Yle poll: Support for Nato membership soars to 76%
yle.fi
external-link
Support for joining the alliance has risen by 14 percentage points since March.
Muad'Dibber
link
fedilink
1712d

Sightline
link
fedilink
-310d

You sure are upset.

@pingveno
link
fedilink
-211d

I wonder why Finland would do such a thing. Oh, what’s that, the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939? It’s almost like people don’t like being invaded.

@pingveno
link
fedilink
-210d

Oooooh, looks like the history lesson wasn’t welcome from the folks who like to avoid how imperialist the Soviet Union was and just want to make it the pure hero of WW2.

@crulife
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
10d

deleted by creator

CritiGal
link
fedilink
12
edit-2
12d

They already cooperate heavily with NATO. Officially joining/signing some documents now doesn’t change much from Russian perspective

@pingveno
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
11d

It does change things from the Finnish side. It brings them under the Article 5 umbrella. Ukraine also cooperated with NATO, but lacked the Article 5 umbrella, now look where they are. Given that Russia (via the Soviet Union) has a history of invading Finland and shows a renewed appetite for invasions, it seems pretty prudent to get some insurance.

@kettu
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
10d

Having a CIA and Soros NGO orchestrated color revolution referred to as “Euromaidan” with the aim of installing a USA friendly puppet government and then waging war against the Donbass at the doorstep of Russia, and laboring plans to station short range missiles with nuclear warheads again (remember the Cold War?)… Seems like asking for an invasion. As a matter of fact, to me it all seems like the invasion was wanted by the USA to ostracise Russia from the world economy and bleed it militarily.

Liwott
link
fedilink
112d

It will change that Russia won’t be able to onvade them without waging war on NATO

CritiGal
link
fedilink
1012d

I don’t think Russia really had a plan to “onvade” them

Liwott
link
fedilink
-112d

Neither did they have any plan to invade Ukraine… Not arguing whether or not this invasion was justified, but it is happening, and wouldn’t have happened if Ukraine was in NATO.

Ambitions to join NATO was literally the reason Russia invaded Ukraine.

Sightline
link
fedilink
-210d

wow so original

Liwott
link
fedilink
-1012d

Ukraine had no official ambition to join NATO before the Crimea annexation.

@gun
link
fedilink
811d

Ukraine had no official ambition to join NATO before the Crimea annexation.

“Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008.”

Learn your history before you talk about such things

Liwott
link
fedilink
-211d

What about you read the rest of the same Wikipedia paragraph instead of isolating the sentence that seems to make you right?

Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country non-aligned, was elected President. Amid the Euromaidan unrest, Yanukovych fled Ukraine in February 2014. The interim Yatseniuk Government which came to power initially said, with reference to the country’s non-aligned status, that it had no plans to join NATO.

(I stop here as the rest concerns what happens after Russian invasion)

So OK, I didn’t write it in the best possible way (as it couod be read as “Ukraine had never made any plan to join NATO ever”, which was not my intention) but my point is still correct : just before the invasion, Ukraine had no such plans.

Maybe you consider that having had a plan to join NATO 4 years before justifies annexing a part of the country?

@gun
link
fedilink
611d

I’m just disputing a very simple claim you made. 2008 is very simply before the Crimea annexation. So you are very simply wrong.

Liwott
link
fedilink
111d

I indeed poorly choose my words, sorry about that.
What I said :

Ukraine had no official ambition to join NATO before the Crimea annexation.

can be understood in two ways :

  • Ukraine had never had such plans ever
  • Ukraine didn’t have such plans just before the invasion

I meant the second one, but I recognize that I should have stated that more clearly.

Crimea annexation happened as a direct response to the government in Ukraine being couped by the US.

Liwott
link
fedilink
212d

The Maidan revolution happened because of aborted economics ties with EU, and the Maidan government wanted to strengthen economic relations with EU. There was no clear intention to integrate NATO.

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
12d

That’s completely ahistorical. The maidan coup was a color revolution that was instigated by US and one of the goals was to integrate Ukraine militarily into NATO. This is undeniably a fact based on the fact that it’s precisely what’s been happening over the past 8 years.

Liwott
link
fedilink
412d

It seems to me that you are once again using what happened after Crimea’s annexation as an a posteriori justification for it. You are basically saying that Ukraine collaborating with NATO after being invaded by Russia shows that it was previously being aggressive towards Russia. Is there any fact predating Russia’s annexion of Crimea that shows Maidan government’s ambition to join NATO?

Note also that my original point is not contradicting anyithing you said. If Russia invaded Ukraine because of mere signs that it might want to join NATO, what prevents it from doing the same with Finland?
Finland is a EU country that shares a border with Russia and collaborates with NATO, so it is (qualitatively) as much a threat to Russia’s existence as Ukraine was, so it may be invaded by Russia someday for the same reason, so it has a motivation to join NATO to protect itself against that possibility.

Crimea annexation happened as a direct response to A US sponsored coup. The goal of the coup was to install a nationalist government, that Nuland is on the record handpicking, that would collaborate with US agenda to expand NATO into Ukraine.

Before Russia invaded Ukraine, they made clear demands that Ukraine declare neutrality, abandon pursuit of NATO membership, and respect Minsk agreements. Ukraine chose to risk conflict instead. Of course, it’s possible to argue that Russia would’ve invaded anyways, but the fact remains that Ukraine did not attempt to avoid this conflict.

Note also that my original point is not contradicting anyithing you said. If Russia invaded Ukraine because of mere signs that it might want to join NATO, what prevents it from doing the same with Finland?

Russia invaded Ukraine because they saw NATO expansion into Ukraine as a threat to their national security. They made a calculation that a war on their own terms would put them in a stronger position in the long term. Whether Russia would invade Finland or any other country would depend on this sort of calculus.

If you read article 5, then you’ll see that there is no obligation of NATO members to engage militarily. In fact, the level of support Ukraine currently receives from NATO is above and beyond what article 5 stipulates. So, it’s not even clear that NATO membership changes anything in practice.

Ultimately, if both sides continue to escalate then there will be a war between Russia and NATO. This will benefit nobody, and it will certainly be an incredible tragedy for both Europe and Russia. This is where we are headed at the moment.

Liwott
link
fedilink
411d

US sponsored coup. The goal of the coup was to install a nationalist government, that Nuland is on the record handpicking, that would collaborate with US agenda to expand NATO into Ukraine.

Source?

Here are a few sources with the background of the coup and the civil war that followed:

here’s what the researchers and experts have been saying:

https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:

George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"

Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Liwott
link
fedilink
-211d

Could you specifically point out the sources relevant to the statement that the Maidan revolution was orchestrated by the US and directed at integrating Ukraine into NATO?

Literally all the sources I provided are relevant to the maidan coup and US direction of that coup. As someone else pointed out in this thread, Ukraine expressed ambitions to join NATO back in 2008.

Liwott
link
fedilink
-211d

All of them? Great!

First thing first, what does the first one say? Oh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtOx6dW_0vU

So maybe let’s try a simple one. How does an open letter written to Clinton in 97 show that the US orchestrated the Maidan revolution? Seems a bit too early…

I should at least try one that mentions Ukraine. This one looks to have a very relevant title. No mention of Maidan or Crimea though. Some old-time things, some newer-time things, but not a mention to 2014, to the so-called Maidan coup or to Crimea.

Looks like it will take me more time, I’ll come back when I have gone through the hundreds of pages and hours of videos that you sent me. Or you could stop flooding me with red herrings and point out a source to the single claim I asked you a source for. Your call.

Ukraine expressed ambitions to join NATO back in 2008.

And as I answered there the procedure was put aside in 2010 for the sake of neutrality, neutrality that was reaffirmed by the Maidan government.

All of them? Great!

You asked for sources because I assume you wanted to be informed on the subject you’re opining on. Then when you’re provided with sources you bizarrely complain about it. I’m sorry that 30 years of history can’t be summed up in a convenient soundbite for you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

First thing first, what does the first one say?

I’m sorry I didn’t realize the censorship machine already scrubbed the video, here you go https://web.archive.org/web/20220329174945/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtOx6dW_0vU

The video directly addresses the points you were asking about, and hence why I linked it at the top.

So maybe let’s try a simple one. How does an open letter written to Clinton in 97 show that the US orchestrated the Maidan revolution? Seems a bit too early…

An open letter to Clinton in 97 sets up context and background for why the conflict happen. It shows that western experts knew perfectly well that orchestrating a regime change in Ukraine would provoke a reaction from Russia.

Chomsky article along with other articles provide further context and establish the overall picture of how the west acted and the nature of the coup.

And as I answered there the procedure was put aside in 2010 for the sake of neutrality, neutrality that was reaffirmed by the Maidan government.

The ambition to join NATO was never renounced, and it was simply put on hold by the coup regime.

Again, I find it fascinating that you have strong opinions on the subject, but when you’re presented with background and context you start complaining about that. It’s rather strange that somebody would not want to educate themselves on a topic they feel the need to debate.

Liwott
link
fedilink
110d

I’m sorry that 30 years of history can’t be summed up in a convenient soundbite for you.

I didn’t ask for a summary, I asked you about evidence to back up your specific point that the Maidan government planned to join NATO, and that Russia wouldn’t have attacked otherwise.

It is nice of you to provide extra context, what I am calling out is that you didn’t separate the context from the actual answer to my clear specific question

The evidence that the government explicitly said it wanted to join NATO that you yourself already admitted?

Liwott
link
fedilink
-110d

Sorry, what did I say that you interpret as admitting that?

https://lemmy.ml/post/262111/comment/179510

You admit it and then coach it with saying they shelved the plans, which obviously does not change the original intent.

Liwott
link
fedilink
-110d

That application was shelved in 2010 by the Yanukovich government. The Maidan government changed nothing to that status, and explicitly said that it had no intention to join NATO. So from that perspective it is hard to see the Crimean invasion as a direct consequence of that 2008 application.

It was rather, I guess we agree on that, a direct consequence to the Maidan revolution. The link being, you claim, that this government was set up by the US and planned to join NATO. What did it say or do that indicated that it wanted to join NATO? The fact that it didn’t, over a few weeks, cancel the shelved application that the Yanukovych government didn’t cancel over 6 years?

If you don’t understand why US ran a coup in Ukraine and installed the government they did, I really don’t know what else to tell you.

Sightline
link
fedilink
-210d

The disinformation tactic he’s using against you is called “gish gallop”, just FYI.

Liwott
link
fedilink
110d

Thanks a lot, didn’t know the English word ! Was looking for a translation of “mille-feuille argumentatif” from French and didn’t find better than the quantitatively weaker “red herrings”

@crulife
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
10d

deleted by creator

@crulife
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
10d

deleted by creator

Putin is the best salesman for Nato there is.

@OsrsNeedsF2P
link
fedilink
012d

Noooo you have to believe it’s the West intervening in these polls and using propaganda to sway public opinion so NATO can expand their borders eastward in preparation for a proxy war with Russia

Ninmi
creator
link
fedilink
612d

A possible Swedish application for Nato membership would raise backing in Finland to 83 percent.

A clear position by the Finnish president and the government backing membership raise support by around the same margin, to 82 percent.

I don’t really see why people think there’s any real significance to Finland or Sweden joining NATO as these countries don’t have any significant military power.

Ninmi
creator
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
12d

Finland has a disproportionately powerful military and the Baltics have been especially happy about Finland’s possible accession.

In absolute terms, Finland has a tiny military compared to Russia, US, or even Ukraine.

Ninmi
creator
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
12d

I think Russia has shown us that absolute numbers don’t mean much if most of it collects rust. And even if we accept absolute numbers at face value, Finland isn’t tiny. Namely 900k reservists (of which 280k can be mobilized quickly) and largest artillery in Europe behind Ukraine and Russia. Baltics are especially happy about the new F35 jets we decided to acquire.

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
12d

That’s a really weird assessment of the state of the war that appears to be entirely divorced from reality. The numbers clearly do matter, and I’m not sure where this notion that Russian equipment is collecting rust comes from exactly. If anything, that applies to NATO equipment given that NATO stopped doing regular exercises a while back.

The reality of the situation is that Ukrainian army was funded, trained and equipped by NATO to be interoperable with NATO forces. It’s a NATO army in all but name. It was by far the biggest active army in NATO, aside from US, and the only European army to see real combat for the past 8 years of the civil war.

This army is currently being taken apart by Russian forces, and even western media is slowly starting to accept this fact. If you don’t believe me then wait a few months and it will become obvious what the state of things is.

If Ukrainian army can’t stand up to Russia, then I see no reason to think that other European militaries would fare any better given that they don’t have the same level of training or experience that Ukrainian military had.

Furthermore, Russia chose to go into Ukraine with a much more measured approach than what we’ve seen from NATO in places like Iraq or Libya. This would certainly not be the case if Russia was at war with NATO countries.

At the end of the day, continuing on the same path that got us war in Ukraine is pure insanity. The west needs to find a way to coexist with Russia and to take each others concerns seriously. The alternative to that will be a world war and a potential nuclear holocaust. People who refuse to understand this are a danger to all humanity.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
511d

So… You’re saying we should try to take all threats seriously because the whole humanity is in danger? What are your options to coexist and taking concerns seriously when a country sees as it’s right to invade another country over “not listening to the concerns”? How are you dealing with something that clearly does not work both ways?

That is an excellent question you pose. Please tell us how countries should coexist with the US empire that’s been at war for 225 out of 243 years of its existence.

You’re making it out as if Russia is some outlier, as if the west has not normalized going around the world and invading countries. Please, tell us how we’re supposed to deal with NATO countries that have destroyed and plundered nations around the globe for decades. The west murdered over 6 million people with its war on terror alone.

Get off your high horse, and stop pretending that you have some sort of moral superiority here. The reality is that nations will act in what they see as their interest. Russia is no different in this than “civilized” western nations that killed countless millions in their pursuit of world domination.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
11d

“The reality is that nations will act in what they see as their interest.” this is exactly the point, and the reason where “not listening to concerns” clashes. As I see it, it was Ukraine’s decision to get closer to Europe and further away from Russia. Ukraine was looking at their best intrests, Russia was concerned. However, now the “concern” includes invasion, pre-decided “votes”, bombing civilians on purpose, bombing evacuation lines, preventing humanitarian help, raping children etc. Even if Finland has had good relationships with both western world and Russia, who wouldn’t see those things listed earlier now as Finland’s concern?

If there’s a side a country must pick, why would any country pick the worst option of the two? There’s enough examples that being neutral actually means being a target.

There is no clash here. The west has to accept that Russia will act in its interests and try to find ways to work cooperatively instead of escalating tensions.

I don’t know whether you’re genuinely ignorant or simply dishonest, but the fact is that Russia wanted to integrate with the west after USSR fell, but instead the west chose to create an antagonistic relationship with Russia which now culminated in a proxy war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine.

It’s becoming clear to me that people in the west would rather die in a nuclear holocaust then find ways to coexist with others.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
11d

So when co-operation does not succeed, it’s ok to start a war instead of trying to solve things peacefully? Sadly this is the case more often, in west and east.

If something is not clear to me, it’s the reason why to even threat other countries with nuclear weapons. That only shows the incapacity of diplomacy. Diplomacy is also based on trust. And after all these events, trust has more value than money or land.

What are the actual solutions to the situation so we can actually coexist with others in a way it’s best for every country’s interests, in a peaceful way?

And please, let’s not go to the personal level. Blaming others as ingorant or dishonest only shows you are not capable of diplomacy even in a normal conversation.

When cooperation is not attempted, and you keep escalating tensions for 30 years then don’t act surprised when a war starts. Why didn’t NATO try to solve things peacefully in Yugoslavia, Libya, and other countries NATO destroyed?

Why do people in NATO countries act surprised that Russia perceives NATO as a threat given that it’s been aggressively expanding and destroying countries for the past 30 years?

NATO has shown zero capacity for diplomacy, and it attempts to dominate entire world by force. Now that countries are standing up to NATO, all of a sudden we have people moaning that they’re not using diplomacy. If a military alliance acts like a rabid dog then people shouldn’t be surprised at the hostile reaction that provokes.

When you say things that are false then don’t complain when people call you out on that.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy where a double standard is used to dismiss criticisms of one’s own behavior in order to focus instead on the actions of another. People who cry whataboutism engage in empty and cynical deflection of responsibility. Anyone who unironically uses the word “whataboutism” is a pseudo intellectual.

If you can’t even comprehend how NATO expansion east directly resulted in the current situation, there really no point continuing this discussion.

I have heard enough about the reasons for the war. I asked for solutions. So far I haven’t heard any.

You must live a very sheltered life if you managed to avoid hearing any reasons up to now given that people have been talking about this since the fall of USSR. Here are a few examples for you.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Nobody is proving intellectualism to you here. What you’re being told is that your argument is a fallacy, and you’re using it to avoid discussing the core problem of NATO expansion.

You’re a deeply dishonest individual and there is no point continuing this discussion. I’ve explained the solution to you in this very thread, and linked multiple experts on geopolitics who explain how this problem can be avoided. Continuing to pretend that nobody knows how to avoid the problem that people have been explaining how to avoid for decades shows what sort of intellectual you really are.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

I’ve repeatedly provided my opinions and possible solutions. I’ve also linked opinions of experts on the subject who support the kinds of solutions I outlined. You refused to discuss them and instead chose to screech about whataboutism. Now you’re complaining that I’m saying there’s no point in continuing discussion.

Once again, the solution is for the west to engage Russia as an equal and to come up with a security framework that both sides are comfortable with. This is what pretty much every western expert on the subject, from Chomsky to Mearsheimer advocates for.

It’s depressing to see that this is a hard concept for some people to wrap their heads around. Figures that a troll would waste other people’s time for a laugh though.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Diplomacy is not built on trust, it’s built on respect. The west made it clear that the only way to get respect is through force, and that’s what Russia is now using after decades of trying to use diplomacy and running into a wall. I did provide you solutions, as well as links to numerous experts explaining these solutions in details. The fact that you keep ignoring that tells me everything I need to know here.

And absolutely love how you’re now playing a victim here to avoid engaging in honest discussion. Thanks for the laugh bud. You’re a real class act.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Trust is irrelevant. As I’ve already explained, the only thing you can trust is that countries will act in their interest. Understanding what the interests of different countries are and trying to find ways to reconcile those with your own is the only way forward.

The west has a set of interests, and Russia has a set of interests. The solution is to make it less costly to meet respective interests through a peaceful resolution than a conflict. This requires both sides to give something up understanding that if they do not then they stand to lose more when conflict breaks out.

And the only thing I assume here based on our interactions is that you’re a troll who wastes other people’s time. I guess you’re playing to your strengths here.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Again, there is no such thing as trust in geopolitics. It’s about trying to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconciling that with your own.

Brute force is precisely how geopolitics works today and as I’ve already explained in this thread, this is precisely what the west uses to retain its position in the world.

And I love how you aren’t capable of even entertaining the idea that maybe the reason you’re getting downvoted is due to the quality of your comments. Love how you think that you’re being persecuted for your ideas instead. So brave.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
4
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Once you figure out how to create trust in geopolitics then you feel free to pick up your Nobel. The only lesson the west taught Russia is that military force is the only thing the west listens to.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
5
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Perhaps they will, but it’s pretty clear they’re going to get what they want through force since they couldn’t achieve it through diplomacy.

Condemning the invasion and being realistic about the reason for the invasion are two perfectly compatible positions to hold. If we want to avoid wars in the future, we have to understand underlying causes for wars instead of doing moralizing. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to bang together would understand this. In fact, here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:

In contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was most definitely provoked — though in today’s climate, it is necessary to add the truism that provocation provides no justification for the invasion.

Many feel that it is wrong to bring up such matters, even a form of pro-Putin propaganda: we should, rather, focus laser-like on Russia’s ongoing crimes. Contrary to their beliefs, that stand does not help Ukrainians. It harms them. If we are barred, by dictate, from learning about ourselves, we will not be able to develop policies that will benefit others, Ukrainians among them. That seems elementary.

The tactic of dismissing people who want to have a meaningful discussion about the underlying reasons for the conflict is just further dishonesty on your part.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Russia follows Clausewitz philosophy where military force is seen as an extension of diplomacy.

You can spin things any way you like, but once you’re done with sophistry then you have to go back to what I said in my comment above. You have to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconcile them with your own. If both sides are able to do that then direct conflict can be avoided.

Meanwhile, NATO is objectively responsible for far greater atrocities than anything Russia has done. This is an objective fact. There is no moralizing necessary here. NATO behaves in exactly the way that you denounce and the reason it does that is because it can get away with it. NATO follows might makes right philosophy of geopolitics.

And you’re right that these discussions are getting us nowhere, you you keep on believing whatever fantasies you like, just don’t be surprised when your country burns down because your leaders chose to keep escalating tensions instead of finding common ground.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

Your opinion isn’t really relevant I’m afraid. Either you accept reality for what it is or you deal with the consequences.

In the meanwhile, where are the reports of NATO bombing civilian hospitals and schools, raping children, killing civilians without any reason, and preventing humanitarian help? What is a far greater atrocity towards civilians than that? Where are the facts your information is based on?

You’re such an utter ignoramus. Serbia literally has monuments left as a reminder of NATO bombing their cities relentlessly for over a month.

Here’s a list of NATO war crimes and bombings for you since you’re evidently incapable of doing a simple google search before saying something profoundly stupid

Finland is only looking at its best intrests.

It’s creating a situation where it’s more likely to be involved in Russia. If you think that’s in Finland’s interest then sure.

Russia saying you cannot decide what to do. What would’ve your country done in that position?

Would certainly not want my country to escalate tensions with a nuclear superpower, but I guess I’m not a genius like you.

I’d like to repeat what I said before: “There’s enough examples that being neutral actually means being a target.”

Yeah, lots of countries like Yugoslavia and Libya learned it the hard way.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
09d

It’s becoming clear that you are incapable of having a rational discussion on the subject.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

The fact that you are incapable of even acknowledging the crimes of NATO tells me everything I need to know about you.

What I said is pretty clear and doesn’t require verbal diarrhea to reinterpret. All you do here is keep moralizing, but you’re not addressing the root problem I’ve identified.

The reality of the situation is that Russia will do what Russia thinks is best for it, and NATO will do what NATO thinks is best for its members. And if both sides continue thinking that escalating tensions is what best then we will all die, but idiots will die smugly because they will feel they had moral superiority.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

You refuse to acknowledge the fact that NATO is objectively responsible for far more horrific crimes than anything Russia has done. This is a well documented historical fact. If you can’t even bring yourself to admit this, that shows how utterly morally bankrupt you are.

I’m doing the opposite of moralizing here by pointing out that neither side has any high ground, and the only way forward is to de-escalate through diplomacy instead of moralizing and taking some imaginary moral high ground.

I’ve repeatedly explained how you de-escalate. Perhaps go back and read what I said until you’ve managed to comprehend it. There are many examples of this throughout history, but I guess being an utter ignoramus that you are, that will be news to you. I recommend reading up on the Cold War as a prime example where both sides managed to de-escalate and reduce their nuclear stock piles as well as avoid direct military conflict. You are a shockingly ignorant individual if you can’t even think of a single case of how two sides that dislike each other managed to avoid war through politics.

Of course I condemn atrocities that Russia committed as well as the invasion, why wouldn’t I?

Meanwhile, do you condemns atrocities that NATO committed in Yugoslavia, Libya, and other countries it destroyed? I think we both already know where you stand there though.

Finland was not a threat to Russia, and Russia was not threatening Finland in any way last I checked. However, now that Finland will join NATO it will turn itself into a threat to Russia because NATO will now be able to put nuclear missiles on Russian border that will be able to reach major Russian cities in minutes. This was precisely the concern Russia had in Ukraine where NATO nuclear missiles could hit Moscow within five minutes.

And last: if we both know the reasons for the war, why do you keep arguing?

I’m simply explaining to you what real world solutions are that don’t involve a nuclear holocaust. You’re the one arguing here and refusing to accept reality of the situation.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
8d

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?

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.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
8d

deleted by creator

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.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
8d

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.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
8d

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.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
8d

Still, you are pretending to be an expert of these issues, but only provide views that are on the Russian side even if you tell it’s the “reality”. Plus trying to get emotional responses from insults. It’s basically the troll’s handbook you’re playing. That is why you cannot be taken seriously. But please, go on. Entertain us.

I can recommend a janitor job instead. It probably pays more and is much less stressful.

I’m not pretending to be anything. This is what actual military experts say. I’m providing you views that are on the side of reality. I’m sorry reality offends you.

Hilarious how the guy who said that NATO is a defensive alliance that never invades anybody accuses others of trolling. You’ve shown yourself for the 🤡 that you are here.

You’ve consistently shown yourself to be an ignoramus and a liar, perhaps you should take your own advice.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
28d

You are only providing views from military experts that support your views. Reality includes more than one side.

Oh I’m also a troll now? I’m not getting paid. Maybe you can share half of your income? We’d be both happy. It would be only fair.

LMAO just saw you deleting your comments. I guess you finally read them while sober. 😂

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
18d

I put more value to your comments, because they work as a great example how trolls answer on forums, but try to act like a professional and elaborate on “neutral” ideas and how to “de-escalte” conflicts :) It’s valuable stuff, really. We spot trolls daily everywhere, so it’s almost a sport.

We both know that you wrote utter nonsense in this thread, and I caught you lying repeatedly. You know this and I know this.

You keep calling me a troll, but you don’t even have the basic honesty to stand by what you wrote. 🤡

I absolutely love how you think you’re being clever here.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
8d

This response here and twisting the words only verifies what everyone else already knows about you :) I didn’t lie once, but only had a different opinion compared to yours. Your own “sneakiness” backstabs you again.

I stand behind everything I wrote. And on the other hand, you are anonymous so we don’t even know if you can stand in general.

Nobody is twisting anything. I’m stating a plain fact that you lied and then deleted your comments. Now you lack the basic honesty to even acknowledge that. If you stood by anything you wrote you wouldn’t have rushed to delete it all.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
8d

I did not lie. I disagreed with you. You only tried to catch me from a lie because you couldn’t actually but up a good argument without insults and some emotional shit :) I already explained why I deleted the comments.

We both know what I wrote and you immediately switched to the liar scenario after the deletion. So obvious. Is this some new guidebook update?

Feel free to provide views from military experts who disagree. I’m trying to imagine the intellect one would need to have to think that you could get paid to troll on a tiny niche site. 🤡

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
18d

Finnish government made a really long report about the situation, what has been changed, what are the possible effects etc. That report included various experts on multiple different areas. Sadly I haven’t found the english version of it. But that information should be considered as valid.

Oh with my input I wouldn’t get paid anywhere, and I’m not. The real question is, who is paying you, and why Lemmy? Difficult to get banned, eh?

Ah ok, I’ll just have to take the word of a known liar here. 😂

The real question is how somebody like you figured out how to use the internet in the first place. It’s like watching a squirrel do heart surgery.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
18d

A liar? You can download the full PDF from here, but you’ll have to use translator for the content: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/delegate/file/104809

I actually like squirrels. They don’t usually talk shit.

Yes, you are a liar and I caught you lying repeatedly in this thread, then you went on to delete your comments after getting called out. That’s who you are.

@varjolintu
link
fedilink
28d

The PDF is a lie?

@crulife
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
10d

deleted by creator

@crulife
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
10d

deleted by creator

@crulife
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
10d

deleted by creator

Dessalines
banned
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
10d

removed by mod

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

  • 0 users online
  • 34 users / day
  • 64 users / week
  • 122 users / month
  • 370 users / 6 months
  • 2.2K subscribers
  • 1.89K Posts
  • 4.76K Comments
  • Modlog