I believe there was a recent incident of what seemed to be a Russia backed psyops/propaganda operation,
which doesn't help Russia's image at all, though the US/NATO counterpart of course should be understood.
Finland can be wholly forthright with Russia in assuaging any actual concerning actions Russia has engaged in,
but I fail to see why joining NATO (in name or effect ala Sweden) is needed,
nor why Russia would not be motivated to positively engage with a Finland acting in good faith and strong neutrality.
Rantings of marginal nationalists is just not a reason for a real change in policy, some nuts rant about Alaska...get real.
If that is a real concern to Sweden, ask the Russian government to denounce it, have public education against it, etc.
Likewise Finland can reciprocate by not harboring individuals connected to crime, terrorism, separatism.
If there is problems in relations, those should be addressed: Signing up to NATO nuclear umbrella does not solve the conflict.
There just isn't any rationale for Russia to attack neutral Finland, while there does exist one within NATO.
Russia doesn't need Finland's trees, and doesn't need to occupy Finland to get mutually beneficial value from Finland's talent.
Modern NATO efforts to demonize Russia and/or equate it with USSR fall flat with Finland in particular,
because Finland sat out the Cold War outside of NATO while never being attacked by the evil USSR,
despite even a certain history of nationalist conflict w/ Russia, so why does Finland possibly need to join NATO now?
Besides future POSSIBILITIES of war, joining NATO immediately has a CERTAIN negative impact on economic and other ties.
This same argument goes for Sweden just as much, as a truly neutral country Russia has no reason to ever attack them,
WW3 could go down and a neutral Sweden could sit it out just fine and dandy,
but a Sweden enmeshed in NATO and plots against non-NATO countries immediately does become a military target.
Sweden talks about reinforcing Gotland as if Russia would ever have a need to attack a demilitarized neutral Gotland,
while militarizing it directly increases the threat of Swedish intervention in Baltics/Belorussia/Ukraine/Russia.
Remember when NATO media talked up the EEZ conflict between Russia and Norway, to the point of military threat?
When RU/NO diplomatically solved it, I don't remember NATO media diminishing the Russian threat and praising Russian diplomacy.
Here is a US "Atlanticist" article villainizing Russia for happening to win in it's case adjudicating the EEZ in Sea of Okhotsk:
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=42282&no_cache=1
Doing exactly what they are supposed to, conforming to norms of int'l law, yet still portrayed as ominous aggressor...
While the issue doesn't even directly concern the US (source of article), they just consider anything to Russia's benefit as evil.
(the article claims the ruling would block "shipping" yet EEZs in no way restrict that, never mind the zone is not an int'l transit route)
Joining NATO is joining an alliance that talks international law, but illegally attacked Libya, Serbia, Syria (by proxy),
Turkish involvement there being particularly notable (and NATO acquiescence to Turkish aggression in N. Cyprus being another black mark),
yet ignores the fundamental fact of Ukraine crisis: the junta ILLEGALLY removed President, and all later acts are thusly tainted,
(in the strong Presidential system Ukraine had, most ever law, administrative ruling, constitutional court changes, etc, go thru the President)
which is a fundamentally sound reason for any Ukrainian to refuse to recognize the junta, it's packed courts, laws, armed forces, etc.
Never mind avoidance of the fact that the EU Parliament previously sanctioned (in 2012?) Svoboda and warned against any cooperation with it.
WHAT HAPPENED THERE? No explanation there from the coalition of freedom and human rights? Down the old amnesia hole...
Gross avoidance of such basic facts of the Ukraine situation (certainly in public view) does not make it a valid resurrection of NATO's purpose.
Never mind that Finland never found a need for NATO in it's original purpose against the USSR,
so why would "neo-USSR Russia" (in NATO media terms) possibly change that?
NATO has a history of breaking security promises to Russia, and thus has zero credibility in peaceful diplomacy, etc.
NATO members can escalate danger of conflict without consensus, while all members share vulnerability collectively,
as seen in moving forces to Baltics by agreement of certain NATO members only, outside of North Atlantic Council process,
(where Germany at the least seemingly would have opposed that move)
So joining NATO means signing up to a "UNKNOWN" factor of future danger BEYOND what bilateral relations would bring.
The scope of bilateral conflict just seems vastly smaller than the conflict between NATO and Russia,
with NATO basically openly treating Russia as a current ENEMY, as opposed to Finland's current relations with Russia.
Ultimately, I question the supposed defensive benefit in joining NATO,
Counter to the assumption NATO's umbrella can be expanded ad infinitum,
I just don't think that if push came to shove, NATO would truly defend to the hilt ALL new members in all scenarios.
We already know that NATO does operate in "defense" of countries not covered by it,
so assuming there is NATO will to defend Finland in some scenario where Finland is uniquely attacked,
it doesn't seem plausible that NATO would do so if Finland was a member, but not do so if Finland was not
If Finland is attacked with the whole of NATO in some larger conflict, I doubt NATO will divert resources
from wherever they are most useful to defend Finland in particular, while neutral Finland could easily sit out any conflict.
Last edited by mutantsushi on Thu May 15, 2014 10:43 am; edited 2 times in total
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
