Is Finland next?

Their instructors at Juilliard are just SOO proud

 

I think the Baltics would be easier than Finland:

 

And here's a good historical reminder:

 

It looks like Finland may be the next nation to join NATO

VLAD DID THAT: Finland to apply to NATO ‘without delay,’ as Sweden mulls stance.

The power of the alliance of Free Nations to go shoulder to shoulder and fight like hell against crazed authoritarians is unmatched in the world today. There is a natural mutual respect among the Free People that is not matched in authoritarianism, so their alliances lack the cohesive power of the Free Nations.

And that's part of why we need to so carefully preserve our status as Free People from authoritarians, both foreign and domestic.

Fin Prime Minister. Whatever she asks for, the answer is "Yes!"​

Without Delay.

It's a defensive alliance.

And yet, it's not NATO that is taking over territory across international lines in a war of aggression and conquest.

Russia is bombing schools and residential buildings in Ukraine. And that's what happens in a sane world when a nation goes on a war of conquest, the Free Nations form up in opposition. Germany learned that hard, and now is a proud and valued member of the Free Folks.

 

Yes, it looks like its pretty much a lock, and member nations say they will fast-track the process for them.

 

Here's the thing: We were lucky, fortuitous and brave to win the Second World War. Who's to say that we would win another time against Russia? Is that a gamble that we want to take? It's not a gamble I want to take. As I said, regardless of what we think of Russia's actions, Russia operates on its timetable, not ours. And in their thesis, they see NATO as untenable to them. Whether we like it or not.

So Finland, Sweden quite to the contrary of their leadership are not protecting the Finnish and Swedish nations, but rather bringing those nations into the conflict. Or as I stated: The contested zones. I can imagine the counter argument is: Well, we'd have been drawn in anyway if Russia invaded. But whose to say that Russia would invade Finland or Sweden in the face of the Ukrainian resistance?

The more NATO/Russia are at opposition, the more the conflict will escalate. The North Atlantic alliance must make terms with Russia that the Atlantic and Russia can live with. It doesn't "remake the security map", it guarantees a further escalation of the war.

 

They certainly strike me as part of the tribe of Free People.

 

Everything in your post makes sense, except, it's Russia that invaded a peaceful neighbor that was no danger to them. I personally think that Sweden and Finland are already so culturally close to the rest of NATO that we wouldn't stand by in the event of an invasion anyway, especially after we have seen how they have handled Ukraine.

Since I think a move against Finland and/or Sweden would result in a NATO/Russian war anyway, clearly communicating this in advance affords Russia the opportunity to avoid it.

Russia has some serious problems. Have you been keeping up with the rumbles out of Belarus? There are some solid indications that the People of Belarus are far more sympathetic to Ukraine than their leadership is. It's not out of the question that rather than gaining Ukraine, that Russia may come out of this minus Belarus.

Personally if I was in the decision making role, I would be quietly communicating to Russia's next in commands, letting them know that they so long as they help us secure Russia's vast nuclear stockpiles in the event that Putin falls that we will do our best to guarantee their safety and the safety and well being of their families. It would be a terrible thing if those deadly weapons went to the Black Market because the folks in charge of them felt financially insecure and were looking to raise money in order to ensure their safety and that of their families.

Another big problem. Our insurgency gear, drones, shoulder fired and hand fired weapons in the hands of the Ukrainians is stopping the second most powerful military in the world, as well as taking down their crown ships, 60 miles off shore. China has based a lot of their military equipment off Soviet and Russian designs that very likely contain the same flaws and vulnerabilities. They have to be looking at this with clenched navels realizing that an large Chinese Naval invasion force, backed up around Taiwan's few narrow harbors trying to offload are going to be sitting ducks. The ChiComs could easily be looking at hundreds and hundreds of troop transports on fire with no reasonable means of saving the tens of thousands of Chinese conscripts trying to swim to safety in the shark infested waters of the Taiwan strait.

And arms sales. If you were a nation state shopping for weaponry after watching how the Russian equipment is doing against NATO and the Free World's would you be shopping Russia for your future arms buys?

It's ugly, that's for sure.

 

Could WWIII break out over this:

 

Dude also got shot in the ****ing face AND LIVED. He's one of the most successful snipers in history, and he did it all with iron sights, no scope.

 

The latest news is a Russian official saying Poland should be the next nation for "de-nazidation".

 

They have been saying lot of nonsense lately, and I doubt they are taken seriously anymore.

The Turks are now claiming its a bad idea to let SWE / FIN to NATO because there are all kinds of terrorist organizations in those place

 

US is not pushing them, they are doing this out of their own initiative. As a matter of fact the only thing that might slow the process are the anti-NATO and pro-Russia Republicans like Trump and his followers in the US Senate.

If you say so.

 

Einstein said only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity- and I'm not too sure about the former.

"pro-Russian republicans like Trump"??

 

You are thinking rationally, but megalomaniacs thinks differently. Hitler was not happy with attacking Poland, Denmark, Holland, Norway, France and England and decided to attack the Soviet Union too.
There is no much difference between Hitler and Putin:

 

I agree.

We were in a Chamberlain moment. That's a moment where you have to decide to commit, or let it slide.

Because we never get perfect information, it was an open question whether to give Ukraine a lot of aid, or let Putin chew up another country. Most everybody sided with aid, eventually.

How Putin reacts to losing, I guess we will have a front row seat.

 

One of the flaws of the current moment, and what brings us here is our idea of reflecting to the past as a way to make decisions about the present situation. If one were to use the past, I don't compare to 1939 but to 1917. We are an international incident away from replaying the Archduke's assassination , Article 5 is the new intersecting alliances. And just like in 1917, Article 5 will spiral out of control and WWIII here we come.

And the only reason(well, there are a few flawed thought processes that will guarantee our entry into the war) but the main one is our 'promises' and our false bravado that we won before. Winning WWII is not a guarantee that we will win WWIII. As an American, I only want to fight wars with American interests in mind, not for the geopolitical configurations of Europe. That should be for Europeans to decide amongst themselves.

The world recession for this European war is stupid, who does it serve? We should have entry into the European Union formally since our foreign policy bends backwards for the European Union.

 

Ahh, recession.

There were 4 or 5 empires before WW1, each maneuvering to protect their interests.

Russia isn't an empire, and because of what they are, their allies don't amount to a tinkers damn. Don't include China, they are sending signals they won't to become friendlier to the US.

But, even if your analysis lacks merit, it could still spiral out of control.

But since Putin's goals included a bunch of NATO countries, the potential for things to get really ugly was always there.

 

Is there a difference between an alliance of Empires and an alliance of democratic countries? Specifically since Article 5 is a trigger for war, to me it's exactly the same situation as WWI. If a Russian missile were to 'accidentally' target Norway, Sweden, etc then the war will begin in earnest. And as awful as the Euro-Russo conflict will be, it's more the fact that WE will be drawn into it, again.

 

It's completely different. And the nature of the alliances are different. A rules based international order is fundamentally different than a handful of empires jockeying for an edge. It's the difference between the EU and a game of Risk.

Do you know when NATO started? If there is an attack anywhere within NATO, we're all in, and it's been that way since the 1950s.

 

Tell me it's not different without saying it's not different. "We're all in". And so were the nations allied with the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and that of the Russo coalition, etc. It's not different, hell WWI was before their time and the framers still warned of entangling alliances for the exact same reason.

Our situation right now is keenly similar to pre-WWI status and if a said international incident happens, the so called "rules based international order' isn't changing things from hell breaking loose.(Because again, structurally it's no different. It just calls itself a different name.)

I do not mind as such if the Europeans-Russians knock each other out. Power to them, but as soon as we're militarily involved, we take a risk that's way too high for way too little profit. I do not share Biden's dream of fighting for NATO land, i believe fighting for NATO land will cause economic and military damage to the prosperity of our country that's both avoidable and unnecessary.

 

It's not Biden's dream. If you want to put it on one guy, it's George F Kennan. Of course, Truman and Ike made it happen.

Russian is an imperial empire now, and the empires back before WW1, were imperial powers. The EU is not.

NATO/EU has brought together most of Europe peacefully. Russia is, for all intents and purposes, by itself.

We created a world where any country could safely trade with any other country. That was unthinkable before WW1.

It's a different world, a very different world.

 

The EU's political structure here is for all intents and purposes, meaningless. That is, regardless of its political leanings it is still a military force, set to clash with another military force(the Russians.) The only difference really is that instead of a free-for-all as the case was in WWI, it will be geared towards a single adversary(that being the Russians.)

Technically if we go back further, there is a better example: The War of the coalitions(AKA: The Napoloeonic wars.) The E.U is mostly led by France and Germany, and the EU(coalition) is now poised to have a confrontation with Russia. Shall we call it the 7th Coalition?

Which again, they could feel free to knock each other out if it weren't for the fact that it drags us along with it.

 

Before Putin invaded Ukraine, Europe wasn't spending much on it's military. Germanys budget was half what it is now. They couldn't project force, and without us, defense was limited.

Their military was weak.

The international rules base order they have underlies their politics, and that's whats important.

You clearly are stuck within am imperial way of looking at the world.

Which is incorrect.

 

Are the 'international rules' doing anything now? I'm looking at it from a realpolitick prospective for the United States. Someone has to. Whether we like it or not, these two powers are on a collision course and neither one is listening to the other.