Posted on 04/04/2022 7:08:36 AM PDT by lodi90
I don't care about other borders when our illegal government intentionally collapsed our Southern border.
” The globalists are now controlling NATO”
You do realize that NATO is an international alliance? By definition the globalists have always been running it.
We do need allies. If we had not held Europe against Soviet attack in the Cold War we would be having this conversation over our gruel at an Alaskan gulag.
It’s probably in Finland’s best interests to join NATO. But it’s probably in America’s best interests if Finland did not join NATO. And that’s the problem with alliances. They drag you in unhealthy directions.
Washington had a point when he advised the country to avoid foreign entanglements.
Considering what happened to Russia the last time they screwed with the Finns and their disaster in Ukraine Putin might want to keep his cake hole shut.
L
Wise words.
It’s a no brainer for Sweden and Finland to join NATO. Putin is not going to be around forever but in the near future, Russia may be ruled by a Nationalist similar to Putin. No reason for Sweden and Finland to take any chances.
Military consequences? What military?
Tires are one of many examples.
What happened? Russia won both times against Finland in WWII, second time quite flawlessly.
“Washington had a point when he advised the country to avoid foreign entanglements.”
Twelve years after Washington’s death, this nation’s Capitol building was burned to the ground—by British soldiers.
That is a flawed analysis. NATO was formed as a military alliance of individual nations, with common core values to confront a military threat from a nation that had a malignant ideology and was at the time aggressive, perceived strong and nuclear armed. Those nations at the time were not dominated by the globalists ( neo cons in America) who wish to advance an anti nationalist, anti Western, neo pagan agenda. The current political and social realities are not what they were in 1949.
“What military?”
Exactly. If these countries were hesitant at the start of the war, 5 weeks into it watching the “military might” of Russia, the hesitation should be gone.
You convieniently forgot to mention that the Finnish court dismissed the charges and ordered the prosecution to pay the defense’s costs.
Excellent point! But that also raises the question of internal 'dynamics' in NATO, as the organization expands. Forty years ago, would the terms of the treaty have been sufficiently compelling for London and DC to have risked nuclear war, if West Germany was attacked? It's just a guess, but I would say "probably yes".
And today? Will DC actually go "all in" if Estonia is invaded? At a minimum, it's likely that the level of commitment will vary, depending on the administration. A Donald Trump may be a dependable ally for Estonia, but what about someone like Joe Biden? And with overt corruption becoming rampant in American politics, it might be that future NATO actions are essentially determined in Beijing...
;>)
Didn’t forget.
Wasn’t important to me..
But for voicing opinions contrary to the orthodoxies of the day, the pair were prosecuted for ‘ethnic agitation’, a charge under the section of ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’ in the Finnish criminal code
The fact they were charged was the point.
They actually had a prosecutor for this..
And the max penalty was two years..
The trial.
They had a trial for this.
That’s the kind of NATO Beast that deserves to fall..
> “Washington had a point when he advised the country to avoid foreign entanglements.”
Twelve years after Washington’s death, this nation’s Capitol building was burned to the ground—by British soldiers. <
You raise an interesting hypothetical!
Let’s say the early United States had ignored Washington’s advice, and had entered into a permanent alliance with, say, France. Then perhaps the war of 1812 would not have happened.
But then America would have had to support Napoleon during the War of the Third Coalition (Napoleon’s enemies started that war).
So would a permanent US - French alliance have prevented wars, or just got us involved in more wars?
The is why NATO in its current form needs to be changed.
It needs to be broken up into separate interlocking (maybe!) defense alliances. One for Central Europe to Southern Europe, one for the Baltic\Scandanavian region & one for the North Atlantic countries. This takes Europe off the USA defense dole, allows for a more nuanced response if its called for (Like for local problems like the Balkans (Why were we involved other then Clinton Administration wanted to disply their defense chops!) and more freedom of action for member states. This monlithic appraoch draws us into things that aren’t our concern and allows Europe to continue to sponge off us.
If the Russians attempted to take military action against a NATO-allied Finland, They'd be outnumbered in terms of aircraft, and their advantage in tanks would last only as long as it took NATO to reinforce. The Finnish terrain is a huge advantage for the defender.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.