Russia tried to make peace with NATO for 30 years since the collapse of USSR, and even asked to join NATO at one point. Throughout this whole time the west continued to escalate tensions with Russia and expanded NATO dramatically despite original assurances that it wouldn’t. Now you’re telling me that it’s a fault of Russia’s politics that they’ve reacted to this?
Your options how to de-escalate includes “bending the knee” which we discussed before. That only works in fantasies.
My options of how to de-escalate includes being realistic about Russia’s economic and military capability. You are the one who are talking about fantasies. So far, you have yet to explain what you’re proposing here aside from a nuclear holocaust.
The thing is that NATO has destroyed numerous countries over the years and has always taken a hostile stance towards Russia. It’s not surprising to anyone who has even a handful of functioning brain cells why Russia would perceive NATO as a threat.
NATO is literally an aggressive military alliance that HAS invaded multiple countries in the past 30 years. If you’re going to lie at least lie about something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds. It’s strange that you would choose such an obvious thing to lie about.
If you don’t understand that a nuclear holocaust is a very likely outcome then you’re far dumber than I’ve thought.
Your opinions about de-escalation works in Russia’s favor, not Finland’s. And actually that tells everything about the rest of your opinions.
Utterly bizarre statement given that Russia never threatened Finland in any way until it decided to join NATO. Furthermore, it’s not clear what benefit Finland gets from being part of NATO since it’s pretty clear that NATO would support Finland in case of a war. Once you read the article 5, you’ll realize that the level of support that Ukraine received is above and beyond what it requires.
All Finland has done is to increase the possibility of being involved in a conflict with a nuclear superpower. Some real galaxy brain logic here.
Your fundamental mistake is in asserting that NATO provides some added protection. There is no real basis for this fact. Ukraine had a military that’s far greater than any NATO military aside from US. Their military is also the only European military with any combat experience from 8 years of civil war.
If Russia is able to defeat this army then there is little chance that the rest of NATO would fare any better. While US has a large and capable military, it’s not committed to the European theater.
If Finland and Sweden were looking at their best interests then they would remain neutral.
As I’ve explained, there is little reason to believe that NATO provides any added protection in practice and creates a situation where Russia has a reason to attack Finland or Sweden where previously they did not have one. If that makes you feel safer then what else is there to say.
Other European countries don’t have militaries that are in any way comparable to Russia or even to Ukraine, and article 5 does not oblige them to help militarily. The level of aid provided to Ukraine is above and beyond of what article 5 requires. Thinking that Finland would get more aid than Ukraine received is not based on any facts I’m aware of.
Russian army was never in a position to take Kiev. The fact that you think that further demonstrates how utterly ignorant you are on the subject you continue to attempt debating. Simple math shows that Russia could not take Kiev with 40k troops because that was roughly the amount of troops Ukraine had stationed in Kiev and you need three to one advantage for the attackers. Russia is clearly aware of that since they used this formula in Mariupol. What Russia did in Kiev was a fixing operation that prevented forces stationed there from reinforcing forces in the east that are currently being surrounded.
Again, I’m not looking at Russia’s interests. I’m explaining you sober reality of the situation. When Ukraine was neutral, Russia had a working relationship with Ukraine. Hostilities started after 2014 coup that was orchestrated by US. Now, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in a similar situation. Good luck with that.
deleted by creator
Russia tried to make peace with NATO for 30 years since the collapse of USSR, and even asked to join NATO at one point. Throughout this whole time the west continued to escalate tensions with Russia and expanded NATO dramatically despite original assurances that it wouldn’t. Now you’re telling me that it’s a fault of Russia’s politics that they’ve reacted to this?
My options of how to de-escalate includes being realistic about Russia’s economic and military capability. You are the one who are talking about fantasies. So far, you have yet to explain what you’re proposing here aside from a nuclear holocaust.
The thing is that NATO has destroyed numerous countries over the years and has always taken a hostile stance towards Russia. It’s not surprising to anyone who has even a handful of functioning brain cells why Russia would perceive NATO as a threat.
NATO is literally an aggressive military alliance that HAS invaded multiple countries in the past 30 years. If you’re going to lie at least lie about something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds. It’s strange that you would choose such an obvious thing to lie about.
If you don’t understand that a nuclear holocaust is a very likely outcome then you’re far dumber than I’ve thought.
deleted by creator
Utterly bizarre statement given that Russia never threatened Finland in any way until it decided to join NATO. Furthermore, it’s not clear what benefit Finland gets from being part of NATO since it’s pretty clear that NATO would support Finland in case of a war. Once you read the article 5, you’ll realize that the level of support that Ukraine received is above and beyond what it requires.
All Finland has done is to increase the possibility of being involved in a conflict with a nuclear superpower. Some real galaxy brain logic here.
deleted by creator
Your fundamental mistake is in asserting that NATO provides some added protection. There is no real basis for this fact. Ukraine had a military that’s far greater than any NATO military aside from US. Their military is also the only European military with any combat experience from 8 years of civil war.
If Russia is able to defeat this army then there is little chance that the rest of NATO would fare any better. While US has a large and capable military, it’s not committed to the European theater.
If Finland and Sweden were looking at their best interests then they would remain neutral.
deleted by creator
As I’ve explained, there is little reason to believe that NATO provides any added protection in practice and creates a situation where Russia has a reason to attack Finland or Sweden where previously they did not have one. If that makes you feel safer then what else is there to say.
Other European countries don’t have militaries that are in any way comparable to Russia or even to Ukraine, and article 5 does not oblige them to help militarily. The level of aid provided to Ukraine is above and beyond of what article 5 requires. Thinking that Finland would get more aid than Ukraine received is not based on any facts I’m aware of.
Russian army was never in a position to take Kiev. The fact that you think that further demonstrates how utterly ignorant you are on the subject you continue to attempt debating. Simple math shows that Russia could not take Kiev with 40k troops because that was roughly the amount of troops Ukraine had stationed in Kiev and you need three to one advantage for the attackers. Russia is clearly aware of that since they used this formula in Mariupol. What Russia did in Kiev was a fixing operation that prevented forces stationed there from reinforcing forces in the east that are currently being surrounded.
Again, I’m not looking at Russia’s interests. I’m explaining you sober reality of the situation. When Ukraine was neutral, Russia had a working relationship with Ukraine. Hostilities started after 2014 coup that was orchestrated by US. Now, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in a similar situation. Good luck with that.
deleted by creator