- •
- yle.fi
- •
- kaksi kuukautta
- •
- yle.fi
- •
- kaksi kuukautta
Yle poll: Support for Nato membership soars to 76%
yle.fiSupport for joining the alliance has risen by 14 percentage points since March.
You must log in or register to comment.
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
- 0 users online
- 12 users / day
- 39 users / week
- 66 users / month
- 286 users / 6 months
- 21 subscribers
- 1.33K Posts
- 3.42K Comments
- Modlog
Putin is the best salesman for Nato there is.
Noooo you have to believe it’s the West intervening in these polls and using propaganda to sway public opinion so NATO can expand their borders eastward in preparation for a proxy war with Russia
I don’t really see why people think there’s any real significance to Finland or Sweden joining NATO as these countries don’t have any significant military power.
Finland has a disproportionately powerful military and the Baltics have been especially happy about Finland’s possible accession.
In absolute terms, Finland has a tiny military compared to Russia, US, or even Ukraine.
I think Russia has shown us that absolute numbers don’t mean much if most of it collects rust. And even if we accept absolute numbers at face value, Finland isn’t tiny. Namely 900k reservists (of which 280k can be mobilized quickly) and largest artillery in Europe behind Ukraine and Russia. Baltics are especially happy about the new F35 jets we decided to acquire.
That’s a really weird assessment of the state of the war that appears to be entirely divorced from reality. The numbers clearly do matter, and I’m not sure where this notion that Russian equipment is collecting rust comes from exactly. If anything, that applies to NATO equipment given that NATO stopped doing regular exercises a while back.
The reality of the situation is that Ukrainian army was funded, trained and equipped by NATO to be interoperable with NATO forces. It’s a NATO army in all but name. It was by far the biggest active army in NATO, aside from US, and the only European army to see real combat for the past 8 years of the civil war.
This army is currently being taken apart by Russian forces, and even western media is slowly starting to accept this fact. If you don’t believe me then wait a few months and it will become obvious what the state of things is.
If Ukrainian army can’t stand up to Russia, then I see no reason to think that other European militaries would fare any better given that they don’t have the same level of training or experience that Ukrainian military had.
Furthermore, Russia chose to go into Ukraine with a much more measured approach than what we’ve seen from NATO in places like Iraq or Libya. This would certainly not be the case if Russia was at war with NATO countries.
At the end of the day, continuing on the same path that got us war in Ukraine is pure insanity. The west needs to find a way to coexist with Russia and to take each others concerns seriously. The alternative to that will be a world war and a potential nuclear holocaust. People who refuse to understand this are a danger to all humanity.
So… You’re saying we should try to take all threats seriously because the whole humanity is in danger? What are your options to coexist and taking concerns seriously when a country sees as it’s right to invade another country over “not listening to the concerns”? How are you dealing with something that clearly does not work both ways?
That is an excellent question you pose. Please tell us how countries should coexist with the US empire that’s been at war for 225 out of 243 years of its existence.
You’re making it out as if Russia is some outlier, as if the west has not normalized going around the world and invading countries. Please, tell us how we’re supposed to deal with NATO countries that have destroyed and plundered nations around the globe for decades. The west murdered over 6 million people with its war on terror alone.
Get off your high horse, and stop pretending that you have some sort of moral superiority here. The reality is that nations will act in what they see as their interest. Russia is no different in this than “civilized” western nations that killed countless millions in their pursuit of world domination.
“The reality is that nations will act in what they see as their interest.” this is exactly the point, and the reason where “not listening to concerns” clashes. As I see it, it was Ukraine’s decision to get closer to Europe and further away from Russia. Ukraine was looking at their best intrests, Russia was concerned. However, now the “concern” includes invasion, pre-decided “votes”, bombing civilians on purpose, bombing evacuation lines, preventing humanitarian help, raping children etc. Even if Finland has had good relationships with both western world and Russia, who wouldn’t see those things listed earlier now as Finland’s concern?
If there’s a side a country must pick, why would any country pick the worst option of the two? There’s enough examples that being neutral actually means being a target.
There is no clash here. The west has to accept that Russia will act in its interests and try to find ways to work cooperatively instead of escalating tensions.
I don’t know whether you’re genuinely ignorant or simply dishonest, but the fact is that Russia wanted to integrate with the west after USSR fell, but instead the west chose to create an antagonistic relationship with Russia which now culminated in a proxy war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine.
It’s becoming clear to me that people in the west would rather die in a nuclear holocaust then find ways to coexist with others.
So when co-operation does not succeed, it’s ok to start a war instead of trying to solve things peacefully? Sadly this is the case more often, in west and east.
If something is not clear to me, it’s the reason why to even threat other countries with nuclear weapons. That only shows the incapacity of diplomacy. Diplomacy is also based on trust. And after all these events, trust has more value than money or land.
What are the actual solutions to the situation so we can actually coexist with others in a way it’s best for every country’s interests, in a peaceful way?
And please, let’s not go to the personal level. Blaming others as ingorant or dishonest only shows you are not capable of diplomacy even in a normal conversation.
When cooperation is not attempted, and you keep escalating tensions for 30 years then don’t act surprised when a war starts. Why didn’t NATO try to solve things peacefully in Yugoslavia, Libya, and other countries NATO destroyed?
Why do people in NATO countries act surprised that Russia perceives NATO as a threat given that it’s been aggressively expanding and destroying countries for the past 30 years?
NATO has shown zero capacity for diplomacy, and it attempts to dominate entire world by force. Now that countries are standing up to NATO, all of a sudden we have people moaning that they’re not using diplomacy. If a military alliance acts like a rabid dog then people shouldn’t be surprised at the hostile reaction that provokes.
When you say things that are false then don’t complain when people call you out on that.
deleted by creator
Whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy where a double standard is used to dismiss criticisms of one’s own behavior in order to focus instead on the actions of another. People who cry whataboutism engage in empty and cynical deflection of responsibility. Anyone who unironically uses the word “whataboutism” is a pseudo intellectual.
If you can’t even comprehend how NATO expansion east directly resulted in the current situation, there really no point continuing this discussion.
You must live a very sheltered life if you managed to avoid hearing any reasons up to now given that people have been talking about this since the fall of USSR. Here are a few examples for you.
deleted by creator
Nobody is proving intellectualism to you here. What you’re being told is that your argument is a fallacy, and you’re using it to avoid discussing the core problem of NATO expansion.
You’re a deeply dishonest individual and there is no point continuing this discussion. I’ve explained the solution to you in this very thread, and linked multiple experts on geopolitics who explain how this problem can be avoided. Continuing to pretend that nobody knows how to avoid the problem that people have been explaining how to avoid for decades shows what sort of intellectual you really are.
deleted by creator
I’ve repeatedly provided my opinions and possible solutions. I’ve also linked opinions of experts on the subject who support the kinds of solutions I outlined. You refused to discuss them and instead chose to screech about whataboutism. Now you’re complaining that I’m saying there’s no point in continuing discussion.
Once again, the solution is for the west to engage Russia as an equal and to come up with a security framework that both sides are comfortable with. This is what pretty much every western expert on the subject, from Chomsky to Mearsheimer advocates for.
It’s depressing to see that this is a hard concept for some people to wrap their heads around. Figures that a troll would waste other people’s time for a laugh though.
deleted by creator
Diplomacy is not built on trust, it’s built on respect. The west made it clear that the only way to get respect is through force, and that’s what Russia is now using after decades of trying to use diplomacy and running into a wall. I did provide you solutions, as well as links to numerous experts explaining these solutions in details. The fact that you keep ignoring that tells me everything I need to know here.
And absolutely love how you’re now playing a victim here to avoid engaging in honest discussion. Thanks for the laugh bud. You’re a real class act.
deleted by creator
Trust is irrelevant. As I’ve already explained, the only thing you can trust is that countries will act in their interest. Understanding what the interests of different countries are and trying to find ways to reconcile those with your own is the only way forward.
The west has a set of interests, and Russia has a set of interests. The solution is to make it less costly to meet respective interests through a peaceful resolution than a conflict. This requires both sides to give something up understanding that if they do not then they stand to lose more when conflict breaks out.
And the only thing I assume here based on our interactions is that you’re a troll who wastes other people’s time. I guess you’re playing to your strengths here.
deleted by creator
Again, there is no such thing as trust in geopolitics. It’s about trying to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconciling that with your own.
Brute force is precisely how geopolitics works today and as I’ve already explained in this thread, this is precisely what the west uses to retain its position in the world.
And I love how you aren’t capable of even entertaining the idea that maybe the reason you’re getting downvoted is due to the quality of your comments. Love how you think that you’re being persecuted for your ideas instead. So brave.
deleted by creator
Once you figure out how to create trust in geopolitics then you feel free to pick up your Nobel. The only lesson the west taught Russia is that military force is the only thing the west listens to.
deleted by creator
Perhaps they will, but it’s pretty clear they’re going to get what they want through force since they couldn’t achieve it through diplomacy.
Condemning the invasion and being realistic about the reason for the invasion are two perfectly compatible positions to hold. If we want to avoid wars in the future, we have to understand underlying causes for wars instead of doing moralizing. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to bang together would understand this. In fact, here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
The tactic of dismissing people who want to have a meaningful discussion about the underlying reasons for the conflict is just further dishonesty on your part.
deleted by creator
Russia follows Clausewitz philosophy where military force is seen as an extension of diplomacy.
You can spin things any way you like, but once you’re done with sophistry then you have to go back to what I said in my comment above. You have to understand the goals and motivations of others, then reconcile them with your own. If both sides are able to do that then direct conflict can be avoided.
Meanwhile, NATO is objectively responsible for far greater atrocities than anything Russia has done. This is an objective fact. There is no moralizing necessary here. NATO behaves in exactly the way that you denounce and the reason it does that is because it can get away with it. NATO follows might makes right philosophy of geopolitics.
And you’re right that these discussions are getting us nowhere, you you keep on believing whatever fantasies you like, just don’t be surprised when your country burns down because your leaders chose to keep escalating tensions instead of finding common ground.
deleted by creator
Your opinion isn’t really relevant I’m afraid. Either you accept reality for what it is or you deal with the consequences.
You’re such an utter ignoramus. Serbia literally has monuments left as a reminder of NATO bombing their cities relentlessly for over a month.
Here’s a list of NATO war crimes and bombings for you since you’re evidently incapable of doing a simple google search before saying something profoundly stupid
It’s creating a situation where it’s more likely to be involved in Russia. If you think that’s in Finland’s interest then sure.
Would certainly not want my country to escalate tensions with a nuclear superpower, but I guess I’m not a genius like you.
Yeah, lots of countries like Yugoslavia and Libya learned it the hard way.
It’s becoming clear that you are incapable of having a rational discussion on the subject.
deleted by creator
The fact that you are incapable of even acknowledging the crimes of NATO tells me everything I need to know about you.
What I said is pretty clear and doesn’t require verbal diarrhea to reinterpret. All you do here is keep moralizing, but you’re not addressing the root problem I’ve identified.
The reality of the situation is that Russia will do what Russia thinks is best for it, and NATO will do what NATO thinks is best for its members. And if both sides continue thinking that escalating tensions is what best then we will all die, but idiots will die smugly because they will feel they had moral superiority.
deleted by creator
You refuse to acknowledge the fact that NATO is objectively responsible for far more horrific crimes than anything Russia has done. This is a well documented historical fact. If you can’t even bring yourself to admit this, that shows how utterly morally bankrupt you are.
I’m doing the opposite of moralizing here by pointing out that neither side has any high ground, and the only way forward is to de-escalate through diplomacy instead of moralizing and taking some imaginary moral high ground.
I’ve repeatedly explained how you de-escalate. Perhaps go back and read what I said until you’ve managed to comprehend it. There are many examples of this throughout history, but I guess being an utter ignoramus that you are, that will be news to you. I recommend reading up on the Cold War as a prime example where both sides managed to de-escalate and reduce their nuclear stock piles as well as avoid direct military conflict. You are a shockingly ignorant individual if you can’t even think of a single case of how two sides that dislike each other managed to avoid war through politics.
Of course I condemn atrocities that Russia committed as well as the invasion, why wouldn’t I?
Meanwhile, do you condemns atrocities that NATO committed in Yugoslavia, Libya, and other countries it destroyed? I think we both already know where you stand there though.
Finland was not a threat to Russia, and Russia was not threatening Finland in any way last I checked. However, now that Finland will join NATO it will turn itself into a threat to Russia because NATO will now be able to put nuclear missiles on Russian border that will be able to reach major Russian cities in minutes. This was precisely the concern Russia had in Ukraine where NATO nuclear missiles could hit Moscow within five minutes.
I’m simply explaining to you what real world solutions are that don’t involve a nuclear holocaust. You’re the one arguing here and refusing to accept reality of the situation.
deleted by creator
Russia tried to make peace with NATO for 30 years since the collapse of USSR, and even asked to join NATO at one point. Throughout this whole time the west continued to escalate tensions with Russia and expanded NATO dramatically despite original assurances that it wouldn’t. Now you’re telling me that it’s a fault of Russia’s politics that they’ve reacted to this?
My options of how to de-escalate includes being realistic about Russia’s economic and military capability. You are the one who are talking about fantasies. So far, you have yet to explain what you’re proposing here aside from a nuclear holocaust.
The thing is that NATO has destroyed numerous countries over the years and has always taken a hostile stance towards Russia. It’s not surprising to anyone who has even a handful of functioning brain cells why Russia would perceive NATO as a threat.
NATO is literally an aggressive military alliance that HAS invaded multiple countries in the past 30 years. If you’re going to lie at least lie about something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds. It’s strange that you would choose such an obvious thing to lie about.
If you don’t understand that a nuclear holocaust is a very likely outcome then you’re far dumber than I’ve thought.
deleted by creator
Utterly bizarre statement given that Russia never threatened Finland in any way until it decided to join NATO. Furthermore, it’s not clear what benefit Finland gets from being part of NATO since it’s pretty clear that NATO would support Finland in case of a war. Once you read the article 5, you’ll realize that the level of support that Ukraine received is above and beyond what it requires.
All Finland has done is to increase the possibility of being involved in a conflict with a nuclear superpower. Some real galaxy brain logic here.
deleted by creator
Your fundamental mistake is in asserting that NATO provides some added protection. There is no real basis for this fact. Ukraine had a military that’s far greater than any NATO military aside from US. Their military is also the only European military with any combat experience from 8 years of civil war.
If Russia is able to defeat this army then there is little chance that the rest of NATO would fare any better. While US has a large and capable military, it’s not committed to the European theater.
If Finland and Sweden were looking at their best interests then they would remain neutral.
deleted by creator
As I’ve explained, there is little reason to believe that NATO provides any added protection in practice and creates a situation where Russia has a reason to attack Finland or Sweden where previously they did not have one. If that makes you feel safer then what else is there to say.
Other European countries don’t have militaries that are in any way comparable to Russia or even to Ukraine, and article 5 does not oblige them to help militarily. The level of aid provided to Ukraine is above and beyond of what article 5 requires. Thinking that Finland would get more aid than Ukraine received is not based on any facts I’m aware of.
Russian army was never in a position to take Kiev. The fact that you think that further demonstrates how utterly ignorant you are on the subject you continue to attempt debating. Simple math shows that Russia could not take Kiev with 40k troops because that was roughly the amount of troops Ukraine had stationed in Kiev and you need three to one advantage for the attackers. Russia is clearly aware of that since they used this formula in Mariupol. What Russia did in Kiev was a fixing operation that prevented forces stationed there from reinforcing forces in the east that are currently being surrounded.
Again, I’m not looking at Russia’s interests. I’m explaining you sober reality of the situation. When Ukraine was neutral, Russia had a working relationship with Ukraine. Hostilities started after 2014 coup that was orchestrated by US. Now, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in a similar situation. Good luck with that.
Still, you are pretending to be an expert of these issues, but only provide views that are on the Russian side even if you tell it’s the “reality”. Plus trying to get emotional responses from insults. It’s basically the troll’s handbook you’re playing. That is why you cannot be taken seriously. But please, go on. Entertain us.
I can recommend a janitor job instead. It probably pays more and is much less stressful.
I’m not pretending to be anything. This is what actual military experts say. I’m providing you views that are on the side of reality. I’m sorry reality offends you.
Hilarious how the guy who said that NATO is a defensive alliance that never invades anybody accuses others of trolling. You’ve shown yourself for the 🤡 that you are here.
You’ve consistently shown yourself to be an ignoramus and a liar, perhaps you should take your own advice.
You are only providing views from military experts that support your views. Reality includes more than one side.
Oh I’m also a troll now? I’m not getting paid. Maybe you can share half of your income? We’d be both happy. It would be only fair.
LMAO just saw you deleting your comments. I guess you finally read them while sober. 😂
I put more value to your comments, because they work as a great example how trolls answer on forums, but try to act like a professional and elaborate on “neutral” ideas and how to “de-escalte” conflicts :) It’s valuable stuff, really. We spot trolls daily everywhere, so it’s almost a sport.
We both know that you wrote utter nonsense in this thread, and I caught you lying repeatedly. You know this and I know this.
You keep calling me a troll, but you don’t even have the basic honesty to stand by what you wrote. 🤡
I absolutely love how you think you’re being clever here.
This response here and twisting the words only verifies what everyone else already knows about you :) I didn’t lie once, but only had a different opinion compared to yours. Your own “sneakiness” backstabs you again.
I stand behind everything I wrote. And on the other hand, you are anonymous so we don’t even know if you can stand in general.
Nobody is twisting anything. I’m stating a plain fact that you lied and then deleted your comments. Now you lack the basic honesty to even acknowledge that. If you stood by anything you wrote you wouldn’t have rushed to delete it all.
I did not lie. I disagreed with you. You only tried to catch me from a lie because you couldn’t actually but up a good argument without insults and some emotional shit :) I already explained why I deleted the comments.
We both know what I wrote and you immediately switched to the liar scenario after the deletion. So obvious. Is this some new guidebook update?
Feel free to provide views from military experts who disagree. I’m trying to imagine the intellect one would need to have to think that you could get paid to troll on a tiny niche site. 🤡
Finnish government made a really long report about the situation, what has been changed, what are the possible effects etc. That report included various experts on multiple different areas. Sadly I haven’t found the english version of it. But that information should be considered as valid.
Oh with my input I wouldn’t get paid anywhere, and I’m not. The real question is, who is paying you, and why Lemmy? Difficult to get banned, eh?
Ah ok, I’ll just have to take the word of a known liar here. 😂
The real question is how somebody like you figured out how to use the internet in the first place. It’s like watching a squirrel do heart surgery.
A liar? You can download the full PDF from here, but you’ll have to use translator for the content: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/delegate/file/104809
I actually like squirrels. They don’t usually talk shit.
Yes, you are a liar and I caught you lying repeatedly in this thread, then you went on to delete your comments after getting called out. That’s who you are.
The PDF is a lie?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
removed by mod