3 ms·

This is really out of touch with reality. Russia has been provoking military incidents almost every day for years. From memory, in total, western airforces had

This is really out of touch with reality. Russia has been provoking military incidents almost every day for years. From memory, in total, western airforces had to block Russian fighters entering their sovereign territory 240 times in 2021. French fighters were sent several times to stop Russian fighters in the English Channel, e.g. 2000 km from their base. Then you can add Russia submarines nosing around, spy vessels desguised as fishing vessels going close to points of military interests (for example, when one of the 6 French nuclear submarines dive from its base nearby Brest on the Atlantic Ocean, tens of French fishing vessels are invited to circle around to mask the submarine noise. Every time, there are Russian fish vessels popping up that very day. In the last decade, Russia has been testing our detection capacities, speed of reaction, going as far as receiving summation fires from Western fighters. Russia has been in an aggressive attitude for at leat the past decade. That must stop. I think Sweden should join NATO. Finland is a more complicated case, since they already have a specific agreement with Russia and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo.

CRConrad 5y ago
> Finland is a more complicated case, since they already have a specific agreement with Russia What, do you mean the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948[1]? That ended in 1992, and "[w]hen in January 1992 the new Treaty of Friendship was complemented by the exchange of notes terminating the 1948 treaty, the last remnant of restrictions on an independent Finnish foreign policy were formally removed."[2] > and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo. I doubt it.[3] The Finns have been vulnerable to Russia before, and know how to hold a grudge. A majority[4] is for membership now. On Friday the fifth of March (I think it was), the Eduskunta -- the Finnish Parliament -- debated NATO membership. And not one, but two Citizens' Initiatives that have each gathered enough signatures to make (further?) parliamentary discussion mandatory. ___ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948 [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20181125193537/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/1992-09-01/finland-vindicated https://web.archive.org/web/20181125193537/https://www.forei... [3]: Source: Personal experience; lived here for 27 years now. [4]: https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202 https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202

CRConrad 5y ago

> Finland is a more complicated case, since they already have a specific agreement with Russia What, do you mean the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948[1]? That ended in 1992, and "[w]hen in January 1992 the new Treaty of Friendship was complemented by the exchange of notes terminating the 1948 treaty, the last remnant of restrictions on an independent Finnish foreign policy were formally removed."[2] > and are so vulnerable. They may prefer the status quo. I doubt it.[3] The Finns have been vulnerable to Russia before, and know how to hold a grudge. A majority[4] is for membership now. On Friday the fifth of March (I think it was), the Eduskunta -- the Finnish Parliament -- debated NATO membership. And not one, but two Citizens' Initiatives that have each gathered enough signatures to make (further?) parliamentary discussion mandatory. ___ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948 [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20181125193537/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/1992-09-01/finland-vindicated https://web.archive.org/web/20181125193537/https://www.forei... [3]: Source: Personal experience; lived here for 27 years now. [4]: https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202 https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202