Russia will respond to Finland with ”surprise”

[Guest]

I think a full war is sadly inevitable, and we gotta be grateful for these moments right now without war in your country because I think for Europe we will go through tough things, it's inevitable. No one wants to chill. It's true I wonder why you'd choose to do this now, when the fire is burning high, at the same time I get it but now France and UK said they'll defend Finland in case they get attacked so basically we enter a full war and it'll be whether Russia truly decides to attack. And who knows if they will, right now it's 50/50 change of a full war, if not Nuclear who knows? I truly wish we focused on climate change and transitionning into clean energy but instead we gonna have to deal with dumb **** again, im tired of this world it's stupid people r stupid and it's sad 

[PartySick 172,484]

Just now, LoliLux said:

The NATO expansion is the real reason why these things happen. Russia only invades a country if it is perceived as a security threat and NATO is perceived as a security threat, and this is the reason why neutrality is the best option to avoid being attacked by Russia.

That's nonsense though

Like, let's say that's actually true and Russia really is concerned about NATO expansion. Then they're wrong. It's a defense alliance. Not an offensive one. The only reason Russia's neighbors are even considering NATO membership is because Russia is threatening them.

2 minutes ago, LoliLux said:

This is also the reason why there was a crisis in Cuba, because the US didn't allow Cuba to have severe weapons there.

The US is not a role model for military foreign relations

Don't forget that time a bunch of Iranian and Afghan terrorists (that we created, btw) were working out of Pakistan to attack us so our answer to that attack was to invade...Iraq  overthrowing governments, arming eventual terrorists, if you can defend Russia by saying "well the US did it too" then Russia is wrong

4 minutes ago, LoliLux said:

Countries, as I wrote in the post above, like Mongolia, Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan, that did not want to join NATO and don't have these plans, were not attacked by Russia since 1991. Only Georgia and Ukraine, were attacked so far, two countries that border Russia and had plans to join Russia.

I'm going to leave this bit for the people who are more informed of the politics of that region but to the rest of your points, you can't bow to Russia just because they're bullying and threatening their neighbors. It's like telling the gay kid to stop holding hands with his boyfriend at school and the bullies will stop picking on him or telling a woman to not wear a skirt if she doesn't want to get assaulted. It's backwards reasoning and lends itself to victim blaming.

[Nathan 2,079]

20 minutes ago, Not The Real Gaga said:

You're wrong.

No, I’m not.

I just dont believe Russian propaganda, I would suggest you also give ignoring it a go. 

[FfFfFfFF 58,111]

5 minutes ago, LoliLux said:

The NATO expansion is the real reason why these things happen. Russia only invades a country if it is perceived as a security threat

 

Russia invaded Moldova in 1991-1992. Moldova had at the time basically no army as it just became independent from URSS. Russia invades countries to bully them back to its sphere of influence and forcefully assert Kremlin's power over them. 

Also small corection about Azerbaijan - Russia already has troops in Azeri soil, in Nagorno-Karabah. Russia did not ''invade'' Azerbaijan per se, but still established a military presence there.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

1 minute ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Soviet Russia invaded Afganistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and while post-90s Russia invaded Moldova - neither of them wanted to join NATO. Russia also sent military during the 2021 protests in Kazahstan. Also, Ukraine was not living in peace before 2014, saying this doesn't paint the whole picture acurrately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution. The country was constantly struggling between self-rule towards Euro-atlantic integration and Russian interference since at least the 2000s.

But ultimately it doesn't completelly matter. Russia doesn't have ''the right'' to invade any country. All countries are free to join the military or political alliances they want with or without their neighbours' approval. 

Russia sent military to Kazakstan because the Kazakstan president asked him to do so. You're right about Moldova, though Transnistria declared its secession from the rest of Moldova even before Moldova got its independence. There was never a time, when Transnistria was under the rule of a souvereign Moldova because it has always been separate from the new nation Moldova. When the new world of 1991 started to emerge, Transnistria was already de facto independent.

 

I agree, that Russia does not have a right to invade any country. I also think that no country should attack another country. However, I would like to remind that the US also have no  right to invade Iran, Iraq or other muslim countries. Russia observes the world and sees that the US don't obey the no-attack-rule and then Russia doesn't feel obliged to these rules either.

[TaylorSwift 162,381]

14 minutes ago, LoliLux said:

The NATO expansion is the real reason why these things happen. Russia only invades a country if it is perceived as a security threat and NATO is perceived as a security threat, and this is the reason why neutrality is the best option to avoid being attacked by Russia.

so why Putin wanted to join Nato?
In 2000 he suggested in a television interview that Russia would consider joining NATO.
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe and from . . . what we often talk about as the civilized world," Putin said. "Therefore, it is with difficulty that I imagine NATO as an enemy."

 NATO expansion is as an excuse, he wants to rebuild the Soviet Union as @PartySick said

[PartySick 172,484]

Can I take a moment to ask what Russia can actually do to Finland though?

Their army can't even handle farmers with tractors and they've resorted to leaving bombs in residential areas they're pushed out of.

Does anyone really think they're going to split their already sh*t forces between two countries?  why? To have two failed invasions?

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,111]

11 minutes ago, LoliLux said:

Russia sent military to Kazakstan because the Kazakstan president asked him to do so. You're right about Moldova, though Transnistria declared its secession from the rest of Moldova even before Moldova got its independence. There was never a time, when Transnistria was under the rule of a souvereign Moldova because it has always been separate from the new nation Moldova. When the new world of 1991 started to emerge, Transnistria was already de facto independent.

 

I agree, that Russia does not have a right to invade any country. I also think that no country should attack another country. However, I would like to remind that the US also have no  right to invade Iran, Iraq or other muslim countries. Russia observes the world and sees that the US don't obey the no-attack-rule and then Russia doesn't feel obliged to these rules either.

Russia didn't allow Chechnya to secede, using the same logic Russia had no justification in supporting Transnistria's so called independence from the republic it belonged to. Moreover, Transnistria is a pure Russian proxy that Russia uses as a vassal, not an independent country that had genuine auto-determination goals (same exact situation as the so-called Donetsk and Luhanks People's Republic in eastern Ukraine).

What US did in other places doesn't matter when we are talking about something different entirely. Russia doesn't have a right to invade and US doing questionable things in its foreign affairs doesn't give any justification to Russia. This is a dangerous argument which will almost inevitabily lead to whataboutism ''See they are bad, why can't we be bad too?''.

[lavender blonde 692]

35 minutes ago, LoliLux said:

Of course, this is clearly the reason and this has been said many times. What makes you think this is not the reason?

Ukraine was living in peace after 1991, until politcians wanted to join NATO in the early 2010s and then it was attacked for the first time. The same with Georgia. So how do you explain that Ukraine was not attacked in times when it did not want to join NATO?

Other countries like Mongolia and Kazakhstan that border Russia, that did not want to join NATO, were never attacked by Russia since 1991. it is a matter of fact, that since 1991, Russia never attacked a country that did not want to join NATO and that all countries that opted for neutrality , were never attacked by Russia since 1991. This is why neutrality is the best option for Finland.

No, I don't think that Ukraine is a Nazi country because it is not a Nazi country.

 

Yeah and you know why Russia didn't invade Mongolia, Kazakhstan and others? Because they have pro-Russian goverments that let Russia exploit them. That's the reason why they didn't invade Ukraine sooner - because they had Yanukovych who was a Russian puppet and ruled because he rigged the election. Russia is on good terms with you, but only if you give up your sovereignty and do anything they want.

I don't know where you're from but I come from Poland, a country that was under USSR occupation for years. They killed our people, raped our women and stole from us. They stole our coal and sent us sand in return That's how "friendship" with Russia always worked and if you're against it you're apparently a Nazi

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

7 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

so why Putin wanted to join Nato?
 

It seems that neither Russia nor NATO wanted Russia to be part of the NATO because neither NATO nor Putin made any serious moves about this becoming reality, after Putin said these words.  These words were said, then they were bogged down. One source says Russia was not serious with this plan, another source say, NATO didn't want Russia to enter, another source said the time plan was too long for Russia and that is why Russia opted to invest instead in its own military defence. We don't really know the reason, the case was not pursued.

I think it is important to have a buffer zone between the West and Russia, if there is no buffer zone, the risk of escalation increases. I do not endsore war. I do endorse, though, a neutral buffer zone. When Finland and Sweden will join NATO, the NATO will become much more powerful, the weaker Russia is, the more likely it is, that it will use desperate measures to halt its decline and one of them could indeed by the use of nuclear weapons in the atlantic ocean or so, not directly on souvereign territory of another country.

 

 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

18 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

What US did in other places doesn't matter when we are talking about something different entirely. Russia doesn't have a right to invade and US doing questionable things in its foreign affairs doesn't give any justification to Russia. This is a dangerous argument which will almost inevitabily lead to whataboutism ''See they are bad, why can't we be bad too?''.

You're absolutely right and I agree with you and your logics and they have a firm moral ground. I was to highlight that Russia observes the world and when it sees other powerful countries who do not correspond to United Nations rules, then Russia feels less  obliged either because it feels that the US gains an unfair advantage, while it remains "limited" and this is why Russia also disobeys the rules because it feels that the US will keep to expand, while it is not. This is - as you wrote- no justification, and it can never be a justification and it should not be this way. It is , though an explanation of  how things are and why they are this way.

[FfFfFfFF 58,111]

19 minutes ago, LoliLux said:

You're absolutely right and I agree with you and your logics and they have a firm moral ground. I was to highlight that Russia observes the world and when it sees other powerful countries who do not correspond to United Nations rules, then Russia feels less  obliged either because it feels that the US gains an unfair advantage, while it remains "limited" and this is why Russia also disobeys the rules because it feels that the US will keep to expand, while it is not. This is - as you wrote- no justification, and it can never be a justification and it should not be this way. It is , though an explanation of  how things are and why they are this way.

I agree with you, but I do not believe US' foreign policy mistakes impact Russia's actions. Russia has been opressing its neighbours before US existed as an independent country. Even if US would had never stepped a foot in the Middle East, Russia would have acted as bold or even bolder across the globe. 

Also about the buffer zone idea - what do we do when the countries in the buffer democratically and legally decide to end their non-allignment? Neither the US or Russia should be able to intervene and dictate one's country's foreign policies. Usually, when Russia argues for a buffer what it really mean is a space where it can freely assert its power. Should we seek to forcefully maintain an unnatural buffer just becase Russia wants so?

[Not Chrissy Teigen 59]

1 hour ago, LoliLux said:

Of course, this is clearly the reason and this has been said many times. What makes you think this is not the reason?

Ukraine was living in peace after 1991, until politcians wanted to join NATO in the early 2010s and then it was attacked for the first time. The same with Georgia. So how do you explain that Ukraine was not attacked in times when it did not want to join NATO?

Other countries like Mongolia and Kazakhstan that border Russia, that did not want to join NATO, were never attacked by Russia since 1991. it is a matter of fact, that since 1991, Russia never attacked a country that did not want to join NATO and that all countries that opted for neutrality , were never attacked by Russia since 1991. This is why neutrality is the best option for Finland.

No, I don't think that Ukraine is a Nazi country because it is not a Nazi country.

 

Ukraine only wanted to join European Union before Russia attacked it
 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

37 minutes ago, lavender blonde said:

 

I don't know where you're from but I come from Poland, a country that was under USSR occupation for years. They killed our people, raped our women and stole from us. They stole our coal and sent us sand in return That's how "friendship" with Russia always worked and if you're against it you're apparently a Nazi

That is very tragic and I hope Poland will never suffer from war and occupation again. However, I think we must be fair towards Russia, though. Poland was destroyed in World War II by Germany and if we say that Russia could attack Poland again, we must also say, that Germany could also do it even if it does not look like it - after all Germany did the greatest destruction upon Poland.

History was my favorite subject and learnt a lot about Poland. Britain and France promised Poland to help if Hitler would attack Poland. But France and Britain broke their promise and did not help Poland and let it suffer during WWII.

"In 1939 Britain and France signed a series of military agreements with Poland that contained very specific promises.  The leaders of Poland understood very clearly that they had no chance against Germany alone. The French, in fact, promised the Poles in mid-May 1939 that in the event of German aggression against Poland, France would launch an offensive against the Germans "no later than fifteen days after mobilization".  This promise was sealed in a solemn treaty signed between Poland and France. Unfortunately, when Germany attacked, Poland was almost totally and completely betrayed by its democratic "friends". (Source: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/History/polandbetrayal.htm )

I think this is also the reason why Poland opposes the idea of an EU army and seeks help from the US - because it was abandoned in the past by France and the UK, while the US so far have not , though Poland has never been in such a case again.

However, I wonder, if Poland received no help from Britain and France during WWII, even though they were treaties, do you think the rest of Europe would help Poland actively (not just sending weapons)?

So yes, your friendship with Russia was bad. Considering history, I would say that Britain and France are also bad friends for Poland. As the article says "After the war it (Poland) had to suffer 45 years as colony of the Soviet Union as result of agreement signed by its "friends" Britain and America." It doesn't excuse anything of what the SU did, but it shows us that Britain and France also play a role because they did not help Poland.

[Dennis 8,391]

I just continue to be amazed by how many Putin apologists I encounter online. It's mindblowing. Even on GagaDaily there's plenty of them.