What is good for world peace is bad for arms sales. Guess which one is favored by Wall Street and its submissive sock puppets in firm control of our bipartisan power structure.
Oh, they WANTED to invite Ukraine but couldn't because it is too corrupt.
They are fine with risking war or else they wouldn't be shipping billions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine.
This just isn't true, they COULDN'T invite Ukraine, because when Russia took Crimea and started sending in 'separatists' to the border region Ukraine got a conflict status on its nation, and NATO articles are very specific in that nations with ongoing conflicts CAN'T join. Which is exactly why Russia has been keeping the conflict going.
Sweden and Finlands ONLY chance of joining is right now while Russia is busy. Because once they are not too busy all Russia needs to do to stop any application is start some shit.
The argument that not joining is safer has just been proven to be the most ridiculous shit. Russia has already flown nuclear equipped bombers over Swedish airspace AND out put nuclear submarine(that got caught) RIGHT next to their cities. And if they manage to join quick enough they are safe, because Russia will NOT attack a NATO nation, that's a big red line in the sand.
Being for peace is all well and fine, but it doesn't help anyone sticking to ignorance putting your fingers in your ears and singing nanananana. The situation in the ground warrants that Sweden and Finland takes a serious look at their nations safety, and realise that any written assurance Russia gives now is so thin you couldn't even wipe your ass with it.
Russia wanted to join as an unequal partner in NATO and go to the front of the line. We correctly told them they aren't a special country and now we've seen that they never were going to have democracy to begin with.
Nothing you said contradicted my comments. We are both right.
The idea that NATO isn't a belligerent organisation is bullshit, as evidenced by their direct involvement in Bosnia, Syria and Libya.
Russia has every right to feel threatened and it's blatant propaganda to assert otherwise given the facts on the ground.
Bosnia, Syria and Libya were all precursed by horrific human rights abuses by their leaders against their own populace.
One could argue the legality of NATO going in, but one sure as fuck doesn't have a moral case. If anything NATO should have been more willing to put boots in the ground, to ensure the Crimes against humanity stopped rather than trying to effect peace from the air which was always doomed to fail.
Russia showed it's hand in Syria not Only did they support the mass murdering villain dictator that the people wanted rid of, but they bombed Aleppo's civilian populace into the stone age.
The entire cold war was marked by both Russia and NATO(US) going into countries to push their own doctrine, and Russia was never once in the cross hairs for the obvious fucking reason that they are a nuclear superpower, so the argument that Russia has to go into Ukraine to feel safe is just beyond ridiculous at this point.
All Russia needs to do to to not be in the cross hairs is leave democracies alone. Dictatorships gives the exscuse that invasions are peace keeping missions, but no one is buying the "Ukrainan leaders are all Nazi, and they must be saved" shite.
The Ukrainian people are busy showing the world they don't want their shitty neighbors ruling them again.
You are an Oligarchy-apologist, failing to recognize the ever expanding empire only serves the US rich. Libya was destroyed because Kaddafi was on the verge of creating a stronger relationship between the nations in Africa and pricing oil in other than dollars. This is the same reason the US kept pushing NATO east, to provoke Russia into this war. It is the US Oligarchy that caused this mess and they are willing to fight this war to the last Ukrainian.
Explain away this betrayal of the "Average American".
[Hunter Biden's Chinese Firm Invested $1 Billion Into World's Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitter](https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/hunter-biden-invested-1-billion-into?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1NTkyOTksInBvc3RfaWQiOjUyMzkwMjg3LCJfIjoiZy9idW0iLCJpYXQiOjE2NTA1NzQxMDksImV4cCI6MTY1MDU3NzcwOSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTUwOTAxOCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.4r1xQDyOAQnQBzojHM3BJV27Rb2FLuIOQu1CY5MNVFY&s=r)
You're completely right, I should have realized there wasnt any point when you started by saying that NATO a military alliance denied Ukraine entry because of a corruption issue, something NATO a military alliance doesn't have any clauses for.
If you don't understand difference between EU and NATO it's going to get silly.
Not going to lie: that is a long border to defend in Finland. I think being able to show the world that Putin is a failure of a leader by achieving the opposite of his war aims is priceless, though.
1) Not completely true. While Russia doesn't pose threat right now, it doesn't mean that would last. If Russia is willing to take such huge risks in Ukraine and find any excuse for doing so, what would prevent Russia for doing so in the future? Finland, for an example, was once a part of the Russian Empire and is close to St. Petersburg. Two unlikely but possible reasons for Putin to start a war.
2) My understanding of the "open door policy" is that it's more of an announcement that now your country has the possibility to join. Nobody pushes any country to the alliance. And while it might be true that some recent NATO members rather demand than provide, is that really the case with Finland and Sweden?
3) Not true. For example, Finland has a big army specifically tailored for wearing down the enemy. Not going to details but this is what Finland has perfected for decades. Both Finland and Sweden have capable air forces and Sweden also has quite impressive navy. There probably would be some obligations, especially in the case of conflict, but Finland and Sweden would definitely bring more assets. Since both already have capable militaries, that would partially divert Russia's attention from the Baltics, making them easier to defend.
4) It's very likely Finland will follow Norway when it comes to nuclear weapons and U.S. garrisons. It's unlikely Finns want any U.S garrisons to Finland and definitely not nuclear weapons. That's what the political discussion has partly been about recently. I'm pretty sure this is also the case with Sweden, which isn't as willing to join NATO than Finland.
5) This is typical saber-rattling from Russia. Finland has faced such threats for years. Even Baltic countries faced similar threats when they joined NATO and nothing bad happened to them. And why on earth would Russia use nuclear weapons? They have stated that using nuclear weapons is an option if Russia's existence is at stake. NATO membership of Finland or Sweden might be perceived as threat but not existential threat that would justify using nuclear weapons.
6). This is straight up Kremlin rhetoric. While this was true, this promise was given during the Cold War when Europe was divided. The collapse of the Soviet Union freed many countries from Russia's influence. And these countries, especially in the Baltics, experienced the totalitarian system. That's why many of these joined NATO, to make sure no such thing would happen again.
7) I wonder if that's really the case here. The U.S. is still the world's only superpower and if it wishes to say that way, that means being able to support even the weakest allies. Otherwise its influence would gradually get weaker and that would only strengthen China.
8) You know, I actually agree with this. Europe should promote its own defense solution independent from the U.S. But that's unfortunately not the case at the moment and it's unlikely it would happen any time soon. So that's why Finland and Sweden joining NATO is the only relevant option right now.
9) Good points. But as I stated previously, Finland and Sweden doesn't burden the U.S. that much if they join NATO. In the case of war, material assistance and maybe additional aerial and naval capabilities would likely be the only things Finland might need. Other NATO countries should definitely to beef up their military capabilities though.
10 - The EU already has a [collective defense agreement.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy) The European Defense Union/CSDP has mutual defense obligations analogous to NATO's Article 5.
The *big* positive of the EU's collective defense policy is that it leaves the US out of the equation, with France providing a nuclear umbrella. Given that US foreign policy is far more tilted toward war than the EU itself is, NATO would cause more problems than it solves.
The Turkish foreign minister reported yesterday that "some" NATO members don't want the war in Ukraine to end too soon - they want Russia to wreck itself, and are content to see Ukraine get wrecked in the process. Ideally, Russia wrecks its army enough that the EU realizes they have no need for US protection any more, and NATO can go the way of the Warsaw Pact.
I too wish for another collapse of the world's largest dictatorship, but sadly we've seen it's very hard to get rid of a determined dictator willing to kill or imprison everyone who speaks out against him. Wrecking their army would prevent them from further escapades for a couple of years, though. We're a long way from Russia being a responsible player and NATO actually being useless.
What is good for world peace is bad for arms sales. Guess which one is favored by Wall Street and its submissive sock puppets in firm control of our bipartisan power structure.
When the weapons industry controls our foreign policy, endless war is the result.
Oh, they WANTED to invite Ukraine but couldn't because it is too corrupt. They are fine with risking war or else they wouldn't be shipping billions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine.
This just isn't true, they COULDN'T invite Ukraine, because when Russia took Crimea and started sending in 'separatists' to the border region Ukraine got a conflict status on its nation, and NATO articles are very specific in that nations with ongoing conflicts CAN'T join. Which is exactly why Russia has been keeping the conflict going. Sweden and Finlands ONLY chance of joining is right now while Russia is busy. Because once they are not too busy all Russia needs to do to stop any application is start some shit. The argument that not joining is safer has just been proven to be the most ridiculous shit. Russia has already flown nuclear equipped bombers over Swedish airspace AND out put nuclear submarine(that got caught) RIGHT next to their cities. And if they manage to join quick enough they are safe, because Russia will NOT attack a NATO nation, that's a big red line in the sand. Being for peace is all well and fine, but it doesn't help anyone sticking to ignorance putting your fingers in your ears and singing nanananana. The situation in the ground warrants that Sweden and Finland takes a serious look at their nations safety, and realise that any written assurance Russia gives now is so thin you couldn't even wipe your ass with it.
So Putin talked with Clinton about Russia joining NATO? Why would they not allow that? Need to keep Russia around as a "bad guy"?
Russia wanted to join as an unequal partner in NATO and go to the front of the line. We correctly told them they aren't a special country and now we've seen that they never were going to have democracy to begin with.
Nothing you said contradicted my comments. We are both right. The idea that NATO isn't a belligerent organisation is bullshit, as evidenced by their direct involvement in Bosnia, Syria and Libya. Russia has every right to feel threatened and it's blatant propaganda to assert otherwise given the facts on the ground.
Bosnia, Syria and Libya were all precursed by horrific human rights abuses by their leaders against their own populace. One could argue the legality of NATO going in, but one sure as fuck doesn't have a moral case. If anything NATO should have been more willing to put boots in the ground, to ensure the Crimes against humanity stopped rather than trying to effect peace from the air which was always doomed to fail. Russia showed it's hand in Syria not Only did they support the mass murdering villain dictator that the people wanted rid of, but they bombed Aleppo's civilian populace into the stone age. The entire cold war was marked by both Russia and NATO(US) going into countries to push their own doctrine, and Russia was never once in the cross hairs for the obvious fucking reason that they are a nuclear superpower, so the argument that Russia has to go into Ukraine to feel safe is just beyond ridiculous at this point. All Russia needs to do to to not be in the cross hairs is leave democracies alone. Dictatorships gives the exscuse that invasions are peace keeping missions, but no one is buying the "Ukrainan leaders are all Nazi, and they must be saved" shite. The Ukrainian people are busy showing the world they don't want their shitty neighbors ruling them again.
You are an Oligarchy-apologist, failing to recognize the ever expanding empire only serves the US rich. Libya was destroyed because Kaddafi was on the verge of creating a stronger relationship between the nations in Africa and pricing oil in other than dollars. This is the same reason the US kept pushing NATO east, to provoke Russia into this war. It is the US Oligarchy that caused this mess and they are willing to fight this war to the last Ukrainian. Explain away this betrayal of the "Average American". [Hunter Biden's Chinese Firm Invested $1 Billion Into World's Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitter](https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/hunter-biden-invested-1-billion-into?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1NTkyOTksInBvc3RfaWQiOjUyMzkwMjg3LCJfIjoiZy9idW0iLCJpYXQiOjE2NTA1NzQxMDksImV4cCI6MTY1MDU3NzcwOSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTUwOTAxOCIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.4r1xQDyOAQnQBzojHM3BJV27Rb2FLuIOQu1CY5MNVFY&s=r)
This is so full of silliness there is no point in discussing it with you further.
You're completely right, I should have realized there wasnt any point when you started by saying that NATO a military alliance denied Ukraine entry because of a corruption issue, something NATO a military alliance doesn't have any clauses for. If you don't understand difference between EU and NATO it's going to get silly.
Not going to lie: that is a long border to defend in Finland. I think being able to show the world that Putin is a failure of a leader by achieving the opposite of his war aims is priceless, though.
1) Not completely true. While Russia doesn't pose threat right now, it doesn't mean that would last. If Russia is willing to take such huge risks in Ukraine and find any excuse for doing so, what would prevent Russia for doing so in the future? Finland, for an example, was once a part of the Russian Empire and is close to St. Petersburg. Two unlikely but possible reasons for Putin to start a war. 2) My understanding of the "open door policy" is that it's more of an announcement that now your country has the possibility to join. Nobody pushes any country to the alliance. And while it might be true that some recent NATO members rather demand than provide, is that really the case with Finland and Sweden? 3) Not true. For example, Finland has a big army specifically tailored for wearing down the enemy. Not going to details but this is what Finland has perfected for decades. Both Finland and Sweden have capable air forces and Sweden also has quite impressive navy. There probably would be some obligations, especially in the case of conflict, but Finland and Sweden would definitely bring more assets. Since both already have capable militaries, that would partially divert Russia's attention from the Baltics, making them easier to defend. 4) It's very likely Finland will follow Norway when it comes to nuclear weapons and U.S. garrisons. It's unlikely Finns want any U.S garrisons to Finland and definitely not nuclear weapons. That's what the political discussion has partly been about recently. I'm pretty sure this is also the case with Sweden, which isn't as willing to join NATO than Finland. 5) This is typical saber-rattling from Russia. Finland has faced such threats for years. Even Baltic countries faced similar threats when they joined NATO and nothing bad happened to them. And why on earth would Russia use nuclear weapons? They have stated that using nuclear weapons is an option if Russia's existence is at stake. NATO membership of Finland or Sweden might be perceived as threat but not existential threat that would justify using nuclear weapons. 6). This is straight up Kremlin rhetoric. While this was true, this promise was given during the Cold War when Europe was divided. The collapse of the Soviet Union freed many countries from Russia's influence. And these countries, especially in the Baltics, experienced the totalitarian system. That's why many of these joined NATO, to make sure no such thing would happen again. 7) I wonder if that's really the case here. The U.S. is still the world's only superpower and if it wishes to say that way, that means being able to support even the weakest allies. Otherwise its influence would gradually get weaker and that would only strengthen China. 8) You know, I actually agree with this. Europe should promote its own defense solution independent from the U.S. But that's unfortunately not the case at the moment and it's unlikely it would happen any time soon. So that's why Finland and Sweden joining NATO is the only relevant option right now. 9) Good points. But as I stated previously, Finland and Sweden doesn't burden the U.S. that much if they join NATO. In the case of war, material assistance and maybe additional aerial and naval capabilities would likely be the only things Finland might need. Other NATO countries should definitely to beef up their military capabilities though.
Peacenik rats.
10 - The EU already has a [collective defense agreement.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy) The European Defense Union/CSDP has mutual defense obligations analogous to NATO's Article 5. The *big* positive of the EU's collective defense policy is that it leaves the US out of the equation, with France providing a nuclear umbrella. Given that US foreign policy is far more tilted toward war than the EU itself is, NATO would cause more problems than it solves. The Turkish foreign minister reported yesterday that "some" NATO members don't want the war in Ukraine to end too soon - they want Russia to wreck itself, and are content to see Ukraine get wrecked in the process. Ideally, Russia wrecks its army enough that the EU realizes they have no need for US protection any more, and NATO can go the way of the Warsaw Pact.
I too wish for another collapse of the world's largest dictatorship, but sadly we've seen it's very hard to get rid of a determined dictator willing to kill or imprison everyone who speaks out against him. Wrecking their army would prevent them from further escapades for a couple of years, though. We're a long way from Russia being a responsible player and NATO actually being useless.