course it also helps if one remembers it from day to day as well.
 
You don't think the very real danger of Putin's war escalating to a global conflict is bone-chilling? You think you're safe in your smug, middle-class bubble, far away from Europe? Think again.
I do find that "the very real danger of Putin's war escalating to a global conflict is bone-chilling".

Mind you I also find that "the very real danger of being hit by a meteor is bone-chilling" as well.

Of course, I do find that "the very real danger of Putin's war escalating to a global conflict" is more bone-chilling than I find "the very real danger of being hit by a meteor" to be, but I also find it to be less bone-chilling than "the very real danger of being hit by a drunk driver".

It's called "risk assessment" and "panic control".
 
Seems like Putin is giving Finland and Sweden an excellent reason to join NATO.

A few days before the Russian troops moved in, Aleksi Salonen and Sampo Muhonen, a couple of geeks - their own description of themselves - were sitting in a Helsinki flat gaming. During a pause, they started talking about the growing threat from Russia, and agreed that it would be safer for Finland to apply for Nato membership.

They mentioned the idea to three friends online, and between them the five cooked up a plan to collect signatures for a petition to the Finnish parliament.
In order to launch a debate by MPs, a proposal has to have 50,000 signatures. Within 10 days they had reached 70,000.
 
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.
You may think you are critiquing US military interventionism and Western imperialism by drawing a parallel between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and NATO's intervention against Serbia. But what you are really doing is parroting Putin’s justifications for empire-building and contributing to revisionist history while simultaneously dismissing the horrors of genocide and ethnic cleansing that will only serve to embolden international aggression and the irredentist agendas of others. It's imperative that we emphasize the difference between a limited, third-party intervention amid a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing , as was the case in Kosovo, and a calculated, full-on territorial invasion of a sovereign state for geopolitical purposes, as in Ukraine. Not making such a distinction risks drawing parallels between Kosovo and Ukraine that risks incentivizing separatist movements in the Balkans, while promoting irredentism in an emboldened Serbia. Doing so only solidifies Russia’s justifications for it's international aggression in a way that can only serve in adding fuel to an already blazing fire in Europe. Is that what you want to see happen? Remember that this is the same area of the world where events happened that propelled the world into two horrific world wars in little over a century.
 
I do find that "the very real danger of Putin's war escalating to a global conflict is bone-chilling".

Mind you I also find that "the very real danger of being hit by a meteor is bone-chilling" as well.

Of course, I do find that "the very real danger of Putin's war escalating to a global conflict" is more bone-chilling than I find "the very real danger of being hit by a meteor" to be, but I also find it to be less bone-chilling than "the very real danger of being hit by a drunk driver".

It's called "risk assessment" and "panic control".
I wonder how many thought the same in 1939.
 
I wonder how many thought the same in 1939.
In 1939, the US government and the American people were resolutely in favour of staying completely out of the "European War".

In 1939, the British and French government and people were making decisions with the stark fact that they had suffered casualties almost 25% of their military aged males less than 20 years ago staring them in their faces (the US figure is around 2.32%). That meant that roughly 1 in 4 people in Britain and France had a personal connection to a war casualty while roughly 1 in 40 people in the US did.

Yes, the leaders in Britain, France, and the United States of America were wrong in their assessments of Germany and of Hitler's intent.

Yes, the people of Britain and France let the recent bloodbath influence them more than the people of the US let the relatively minor casualties that the US had suffered influence them.

And, yes, if you can get yourself into the mindset of those 1939 people you CAN understand why they made a decision that, with perfect hindsight we totally disapprove of today.
 
Back
Top Bottom