 |
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
Obviously, it's for the people of Finland and of Sweden to decide because their neutrality is important to them; but would taking a fast track to joining NATO within the next few weeks be in their interests?
Personally, I think it would, for a few reasons:
1. Ukraine not being in NATO - for whatever reasons - meant that Putin didn't have to consider the reality of starting a much larger war, which would likely involve physical damage to Russia.
2. Putin has his hands full right now and wouldn't be able to do anything serious about it if NATO did suddenly become two countries larger.
3. Should they join NATO, it would be a very powerful signal of "Now look what you did, you idiot!" to Putin - and, perhaps, encourage those who rightly oppose him, within Russia itself.
4. Given the state of events as they are - how much worse would they become if Finland and Sweden did join NATO? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Obviously, it's for the people of Finland and of Sweden to decide because their neutrality is important to them; but would taking a fast track to joining NATO within the next few weeks be in their interests?
Personally, I think it would, for a few reasons:
1. Ukraine not being in NATO - for whatever reasons - meant that Putin didn't have to consider the reality of starting a much larger war, which would likely involve physical damage to Russia.
2. Putin has his hands full right now and wouldn't be able to do anything serious about it if NATO did suddenly become two countries larger.
3. Should they join NATO, it would be a very powerful signal of "Now look what you did, you idiot!" to Putin - and, perhaps, encourage those who rightly oppose him, within Russia itself.
4. Given the state of events as they are - how much worse would they become if Finland and Sweden did join NATO?"
Putin has allegedly already threatened Finland and Sweden about joining nato so it might be sooner rather than later  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Obviously, it's for the people of Finland and of Sweden to decide because their neutrality is important to them; but would taking a fast track to joining NATO within the next few weeks be in their interests?
Personally, I think it would, for a few reasons:
1. Ukraine not being in NATO - for whatever reasons - meant that Putin didn't have to consider the reality of starting a much larger war, which would likely involve physical damage to Russia.
2. Putin has his hands full right now and wouldn't be able to do anything serious about it if NATO did suddenly become two countries larger.
3. Should they join NATO, it would be a very powerful signal of "Now look what you did, you idiot!" to Putin - and, perhaps, encourage those who rightly oppose him, within Russia itself.
4. Given the state of events as they are - how much worse would they become if Finland and Sweden did join NATO?
Putin has allegedly already threatened Finland and Sweden about joining nato so it might be sooner rather than later "
Well, as I said, I think they'd be wise to - but it's not for me to decide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tranTV/TS
over a year ago
City |
It's insanity.
Ukraine could have set up autonomous areas, flat out rejected nato, and put attempts to trade with the EU to votes. They might not be here.
But...
A lot of countries are restrained in their approach. But the UK can make statements independent of NATO, for example go to war in IRAQ.
The UK left the EU so is less constrained by the block.
What is stopping the UK saying "If Finland or Norway are attacked we will phone them and ask if they require assistance. They are not nato members so our assistance will not be automatic. But if they request it, the full weight of the British armed forces will be brought to bear"
then say "We have a trade and migration dispute with the EU, but we remember world war 2, we remember 100,000 irish helping us, the french helping us, spanish, gurkas, USA, Australian, Canadians, people of India, and the Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish helping us, and we stand ready to help them in their time of need if called upon".
Why must the UK wait for them to join nato? To get a pound of flesh from them first before defending them? To take money off them in times of peace as insurance?
We should view nato as a group who "gurantee" to defend each other, not "the only ones who get defended". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"It's insanity.
Ukraine could have set up autonomous areas, flat out rejected nato, and put attempts to trade with the EU to votes. They might not be here.
But...
A lot of countries are restrained in their approach. But the UK can make statements independent of NATO, for example go to war in IRAQ.
The UK left the EU so is less constrained by the block.
What is stopping the UK saying "If Finland or Norway are attacked we will phone them and ask if they require assistance. They are not nato members so our assistance will not be automatic. But if they request it, the full weight of the British armed forces will be brought to bear"
then say "We have a trade and migration dispute with the EU, but we remember world war 2, we remember 100,000 irish helping us, the french helping us, spanish, gurkas, USA, Australian, Canadians, people of India, and the Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish helping us, and we stand ready to help them in their time of need if called upon".
Why must the UK wait for them to join nato? To get a pound of flesh from them first before defending them? To take money off them in times of peace as insurance?
We should view nato as a group who "gurantee" to defend each other, not "the only ones who get defended"."
So are you saying the UK should send in troops to Ukraine ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"It's insanity.
Ukraine could have set up autonomous areas, flat out rejected nato, and put attempts to trade with the EU to votes. They might not be here.
But...
A lot of countries are restrained in their approach. But the UK can make statements independent of NATO, for example go to war in IRAQ.
The UK left the EU so is less constrained by the block.
What is stopping the UK saying "If Finland or Norway are attacked we will phone them and ask if they require assistance. They are not nato members so our assistance will not be automatic. But if they request it, the full weight of the British armed forces will be brought to bear"
then say "We have a trade and migration dispute with the EU, but we remember world war 2, we remember 100,000 irish helping us, the french helping us, spanish, gurkas, USA, Australian, Canadians, people of India, and the Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish helping us, and we stand ready to help them in their time of need if called upon".
Why must the UK wait for them to join nato? To get a pound of flesh from them first before defending them? To take money off them in times of peace as insurance?
We should view nato as a group who "gurantee" to defend each other, not "the only ones who get defended"."
1. Norway is a member of NATO.
2. The UK lacks the military capacity to act alone. It's not 1982 any more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"NATO was formed to keep Russia in check, maybe time for a rethink ..."
It was formed to protect its member nations from attack by the Soviet Union, six years before the Warsaw Pact.
It has more than achieved that - and, so far, continues to.
However, given the way the world is changing; as you say, a rethink might not be a bad idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Agree it’s time for a rethink . The whole reason Russia feels threatened is because of NATO expansion. Reduced flight times for strategic weapons less time for a counter attack . The doctrine of MAD is unbalanced . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Agree it’s time for a rethink . The whole reason Russia feels threatened is because of NATO expansion. Reduced flight times for strategic weapons less time for a counter attack . The doctrine of MAD is unbalanced . "
Not quite. Even with reduced flight times and advanced defence systems, the nukes are going to get through. So, MAD is definitely still assured. Perversely, that's a good thing.
We really do need to be regularly reminded of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the same way as we are about the Holocaust.
For it is the doom of men, that they forget. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Agree it’s time for a rethink . The whole reason Russia feels threatened is because of NATO expansion. Reduced flight times for strategic weapons less time for a counter attack . The doctrine of MAD is unbalanced .
Not quite. Even with reduced flight times and advanced defence systems, the nukes are going to get through. So, MAD is definitely still assured. Perversely, that's a good thing.
We really do need to be regularly reminded of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the same way as we are about the Holocaust.
For it is the doom of men, that they forget."
Nukes have only ever been used on innocent civilians. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Obviously, it's for the people of Finland and of Sweden to decide because their neutrality is important to them; but would taking a fast track to joining NATO within the next few weeks be in their interests?
Personally, I think it would, for a few reasons:
1. Ukraine not being in NATO - for whatever reasons - meant that Putin didn't have to consider the reality of starting a much larger war, which would likely involve physical damage to Russia.
2. Putin has his hands full right now and wouldn't be able to do anything serious about it if NATO did suddenly become two countries larger.
3. Should they join NATO, it would be a very powerful signal of "Now look what you did, you idiot!" to Putin - and, perhaps, encourage those who rightly oppose him, within Russia itself.
4. Given the state of events as they are - how much worse would they become if Finland and Sweden did join NATO?"
putin wants russia to be back to the 1960's where it ruled supreme over the iron curtain countries and that is his aim now  the big question is,, does nato have the balls to stand against him and his dream of being the tzar of russia...  i very much doubt it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Unfortunately that’s just western propaganda you’re spouting and if NATO does attack we will all be swinging from the atmosphere lol .
It’s already been said that NATO won’t attack, Ukraine is just like all the other proxy wars fought during the Cold War . IMO |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I agree , those weapons however were mere firecrackers compared to todays modern ones .
I think the ABM systems moved closer to the Russian borders are also a major concern as they can be quickly changed to offensive weapons . Don’t forget both sides are developing hypersonic delivery vehicles which negates ABM |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agree , those weapons however were mere firecrackers compared to todays modern ones .
I think the ABM systems moved closer to the Russian borders are also a major concern as they can be quickly changed to offensive weapons . Don’t forget both sides are developing hypersonic delivery vehicles which negates ABM "
Russia has hypersonic missiles in service not developing they are tested and are in use we have nothing like it and are years behind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ancy38Woman
over a year ago
galway |
"Obviously, it's for the people of Finland and of Sweden to decide because their neutrality is important to them; but would taking a fast track to joining NATO within the next few weeks be in their interests?
Personally, I think it would, for a few reasons:
1. Ukraine not being in NATO - for whatever reasons - meant that Putin didn't have to consider the reality of starting a much larger war, which would likely involve physical damage to Russia.
2. Putin has his hands full right now and wouldn't be able to do anything serious about it if NATO did suddenly become two countries larger.
3. Should they join NATO, it would be a very powerful signal of "Now look what you did, you idiot!" to Putin - and, perhaps, encourage those who rightly oppose him, within Russia itself.
4. Given the state of events as they are - how much worse would they become if Finland and Sweden did join NATO?"
How about disband NATO altogether. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"I agree , those weapons however were mere firecrackers compared to todays modern ones .
I think the ABM systems moved closer to the Russian borders are also a major concern as they can be quickly changed to offensive weapons . Don’t forget both sides are developing hypersonic delivery vehicles which negates ABM
Russia has hypersonic missiles in service not developing they are tested and are in use we have nothing like it and are years behind."
Yes they have but the second they launch one triggers a barrage from all over the world and it's game over and not just for Russia |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Obviously, it's for the people of Finland and of Sweden to decide because their neutrality is important to them; but would taking a fast track to joining NATO within the next few weeks be in their interests?
Personally, I think it would, for a few reasons:
1. Ukraine not being in NATO - for whatever reasons - meant that Putin didn't have to consider the reality of starting a much larger war, which would likely involve physical damage to Russia.
2. Putin has his hands full right now and wouldn't be able to do anything serious about it if NATO did suddenly become two countries larger.
3. Should they join NATO, it would be a very powerful signal of "Now look what you did, you idiot!" to Putin - and, perhaps, encourage those who rightly oppose him, within Russia itself.
4. Given the state of events as they are - how much worse would they become if Finland and Sweden did join NATO? putin wants russia to be back to the 1960's where it ruled supreme over the iron curtain countries and that is his aim now the big question is,, does nato have the balls to stand against him and his dream of being the tzar of russia... i very much doubt it "
Yes, it does. And it is. And Putin knows it is.
What he's doing know is, roughly, the equivalent of Hitler's invasion of France, in terms of land area and population.
It will be far harder for him to achieve victory, since - unlike in 1940 - half of the country getting invaded won't lie down to him.
Invading a large country is one thing, holding it is something else; as anyone who has invaded Afghanistan will be able to tell you.
The notion that Putin could get away with invading any member of NATO - given NATO's reaction to him invading a non-member state - is fanciful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Finland and Sweden deciding to join NATO could also cause Russia to attack them.
That's pretty much what happened to Ukraine"
No. It wouldn't. He's already far too stretched with Ukraine to even consider an attack on Finland or Sweden.
Ukraine got attacked because it's not in NATO - and because the NATO governments - particularly those of the USA and UK - didn't hammer Putin with the sort of sanctions they're employing now, 8 years ago, when he invaded Crimea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Obviously, it's for the people of Finland and of Sweden to decide because their neutrality is important to them; but would taking a fast track to joining NATO within the next few weeks be in their interests?
Personally, I think it would, for a few reasons:
1. Ukraine not being in NATO - for whatever reasons - meant that Putin didn't have to consider the reality of starting a much larger war, which would likely involve physical damage to Russia.
2. Putin has his hands full right now and wouldn't be able to do anything serious about it if NATO did suddenly become two countries larger.
3. Should they join NATO, it would be a very powerful signal of "Now look what you did, you idiot!" to Putin - and, perhaps, encourage those who rightly oppose him, within Russia itself.
4. Given the state of events as they are - how much worse would they become if Finland and Sweden did join NATO?
How about disband NATO altogether. "
And replace it with what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"Unfortunately that’s just western propaganda you’re spouting and if NATO does attack we will all be swinging from the atmosphere lol .
It’s already been said that NATO won’t attack, Ukraine is just like all the other proxy wars fought during the Cold War . IMO "
Quite right. Destruction is as mutually assured as it's ever been.
We Will All Go Together When We Go by Tom Lehrer is even truer now than it was when he first sang it in March 1959.
Apart from anything else, there are more than twice as many of us, worldwide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
But anyway the question was how much worse could Sweden and Finland be if they joined NATO
Its very risky imo. They could end up far worse off. Maybe you'll say they won't but it's a distinct possibility.
At the moment they are secure. So do they risk that security to try to be extra secure?
Very risky |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"But anyway the question was how much worse could Sweden and Finland be if they joined NATO
Its very risky imo. They could end up far worse off. Maybe you'll say they won't but it's a distinct possibility.
At the moment they are secure. So do they risk that security to try to be extra secure?
Very risky "
Indeed, I did ask that. And you're right, there's a risk to it - which they realise. They've been neutral for a long time and not without reason.
However, I happen to think that the balance of risk has changed for them, from out being riskier than in.
Although, as I also said, it's for them to decide. If they feel they have to at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
