FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Looks like Finland is going to join NATO
Looks like Finland is going to join NATO
Jump to: Newest in thread
Ok folk how long before Putin invades Finland before it joins NATO
How many on here think like me that Putin isnt going to take this lying down we all got big problems a head if Findland dose join NATO |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok folk how long before Putin invades Finland before it joins NATO
How many on here think like me that Putin isnt going to take this lying down we all got big problems a head if Findland dose join NATO"
The UK has already agreed to support Finland and Sweden militarily.
If Russia invades either then they get a NATO member as opposition and that could lead to all of NATO.
Is Putin that crazy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The last time Russia invaded Finland they suffered large losses. You would expect the same to happen again.
Finland has a funky military setup - basically they have trained a large percentage of the population who could be mobilised at very short notice. If Russia were to invade then Finland could hold them off for a decent amount of time. Add in the back up that they would get from others (such as the UK) and it suddenly gets very tricky for Russia. Invading Finland would not work out well.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Ok folk how long before Putin invades Finland before it joins NATO
How many on here think like me that Putin isnt going to take this lying down we all got big problems a head if Findland dose join NATO"
Finland has one of the largest armies in Europe… and they are very… very well trained… the Russians won’t do shit! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Putin is getting his ass kicked hard in Ukraine, do you think he would like to have the same thing happen to him in Finland?
It seems now if the west provides weapons the chances the Russians can counter is difficult.
The myth of the Russian army is being dispelled, he could resort to Nuclear weapons, but that is if he see possible direct intervention e.g. boots on the ground. So an Afghanistan circa 1980’s scenario is the best option, support logistically don’t go face to face. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Some people seem to think that Turkey will block the Swedish and Finnish applications "
So it seems. I wasn't aware that application acceptance has to be unanimous. My scepticism suggests that's unwise as it only takes one to block a benefit for the many...and besides, isn't Erdogan a little too pally with Putin? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Some people seem to think that Turkey will block the Swedish and Finnish applications
So it seems. I wasn't aware that application acceptance has to be unanimous. My scepticism suggests that's unwise as it only takes one to block a benefit for the many...and besides, isn't Erdogan a little too pally with Putin? "
More than likely scared of him  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Some people seem to think that Turkey will block the Swedish and Finnish applications "
The Turks will bluster for a bit but with all the pressure they won’t want to be the only one blocking the move… the swedes and Finns will get in quickly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" The Turks will bluster for a bit but with all the pressure they won’t want to be the only one blocking the move… the swedes and Finns will get in quickly "
There's a real irony in the neo-Nazi Turkish leader backing Putin!
(Not really, considering that Putin is a fascist. Yet, ironic given the narrative Putin is trying to spin.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Some people seem to think that Turkey will block the Swedish and Finnish applications
The Turks will bluster for a bit but with all the pressure they won’t want to be the only one blocking the move… the swedes and Finns will get in quickly "
My Understanding is Hungry may also veto. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Some people seem to think that Turkey will block the Swedish and Finnish applications
The Turks will bluster for a bit but with all the pressure they won’t want to be the only one blocking the move… the swedes and Finns will get in quickly
My Understanding is Hungry may also veto. "
The countries who want to make a something out of it will hang on for a sweetner
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"Ok folk how long before Putin invades Finland before it joins NATO
How many on here think like me that Putin isnt going to take this lying down we all got big problems a head if Findland dose join NATO
The UK has already agreed to support Finland and Sweden militarily.
If Russia invades either then they get a NATO member as opposition and that could lead to all of NATO.
Is Putin that crazy?"
No, but Boris hardmanski needs to keep his mouth shut and stop unilaterally poking the bear. "We'll stand by Sweden", that nuclear weapon, Poseidon 2M39 Tsunami torpedo might be headed our way soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Agree,why the fuck is it no one mentions assisnate one fucking twat ?,how can one guy cause so much death "
It wpuld not be just one though as his close circle are just as hardline as he is.
Unless they are just good actors! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"Agree,why the fuck is it no one mentions assisnate one fucking twat ?,how can one guy cause so much death "
There are rumours of a coup, the only issue might be - it's by hardliners that believe Russia need to be more aggressive in Ukraine and towards the West.
The 'good guys' are locked up.
Be careful what you wish for.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO. "
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name "
Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy."
I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy.
I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? "
come to their aid same with Sweden too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? "
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy.
I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? "
Not totally sure but think it largely depends on what Finland ask for. It will be up to them to ask for assistance , and specify what type of assistance they want |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy.
I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? come to their aid same with Sweden too"
Thanks
Worrying situation considering our lack of defence against an all out conventional attack from Russia.
Are we becoming the playground loudmouth who’s about to be chinned in front of all our friends who will do nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires. "
There is zero chance of the Russians attacking the fins… Finland have 280,000 regulars plus 900,000 reservists… plus they are all super trained and have the latest tech!!
If Russia went to war with Finland there would be a greater chance of Finland getting back all the land they succeeded to Russia in 1940 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy.
I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? come to their aid same with Sweden too
Thanks
Worrying situation considering our lack of defence against an all out conventional attack from Russia.
Are we becoming the playground loudmouth who’s about to be chinned in front of all our friends who will do nothing. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy.
I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? come to their aid same with Sweden too
Thanks
Worrying situation considering our lack of defence against an all out conventional attack from Russia.
Are we becoming the playground loudmouth who’s about to be chinned in front of all our friends who will do nothing. "
an all out conventional attack from Russia ffs have you not seen how shit they are against ukrain they couldn’t manage anything to worry about for the U.K. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Turkey is still refusing to lift its veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Won’t make any difference in reality… they have both sign security pacts with the uk, the us, and various other countries in the last week… that basically covers them in all but name Exactly as soon as boris signed a security deal with them they were virtually signed up by proxy.
I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ? come to their aid same with Sweden too
Thanks
Worrying situation considering our lack of defence against an all out conventional attack from Russia.
Are we becoming the playground loudmouth who’s about to be chinned in front of all our friends who will do nothing. "
Not exactly sure how a conventional war would even happen. Maybe the navy and airforce but certainly no ground troops. Advantage of being an island. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires. "
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Without their Nukes i’d bet Nato would already be all over Russia and driving all the way to Moscow for regime change (or control the oil and gas).
From their performance so far they seem to be an utter shambles of an army in conventional terms. Finland And the UK have little to fear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Without their Nukes i’d bet Nato would already be all over Russia and driving all the way to Moscow for regime change (or control the oil and gas).
From their performance so far they seem to be an utter shambles of an army in conventional terms. Finland And the UK have little to fear. "
I thought the same. If he didn't have nukes I think NATO would have had enough and counterattacked. Xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Without their Nukes i’d bet Nato would already be all over Russia and driving all the way to Moscow for regime change (or control the oil and gas).
From their performance so far they seem to be an utter shambles of an army in conventional terms. Finland And the UK have little to fear. "
Driving into Moscow isn't a defensive stance though as NATO proportional to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If he didn't have nukes I think NATO would have had enough and counterattacked. Xx
Not a chance. NATO are very aware of Russia's friends - many of whom also have nuclear weapons. "
Yeah, NATO would have invaded years ago |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If he didn't have nukes I think NATO would have had enough and counterattacked. Xx
Not a chance. NATO are very aware of Russia's friends - many of whom also have nuclear weapons. "
do Russia really have friends lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If he didn't have nukes I think NATO would have had enough and counterattacked. Xx
Not a chance. NATO are very aware of Russia's friends - many of whom also have nuclear weapons. do Russia really have friends lol"
More concerned about what they have got and how many.
Satan and Satan mark 2s
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If he didn't have nukes I think NATO would have had enough and counterattacked. Xx
Not a chance. NATO are very aware of Russia's friends - many of whom also have nuclear weapons. "
There's only really China, I'm not sure they'd help. India I'm sure wouldn't. Xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think all this threat of ww3 could have been avoided.
After the Soviet enemy crumbled in the 90s, NATO kept growing and also didn't change tack on attitude with Russia.
That I reckon has shaped the course of Russia into what it is today.
Too late now though.
Remember Iran? Once a much less problem than it is today until the Americans toppled the government there, backfired and Endee up with the country it is now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires.
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response. "
the reality is that the US would first have to get agreement in the upper house to go to war without any appetite for it from the voters. it's doubtful that there would be any agreement in the upper house, other than on the supply of weapons in exchange for new US bases on UK owned soil and the bankrupting & plundering of the UK economy yet again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires.
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response.
the reality is that the US would first have to get agreement in the upper house to go to war without any appetite for it from the voters. it's doubtful that there would be any agreement in the upper house, other than on the supply of weapons in exchange for new US bases on UK owned soil and the bankrupting & plundering of the UK economy yet again."
Russia invades a sovereign nation state in Europe and the US won’t react despite 70+ years of European troop deployment? You can’t seriously be suggesting that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires.
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response.
the reality is that the US would first have to get agreement in the upper house to go to war without any appetite for it from the voters. it's doubtful that there would be any agreement in the upper house, other than on the supply of weapons in exchange for new US bases on UK owned soil and the bankrupting & plundering of the UK economy yet again.
Russia invades a sovereign nation state in Europe and the US won’t react despite 70+ years of European troop deployment? You can’t seriously be suggesting that."
you seem politically naive chap |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires.
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response.
the reality is that the US would first have to get agreement in the upper house to go to war without any appetite for it from the voters. it's doubtful that there would be any agreement in the upper house, other than on the supply of weapons in exchange for new US bases on UK owned soil and the bankrupting & plundering of the UK economy yet again.
Russia invades a sovereign nation state in Europe and the US won’t react despite 70+ years of European troop deployment? You can’t seriously be suggesting that.
you seem politically naive chap "
In that case can you pleas explain to this naive chap why the US has positioned troops in mainland Europe pretty constantly since the end of the Second World War? I assume that because they clearly are not here for defensive purposes against. Russian threat (as per your argument) then it is because they don’t have enough room for them back home? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires.
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response.
the reality is that the US would first have to get agreement in the upper house to go to war without any appetite for it from the voters. it's doubtful that there would be any agreement in the upper house, other than on the supply of weapons in exchange for new US bases on UK owned soil and the bankrupting & plundering of the UK economy yet again.
Russia invades a sovereign nation state in Europe and the US won’t react despite 70+ years of European troop deployment? You can’t seriously be suggesting that.
you seem politically naive chap
In that case can you pleas explain to this naive chap why the US has positioned troops in mainland Europe pretty constantly since the end of the Second World War? I assume that because they clearly are not here for defensive purposes against. Russian threat (as per your argument) then it is because they don’t have enough room for them back home?"
what a nice strawman you're building there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires.
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response.
the reality is that the US would first have to get agreement in the upper house to go to war without any appetite for it from the voters. it's doubtful that there would be any agreement in the upper house, other than on the supply of weapons in exchange for new US bases on UK owned soil and the bankrupting & plundering of the UK economy yet again.
Russia invades a sovereign nation state in Europe and the US won’t react despite 70+ years of European troop deployment? You can’t seriously be suggesting that.
you seem politically naive chap
In that case can you pleas explain to this naive chap why the US has positioned troops in mainland Europe pretty constantly since the end of the Second World War? I assume that because they clearly are not here for defensive purposes against. Russian threat (as per your argument) then it is because they don’t have enough room for them back home?
what a nice strawman you're building there "
I am only asking you to educate me as you have pointed out I am naive. Please do enlighten me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I didn’t read the detail on this was it to supply weapons or come to their aid in the event they are attacked ?
i did. our idiot leader signed us up to go to war if sweden and finland are attacked. turkey's veto has left the uk dangerously exposed as our pact would mean that if we go to the aid of either finland or sweden then nato no longer have our back. johnski is a moronic idiot with no idea of the statesmanship which his role as PM requires.
Seriously? If Finland or Sweden were attacked and we defended them then the US would be right behind us. That is the only power coupling that meaningful matters in Europe at the moment.
The reality is that an attack on any European country - particularly in the Northern Arctic - would elicit a strong UK and US response.
the reality is that the US would first have to get agreement in the upper house to go to war without any appetite for it from the voters. it's doubtful that there would be any agreement in the upper house, other than on the supply of weapons in exchange for new US bases on UK owned soil and the bankrupting & plundering of the UK economy yet again.
Russia invades a sovereign nation state in Europe and the US won’t react despite 70+ years of European troop deployment? You can’t seriously be suggesting that.
you seem politically naive chap
In that case can you pleas explain to this naive chap why the US has positioned troops in mainland Europe pretty constantly since the end of the Second World War? I assume that because they clearly are not here for defensive purposes against. Russian threat (as per your argument) then it is because they don’t have enough room for them back home?
what a nice strawman you're building there
I am only asking you to educate me as you have pointed out I am naive. Please do enlighten me."
he can’t lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
