Because their current Prime Minister is a hottie. She probably promised Biden two free sniffs.
Posted on 05/17/2022 4:39:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Seeing Russia invade Ukraine, historically neutral Finland has undergone a late conversion and decided to join NATO immediately.
Why? Because NATO membership means the world's strongest power, the United States, under Article 5 of NATO, would go to war against Russia, should it cross Finland's border.
Nervous about Russian President Vladimir Putin's intentions, Finland wants America legally and morally bound to fight Russia on its behalf, should Putin invade Finland as he invaded Ukraine.
From the Finnish point of view, this is perfectly understandable.
But why would the United States consent to go to war with Russia, the largest nuclear power on earth, for violating Finland's frontiers?
Finland is not Alaska; it is not Canada; it is 5,000 miles away. And no one ever asserted during the Cold War, or for the decades since, that Finland was a U.S. vital interest.
Why, then, would we consent, in advance, to go to war with Russia over Finland?
President Joe Biden said last week that NATO has an "open door" policy and Finland and Sweden are welcome, and he looks forward to their joining.
Consider what Biden is actually saying and doing here.
He is ceding to Finland, a country of 5.5 million people with an 830-mile border with Putin's Russia, the right to obligate the United States of America to go to war with Russia, if Russia attacks Finland.
What patriot would commit his own country, in perpetuity, to go to war on behalf of another country not his own?
Why would America surrender to the Finns our freedom of action in deciding whether or not to fight a nuclear-armed Russia?
NATO is not a country club; it is a military alliance Putin regards as an enemy. Every member of that alliance is obliged to treat an attack on any one of its 30 members as an attack on all, and all are obligated to come to the defense of the nation attacked.
By welcoming Finland into NATO, Biden is offering Helsinki the kind of war guarantee Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave to Poland in the spring of 1939, which led to Britain's having to declare war on Sept. 3, 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland.
How did that work out for Britain and the empire?
In his farewell address, President George Washington warned his countrymen against "permanent alliances." In conscious echo of our first president, Thomas Jefferson warned against "entangling alliances."
NATO is a military alliance that has been in existence since 1949. While it began with the U.S., Canada and 10 European nations, it ended the Cold War with 16. We have since added 14 more.
Six of the nations NATO added since the Cold War -- Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania -- were members of the USSR's Warsaw Pact. Three of the newest NATO members -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania -- are former republics of the Soviet Union.
The last quarter-century of NATO's encroachment into Russia's space and onto Russia's front porch has been a leading cause of the worsening relationship between the world's two great nuclear powers.
The repeated refusal of Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to rule out NATO membership for Ukraine was a primary cause of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
This does not absolve Putin of culpability in launching the war on Ukraine, but it should tell us that any new members of NATO, in Russia's "near abroad," especially a new NATO member with an 830-mile border with Russia from the Baltic to the Arctic, is running a real risk and raising the possibility of war.
Indeed, with Russia's war in Ukraine in stalemate, having failed to achieve its objectives in Kyiv, Kharkov and Odessa, Russian officials have repeatedly raised the prospect of a desperate resort to tactical nuclear weapons to stop the bleeding. "Escalate to de-escalate" is the slogan.
Bringing Sweden and Finland into NATO, which has already elicited rage from Moscow and ominous threats, is unlikely to reduce whatever pressure currently exists to escalate to nuclear war.
A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War ended, are we still expanding NATO?
Russia does not threaten the United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let them deal with it. Together, NATO Europe is far more populous and economically powerful than Russia, and militarily capable of providing for their own defense.
Why should this be our obligation more than 30 years after the Cold War -- and counting?
With small but modernized military forces, Finland, if attacked, can resist Russia. Why, then, let ourselves be obligated to go to war on Finland's behalf, a war that could result in an escalation to nuclear war, the avoidance of which was a goal of every president, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan?
Turkey is now warning that it may exercise its rights as a NATO member to veto membership by Sweden and Finland. Anyone think Turkish President Recep Erdogan would declare war on Russia, if it invaded Finland?
Because nuclear war is a joke to these lunatics.
Pat, we actually defend more places than Canada and Alaska, which are the two comparisons mentioned in your article.
Nonetheless, Pat’s Isolationism is a valid discussion in this case.
Why join NATO? Brandon and the congress gave $80 bln in military equipment to the Taliban and $40bln to Ukraine.
Neither of them are in NATO. Why pay dues?
“why would the United States consent to go to war with Russia”
We are already at war with Russia, look at the Billions of dollars we have already spent on Ukraine since Feb.
> Biden is offering Helsinki the kind of war guarantee Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave to Poland in the spring of 1939... <
Buchanan tipped his hand here. He’s still upset that Britain had the nerve to object to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
Buchanan does make some good points in this article. And I used to be a big fan of his. But now I wonder what his core values really are.
Isn’t it time the EU steps up and pays for its own defense?
US taxpayers are tired of carrying the load for the rest of the western world.
Good old Pat - he never could see a reason to go to any war. If he’d been born a few years earlier, he would have been the one on the America First stage, telling us that the Nais and the Japanese “were no threat to us”.
He was too young for Korea and too old for Vietnam, so I can’t call him a draft-dodger - but even a codger like him should remember that preventing tyrants from attacking whomever they please, is the way to prevent the next World War.
American isolationists need not to worry.
Turkey has killed the NATO bid with what seem to be legitimate reason
Buchanan tipped his hand here. He’s still upset that Britain had the nerve to object to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
Excellent observation!
Regards,
Maybe the other 29 members of NATO should contemplate expelling Turkey from NATO.
Regards,
The reason for that is that NATO so wildly overmatched any potential European foe, that no such for is going to attack NATO. It's a way to keep peace, not a way to go to war. The key is to not admit only those countries sufficiently stable politically that they won't end up dragging you into a war. Finland and Sweden fit that perfectly.
Distributed architecture.
Think of it this way: suppose Russia decided to go for Alaska. In NATO.
Not only would it have to consider American retaliation from the east, theres a whole arsenal on its western flanks under different command chains, any of which could launch attacks against Moscow and Kaliningrad in no time if Article 5 is upheld.
It couldn’t begin to predict where it’d be hit from, and how, and by whom.
Without America in NATO, Europe would be more vulnerable but you’d also have the problem that many surrender monkeys in Washington would sue for peace rather than go for an all out war. What can America hit Russia with, other than nukes?
In fact Russia would probably be allowed to keep Alaska on the basis it’s a rotten option but still preferable to MAD.
That’s the value of NATO. With it, Russia can’t hit America with anything without propelling itself into a non-nuclear war on two fronts not one. Without it, America just has to rely on Russia being too scared of American escalating to ICBMs to risk it.
Problem is, Russia is no more scared of America using its strategic nukes than Europe is scared of Russia using theirs. MAD is MAD. We all know it. No side wants to make the first strategic nuclear strike.
As a Russian military boffin pointed out on their own TV, their over-the-top nuclear sabre rattling is actually provoking mirth, not fear, in Europe now. Tactical nukes maybe, but strategic big boys? Nah.
Turkey has what seem legitimate grievances with Sweden an Finland. Both apparently are harboring fugitives who were part of the attempted coup. They will not extradite them back to turkey for trial.
So, you want in NATO, give up the bad guys is the message
um... for the same reason we would go to war if Russia attacked England!
SO THEY WONT ATTACK!
it’s a deterrent !
Because their current Prime Minister is a hottie. She probably promised Biden two free sniffs.
The only effect of Finland joining NATO is the positioning of battlefield nukes right across their border with Russia.
Otherwise, Finland was already a defacto NATO member (i.e., we’ll fight there if they’re invaded), and Russia understood it, which is why neither Russia nor the Soviet Union ever bothered with Finland after WW2.
Bottom line - non-issue.
NATO doesn’t have a mechanism to expel members, and it’s charter requires unanimous votes so you couldn’t even add such a provision unless Turkey agreed.
Pat wrote an extensive book on WW2 questioning our involvment. Core values? His VP selection for the Reform Party. The Michael Savage without the frothy mouth.
Yeah, didn't think so - but they could still take a vote. I'm sure that Turkey would be chagrined by a 29-to-1 vote in favor of expelling it!
Regards,
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.