5 ms·

> likely Ehh, "likely". Seems to me like there were quite a lot of much more pressing factors. > Because, if its really over NATO, why isn't Russia invading F

> likely Ehh, "likely". Seems to me like there were quite a lot of much more pressing factors. > Because, if its really over NATO, why isn't Russia invading Finland?. Why would it? Russia had warned Finland of repercussions of deploying NATOs military infrastructure. NATO does not exist in a vacuum and we are not playing magical alchemy here: Finland is a stable country with solid governmental and social institutions, that cares for the long-term prosperity of its citizens and generally doesn't base its identity on anti-russian rhetorics. Ukraine, on the other hand, recently had a revolution, collapsed all the stability institutions that it had managed to grow after the SU dissolution, has a government relying on populist anti-russian militant rhetorics and has a president dumb enough to seriously and openly discuss deploying foreign nukes or making their own (Ukraine's atomic industry could produce dirty bombs). Finland in NATO is sad, but at least it's not immediately dangerous, as Fins are unlikely to be willing to pose as human shields for the US military infrastructure. Nowadays Ukraine in NATO is a total disaster and at its best would be a repetition of Turkey-Cuba missile crisis, except this time there would be no Cuba and no deterrent.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> Finland in NATO is sad, but at least it's not immediately dangerous, as Fins are unlikely to be willing to pose as human shields for the US military infrastructure. How is Finland in NATO sad?, Finland has joined the largest defensive military alliance in the world, and they clearly felt as a country that had been invaded by the USSR in the past that they needed more protections. Russia won't even breathe in the direction of Finland now, because Russia cannot handle NATO and Russia knows it.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > How is Finland in NATO sad? I was talking about Russian perspective. > the largest defensive military alliance in the world Putting aside the question of whether large military alliances are a good or a bad thing, NATOs "defensiveness" and peacefulness is nothing more than a marketing slogan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations One surely doesn't use toxic depleted uranium munitions for defense. > they clearly felt as a country What exactly is implied by "as a country"? Cuz I remember how some Fins were upset that there wasn't any specific voting process, but only a decision of politicians. > invaded by the USSR in the past that they needed more protections. If you are referring to the Winter war some years after the collapse of the Russian Empire (of which Finland had been part of), this has all been resolved a long time ago, and all the political will for conflict and related frictions had died out before any of us was born. > Russia won't even breathe in the direction of Finland now Did it though? There were no frictions up until Finlands decision to join NATO. > because Russia cannot handle NATO and Russia knows it. Russia already feels like it's handling NATO in Ukraine with all those NATO instructors and NATO weapons. Besides, I think by now it should be clear that "I dare you, watchagonnado" politics doesn't bring you to good places.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Russia already feels like it's handling NATO in Ukraine with all those NATO instructors and NATO weapons. Besides, I think by now it should be clear that "I dare you, watchagonnado" politics doesn't bring you to good places. Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukraine, I dont think the Russian military actually think its fighting NATO in Ukraine and knows that NATO itself would wipe the floor with Russia, considering the performance of Ukraine using only some second hand NATO weaponry.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukrain Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. Take Afghanistan for example: 20 years of campaign undone in like a week and it's not even a real problem for the US, as it all happens to be far away on another continent - they don't even have to deal with Tliban, unlike everyone else around.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" Its obvious, if you think the Ukrainian military really represents the might of NATO you are kidding yourself. > It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. Yes but Ukraine does not have the numbers, nor the latest weaponry at all. Ukraine is pushing back Russia with a hand full of HIMARS and old Russian and Soviet aircraft that have been jerry rigged with HARM missiles and Russia and Soviet tanks, when Ukraine gets F16's and Ambrams tanks the difference will be even starker. > (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is comparable, it latest 26 days and was conducted thousands of kilometres away from the participants. Russia cannot take a city that is less than 300km from their border in 6 months. Thats the comparison.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> Finland in NATO is sad, but at least it's not immediately dangerous, as Fins are unlikely to be willing to pose as human shields for the US military infrastructure. How is Finland in NATO sad?, Finland has joined the largest defensive military alliance in the world, and they clearly felt as a country that had been invaded by the USSR in the past that they needed more protections. Russia won't even breathe in the direction of Finland now, because Russia cannot handle NATO and Russia knows it.

foverzar 4y ago
> How is Finland in NATO sad? I was talking about Russian perspective. > the largest defensive military alliance in the world Putting aside the question of whether large military alliances are a good or a bad thing, NATOs "defensiveness" and peacefulness is nothing more than a marketing slogan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations One surely doesn't use toxic depleted uranium munitions for defense. > they clearly felt as a country What exactly is implied by "as a country"? Cuz I remember how some Fins were upset that there wasn't any specific voting process, but only a decision of politicians. > invaded by the USSR in the past that they needed more protections. If you are referring to the Winter war some years after the collapse of the Russian Empire (of which Finland had been part of), this has all been resolved a long time ago, and all the political will for conflict and related frictions had died out before any of us was born. > Russia won't even breathe in the direction of Finland now Did it though? There were no frictions up until Finlands decision to join NATO. > because Russia cannot handle NATO and Russia knows it. Russia already feels like it's handling NATO in Ukraine with all those NATO instructors and NATO weapons. Besides, I think by now it should be clear that "I dare you, watchagonnado" politics doesn't bring you to good places.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Russia already feels like it's handling NATO in Ukraine with all those NATO instructors and NATO weapons. Besides, I think by now it should be clear that "I dare you, watchagonnado" politics doesn't bring you to good places. Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukraine, I dont think the Russian military actually think its fighting NATO in Ukraine and knows that NATO itself would wipe the floor with Russia, considering the performance of Ukraine using only some second hand NATO weaponry.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukrain Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. Take Afghanistan for example: 20 years of campaign undone in like a week and it's not even a real problem for the US, as it all happens to be far away on another continent - they don't even have to deal with Tliban, unlike everyone else around.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" Its obvious, if you think the Ukrainian military really represents the might of NATO you are kidding yourself. > It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. Yes but Ukraine does not have the numbers, nor the latest weaponry at all. Ukraine is pushing back Russia with a hand full of HIMARS and old Russian and Soviet aircraft that have been jerry rigged with HARM missiles and Russia and Soviet tanks, when Ukraine gets F16's and Ambrams tanks the difference will be even starker. > (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is comparable, it latest 26 days and was conducted thousands of kilometres away from the participants. Russia cannot take a city that is less than 300km from their border in 6 months. Thats the comparison.