quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
None of this is going to end well...

For whom sir ? Splain thyself.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I realize now that my remark could be interpreted as a criticism of the forum in general, but that was not my intent.

It makes you look like a smirking snob, and I don't appreciate you posting it, not one damn bit, and I'll tell you something else- it's not the first time I've seen remarks like that from you, as if you have to hold your nose to be amongst the great unwashed in this forum. How you can claim that it was not intended as a commentary on the forum in general, is beyond me- or are you going to tell me that you don't actually know the definition of "inane"? That's the long-form version of "I'm just saying..."

Limiting your "participation in threads unrelated to guns and shooting..."

In case you haven't noticed, threads not directly related to guns and shooting make up the greater part of this forum these days, but, hey, you didn't mean anything by it.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Why would this necessarily weaken Putin?

Plus, it puts NATO weapons and airfields very close to St. Petersburg, if it comes to that, which I hope it never does.

Most of the important bits of Russia are pretty well away from their borders, but their #2 city with a bit over 5 million people is maybe 70 miles from Finland.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
If I shared a border with Russia I would have joined decades ago.

We are doing many things wrong, Finland joining NATO isn’t one of them.

Finland has a very capable army and will be an asset to NATO.
They haven't forgotten the 1939 Winter War either. A Finish general replied to Putin threats about joining NATO by saying "You are most welcome here to join the 200,000 Russians that are already in Finland buried a few meters in the ground after your last attempt in 1939."
Finland has suffered for a very long time just for being neighbors to the Russian Bear.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
We're going to keep poking that bear.

Wolves eat bear.

Congrats and welcome to NATO, Finland! Yes, agree. It's also good for Scandinavia or the Nordics as a whole, however you want to define it. Looking forward so seeing Sweden's accession to NATO as well in 2023 to help backstop Finland and Norway in the North and the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea, etc. in the South.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
None of this is going to end well...

For whom sir ? Splain thyself.

For ANYONE...The whole situation is fraught with potential disaster. I don't really have confidence the level heads are in charge on either side. I don't believe that Finland (or potentially Sweden) 'needs' to be a member of NATO in order to be secure, and don't think there would be ANY hesitation from NATO countries to come to their assistance, should they need it. I also don't think Finland (or Sweden) joining NATO is ANY real deterrent whatsoever, but rather is antagonistic towards Russia! Regardless, they will primarily view it in that context.

We're poking the bear here, and risk potentially disastrous consequences that cannot be undone once set in motion. There have been numerous agreements/assurances from NATO that they would not expand their membership eastward towards Russia, and would not offer membership to border states, and yet, look at where we are. It's not as if Russia hasn't been telegraphing their concerns on the subject...They've been doing so for quite some time! Combine this with our 'As long as it takes, Whatever it costs' policy of ever increasing escalation in Ukraine and you're in VERY dangerous territory! You can only poke the bear so much, and again, I'm NOT confident level heads are in charge on EITHER side! It's just not worth it...

Nhracecraft. Disagree with most of what you stated above.

Curious Nhracecraft, if you've ever been to the Nordics, Russia, Eastern Europe either lately or, during the bad old days of the Cold War? Trying to understand the basis of your statements. I'm just curious.

Disagree w/ MOST? It's entirely unclear how you could come to that conclusion. Care to share some specifics? I don't need to have been there...To understand the basis of my statements you only need to look at post Cold War history. What's your position on the coup we orchestrated in Ukraine? Anything else we should add to that fire? I don't see any of this ending well...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
I don't believe that Finland (or potentially Sweden) 'needs' to be a member of NATO in order to be secure, and don't think there would be ANY hesitation from NATO countries to come to their assistance, should they need it.

Standardization, communications and joint exercises are a big part of what makes NATO NATO.

quote:

I also don't think Finland (or Sweden) joining NATO is ANY real deterrent whatsoever, but rather is antagonistic towards Russia!

The Finns, who live there and who've interacted with the Russians since Muscovy first came into existence, disagree that it's not a deterrent. It's also hard to see how joining a defensive alliance in the face of Russian aggression is 'antagonistic' towards Russia.

quote:

We're poking the bear here[snip]

Everything that has happened from the creation of NATO to the decision to supply Ukraine has flowed from European concerns about their own safety that have been repeatedly justified by arbitrary and threatening behavior on Russia's part as well as Russia's well-known history of running the countries it controls - like Hungary and Czechoslovakia in particular. Not only does that affect us as Europe's ally, but we've faced hostility, subversion and threats from Russia on an on-going basis for at least 65 of the last 75 years in our own right. Russia has no one to blame but itself for what happened, and there's no other response from us that actually addresses the problem that Russia has made a state policy of being for the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
There have been numerous agreements/assurances from NATO that they would not expand their membership eastward towards Russia, and would not offer membership to border states, and yet, look at where we are. It's not as if Russia hasn't been telegraphing their concerns on the subject...They've been doing so for quite some time! Combine this with our 'As long as it takes, Whatever it costs' policy of ever increasing escalation in Ukraine and you're in VERY dangerous territory! You can only poke the bear so much, and again, I'm NOT confident level heads are in charge on EITHER side! It's just not worth it...

^^^
I'd be interested in your sources because even Gorbachev called that one out as incorrect.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog...e-gorbachev-says-no/

https://web.archive.org/web/20...pics_111767.htm#c203

https://www.politifact.com/fac...oke-agreement-again/

So these assholes thumb their nose at joining NATO for decades to save money and bank on us keeping Russia under control. At the first sign that Russia is going back to the old ways now all of a sudden they want in, sorry but they should back pay for the free protection they’ve been getting for years. And I say this being part Finnish and having family over there.

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
So these assholes thumb their nose at joining NATO for decades to save money and bank on us keeping Russia under control. At the first sign that Russia is going back to the old ways now all of a sudden they want in, sorry but they should back pay for the free protection they’ve been getting for years. And I say this being part Finnish and having family over there.

The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 dictated what Finland could do during the Cold War.

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
So these assholes thumb their nose at joining NATO for decades to save money and bank on us keeping Russia under control. At the first sign that Russia is going back to the old ways now all of a sudden they want in, sorry but they should back pay for the free protection they’ve been getting for years. And I say this being part Finnish and having family over there.

How were they saving money? Rogue already pointed out on page 1 that they spend a larger percentage of GDP on defense than most current NATO members. Not being part of NATO wasn't a money-saving endeavor for them.

It's great that the Finns are on board and eager to pay their fair share. We need all members pulling their weight and more political cooperation among members. Can we stop sending checks to Ukraine now? Can we possibly just get some kind of peace process in place? You know, so we can at least pretend we would like to end the hostilities at some point.

Teams are forming up before the final big game.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 dictated what Finland could do during the Cold War.

Yep. Their options at the end of WW2 were basically to either retain (most of) their independence by agreeing to be a neutral buffer state, or be reabsorbed into Russia/Soviet Union.

Even after the Cold War ended, Finland continued to have to walk a fine line with Russia.

Their approach to their relations with the Soviet Union/Russia has been extremely pragmatic. During the Cold War, they remained neutral but Soviet-leaning by necessity and geographic reality. After the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they became more West-leaning, but retained their neutrality to placate Russian concerns.

But Finland finally made the decision last year that their style over the previous decades of diplomatic tightrope walking and internal military preparedness was no longer sufficient to outweigh the risk posed by Russia, and that only the backing of NATO military allies (and potentially even their nuclear deterrence) could provide their nation with sufficient security from increased Russian aggression.

Sweden made the same choice.

And don't forget that it was Russia's actions and choices over the last decade that led to those two nations feeling that NATO membership was their best (and perhaps only realistic) option.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
But Finland finally made the decision last year that their style over the previous decades of diplomatic tightrope walking and internal military preparedness was no longer sufficient to outweigh the risk posed by Russia, and that only the backing of NATO military allies (and potentially even their nuclear deterrence) could provide their nation with sufficient security from increased Russian aggression.

Sweden made the same choice.

And don't forget that it was Russia's actions and choices over the last decade that led to those two nations feeling that NATO membership was their best (and perhaps only realistic) option.

By this, I assume you mean that the Swedes have decided that Russian aggression has pushed them into the alliance, not that they maintained neutrality due to the same reasons as Finland post WW2.

Sweden has a long history of neutrality dating back two centuries. Sweden has maintained, more or less, neutrailty since Charles XII (early 18th century), after the Swedish empire lost what is today Finland to the Russians. However, in reality, Sweden is a friend of the west, with or without NATO.

Anyone remember the time in 1987 that the Swedes saved a SR-71 from being downed by the Soviets? The Blackbird was over Swedish airspace, disabled, and the Swedes could have forced the issue. Instead, they escorted the Blackbird, keeping the Soviet Foxbats at bay, until it could be escorted by NATO craft.

There's several videos about the incident. I enjoy the ones told by the old warriors who were actually in the cockpits of the aircraft involved.

Yes. I meant that Sweden made a similar determination last year that the approach they had been taking was no longer viable, and joining NATO was necessary.

And Sweden's neutrality was not respected by Moscow. The 70s the Swedes were upset that there was underwater probes of their naval bases. NATO accused Russia, and Russia accused NATO. No one was able to prove the other side. Until the Whiskey on the Rocks incident. A Soviet Whiskey class diesel electric sub ran aground near the Swede's main naval base. Big oops number one. Things were starting to get settled down until during the 'safety inspection' someone just had a Geiger Counter next to the sub. And it went nuts. The Soviets had to admit that there were two nuclear tipped torpedoes on their sub that somehow got lost in the Baltic on a training exercise... Big oops number 2.

And I've seen some former US Navy sonar tech on YouTube doing videos on acoustic tapes Sweden released a few years ago that are able to prove that the Russians have still been poking their noses inside Sweden's territorial waters to collect intel on Sweden.