> I dont think 500K casualties and 6 million refugees is worth the price. The people actually being invaded think it's worth fighting and dying to keep their c

> I dont think 500K casualties and 6 million refugees is worth the price. The people actually being invaded think it's worth fighting and dying to keep their country. It's not for you to say it's not. I mean, you sound all humanitarian and everything, but it's also quite paternalistic. > Eastward expansion of NATO does little to advance western security Compared to what? Compared to letting Russia roll over countries one by one, countries that want to be our friends, countries who would become hostile to us? Is that going to advance western security? > increases the chance of more hostility Russia's going to invade Finland because they joined NATO? Yes, they've talked about it. But their hands are a bit full right now, and they have no ability to conduct such an operation against all of NATO. And why are these countries wanting to join NATO? Because they are already threatened by Russia. The more Russia attacks places like Georgia and Ukraine, the more other countries on Russia's border decide they need allies. So NATO membership decreases the chance of more hostility, because Russia is not eager to get into a shooting war with NATO. > and brings us closer to MAD. Russia's going to go nuclear as part of invading Finland? No way.