What do you all think of this?
Ukraine: gets invaded because they want to join NATO
Finland: clearly we need to join NATO to protect ourselves
I’m shitposting but yeah.
What I find more amazing is that somehow they were able to get the population on board with this proposal. At what point do you, as a normal citizen, think that escalation and prodding is going to save you. I don’t think Russia has even spoken of Finland in recent years. They don’t care about you bro. But just stick a somewhat attractive young PM and you can pass any policy you want it seems (we love our neoliberal girlbosses 😍)
I’ve heard so many people say that if Putin doesn’t get stopped he’ll invade all of Europe. People think Putin has the mindset of Swiper from Dora and that we need to yell: ‘Swiper no swiping’ in order for him to stop.
That there has been an eight year long civil war prior to this doesn’t seem to matter anymore.
According to them, only Russian propagandists claim or say it ever happened, at this point. I am convinced not to bother with these twisted rotten meatskulls, that wish China go back to melting iron and Russia go back to post USSR times or get balkanised.
You joke, but that’s the propaganda line. Almost verbatim.
“Latvia joined NATO and didn’t get invaded, Ukraine didn’t join and got invaded. Ergo join NATO or Putler will invade!!”
As a finn, I remember in school how we were taught how great finnish independence was. Too bad our current leadership only cares about independence only nominally…
they only mean independence from russia. thats why massacring red finns was “totally awesome and great”
What are they teaching in schools about the Russian Empire period?
What I can remember, I was taught that was that Finland was part of Russia around 1800-1918. It wasn’t a very good time. Independence just “came from somewhere”. (No mention of Lenin or the bolsheviks) Civil war was around 1917, white army was more on the “good side”.
We never went much into detail on the reasons behind anything. I might have missed something, since history wasn’t interesting to me back then. I hope you can get something from this rough picture.
Doesn’t really change anything. Russia has no plans to attack finland, and NATO already would have intervened if that happened anyway.
Surely it changes the status of whatever troops and weapons NATO has stashed there? Including nukes. And all at the distance of about twenty minute drive from Russia’s second most populated city
They were already in for all purposes.
It’s a formality. It’s always been de facto a member of NATO anyway, in the same way that Belarus is firmly on the Russian side.
I’m more surprised that it took this long.
next up: “Finland places nuclear missiles on border with Russia – Russia isn’t happy for some reason”
Cue torrent of articles on “Russian aggressive politics”, “Putin’s ambitions”, some obligatory bs about “USSR 2.0” and dramatic (and totally true!) stories about “brave Finnish patriots defending their beloved homeland against invading orcs”
What I’m curious about is why if both Sweden and Finland are defacto NATO states, why only Finland?
Is so they can still “dangle” Swedish membership? As if that would threaten the Russians or something? Giving them room to “escalate”?
Sweden is a major gun, arms, and ammunition manufacturer and exporter. They sell large amounts to everyone (including Russia) and have for decades.
Their neutrality benefits their arms industry and the Swedish government is hesitant to give that up.
They sell large amounts to everyone (including Russia)
What have they been selling to Russia?
By international law all arms sales sponsored by UN countries for use by national militaries is publicly visible in great detail. So for example in the past year alone it is visible that Sweden has sold the Russian military $492,300 dollars alone worth of materials in the “Bombs, Grenades, Torpedoes, Mines, Missiles and Similar Munitions of War” category.
They have also hilariously sold the Russian military $233 dollars worth of “Swords, Cutlasses, Bayonets, Lances”.
This also does not take into account weapons imported to Russia for use by police forces, the civilian market, and sporting use.
Also this is only the military industry, the civilian markets between Russia and Sweden trade over a billion dollars annually worth of civilian goods, industrial equipment, resources and other items. For example the three largest Swedish exports to Russia is 326 million dollars of pharmaceuticals, 250 million dollars of industrial chemicals, and 155 million dollars of nuclear reactor parts and equipment.
A hostile relationship with Russia would lead to a painful loss for the Swedish economy.
Well that is extremely interesting! Thank you for this. The half a million for munitions confuses me, especially since it was apparently already during the SMO.
Oh thanks I did not know that.
So while we are on the topic, what European countries aren’t American vassals?
Is there a rundown of European geopolitics? Am I misunderstanding which are vassals?
Isn’t Europe realizing it can’t abandon China? Do they have that independence?
No country in Europe is a true vassal to the US in the historical lordship definition. In fact, such extreme control would be counterproductive to the United States. Instead the US holds the fear of economic isolation over the heads of every single European nation so that none step out of line. Only when this economic isolation fails, for example in the case of Yugoslavia, will the US declare direct action.
So imagine it as if the US lets European nations do whatever they want whenever they want, but the US is always holding a 500 ton boulder over their heads “Just in case”. So while they have the “choice”, there are no alternatives to the US and they will be crushed.
This isn’t just isolated to Europe. The US uses this same system with almost every single nation and region on the planet without fail. Which is why countries such as China are such an existential threat, as China offers an alternative to the US. The same goes for economic blocs such as BRICS, the Warsaw Bloc, and the African market.
I see, just some countries more than others then. Also, why would it be counter productive? Economically or geopolitically? (well those are connected in some regard)
Is this also why some European leaders are flirting with China a little? So they can play both sides?
just a succdem country being a succdem country
It’s bad, basically.
