5 ms·
> Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia. Considerin
by sbmthakur 8y ago
> Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.
Considering that St. Petersburg is now well within NATO's artillery range, I don't see how NATO is not hostile from Russia's perspective.
- sequence7 8y agoSt Petersburg is well within NATO artillery range from Finland is your argument that Russia should annex Finland or that Finland shoud not be a member of NATO?
- c-smile 8y agoFinland is not a NATO member. For that very reason and due to old agreement with USSR.
- sequence7 8y agoYou are very right, I apologise for being very wrong. I would delete my comment but I think it's best to leave it.
- codedokode 8y agoUSSR already did this in 1939: annexed a part of Finland [1] to move the border further from the city. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
- sbmthakur 8y agoNo. I meant the Baltics. "Well within" was a wrong phrase. Apologies for that. Finland has nothing to do it. My point was that it's not that difficult for Russians to consider NATO a hostile force even if the West calls it a defensive force. NATO already outguns Russia on many parameters. If there is a full-scale war and China supports NATO, then it's pretty much game for Russia.