Didn't Russia (last month) threaten Finland/Sweden with 'consequences' should they decide joining NATO? Wondering what would those be. Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'?
Exactly this. By attacking Ukraine, Russia proved to the world that there is no point complying with Russian geopolitical demands. If Ukraine somehow became a NATO member years ago (not saying that that would have happened, but talking hypothetically) Ukraine would never have been attacked. So, the only rational thing for Finland and Sweden to do is to ignore Russia and join NATO.
When did Ukraine actually comply with any threat from Russia since at least the Maidan Revolution??
Not that just because of that Russia had the right to do what it was doing... but let's not forget everything that actually lead to the hostilities like you're simply doing.
Second, why all the Russian lies about nazis? If nato was a legitimate concern why do they need those lies?
If nato was actually a concern, why would they take the step most likely to get Finland and Sweden on board with nato? It seems like many other statements by Russia, nato concerns are lies as well.
Oh man... now it looks like I am a Russian defender when I have to remind people that Ukraine was constitutionally obliged to seek NATO membership, and announced at the Brussels Summit in 2021 [1] that it would become a member? And that this was the trigger for the Russian mobilisation near the Ukrainian border??
How can people forget basic stuff like that?!?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
And your analogy with Canada and China doesn’t hold up either. In that case too the US would have no right to invade a sovereign country for making decisions about its own future. You speak as if this imagined scenario somehow justifies Putin’s actions when it fact it highlights how wrong they are even more.
For example.
> You speak of “provocation” as if it’s equal and commensurate to bombing and invading a country
I did not.
> Ukraine decided they might like to join NATO - so therefore Russia has a right to invade and level the country.
No. They made it a high priority [1] to join NATO knowing that Russia would be incredibly hostile to them doing that. Whether or not Russia was right to be that way doesn't really matter. If your bully neighbour tells you they may attack you if you try to join NATO, and you try to join NATO, you know all too well you're taking a giant bet.
> Please make this make sense to me.
Does the above help? Can you understand that your giant neighbour may not think like you do, and therefore may be willing to go to war and destroy their own economy just to stop you from joining what they see, rightfully or not, as an enemy alliance, no matter how much you try to convince them the alliance is not a threat even when it's whole reason to exist is to oppose your giant neighbour?
> The bombs dropping on Ukrainian citizens every night while Russian citizens sleep in peace should tell you enough
What does that have to do with the topic being discussed other than try to appeal to emotion? Anyway, yes, I am horrified to see Ukraine being bombed to the ground and I loathe the Russians for doing that. But I remember they made it extremely clear they were going to do that, and the USA and Ukraine were completely defiant to their demands (again, whether those demands were fair or not is another story)... when you have a gun pointed at your head, even the unfairest of demands should be taken seriously.
> In that case too the US would have no right to invade a sovereign country for making decisions about its own future.
Yes, I agree, but we all know all too well the US would absolutely invade, as it has done time and time again. You willing it wouldn't do that won't change that fact.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
I am pretty sure Sanna Marin is a woman.
Once, maybe, but not since the revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
Why would the Baltic Sea be closed to Russia? How would this be enforced?
And Estonia and Finland control access to Russia's only ports in the Baltic Sea. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@60.5931556,25....
Not a true statement, your map notwithstanding.
Denmark has an ironclad, centuries old agreement with the international community called the Copenhagen Convention never to restrict shipping or charge toll. Did you not know this?
I did not. I don't know exactly what to look for, but all I found was a single paragraph on the Sound Dues article on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues#Copenhagen_Conventi...
All Russia can do is bark, continue the "we aren't doing" cyber/disinformation attack or start lobbing nukes.
#1 and #2 are business as usual, #3 is the end of civilisation.
My best guess would be exactly that. The last thing Putin wants is a repeat of the Finno-Russian wars of 1917 and 1941, which resulted in catastrophic losses on the Soviet side.
1917-1922 was the Russian civil war and 1918 the Finnish civil war. IIRC, some of the White Finnish raiding parties ventured into Russia, and the Bolsheviks supported the Finnish Reds, but you can't really speak of Soviet losses, the Russian Soviet Republic was founded in 1917 and only gained power due to the civil war.
If you insist on nit-picking years, I only supplied the years of the start of the conflicts. You can go as far to include every border conflict, but that's completely besides the point. The forces that supported the Red Guard during the 1917-1918 war were all part of the Soviet forces in any case.
> the Russian Soviet Republic was founded in 1917 and only gained power due to the civil war.
They lost Finland and any influence on the country, which gained independence during that time, seeing that as "only gaining power" is a weird and twisted view on history.
The Bolsheviks and their Red army (not the Soviets, the Soviet Union itself was not founded until 1922) supported the Reds, but the boots on the ground were Finnish both for the Reds and the Whites, with German boots being decisively added in the landing at Hanko.
The war was not a war for independence, but a war born out of the circumstances of the breakdown of Tsarist Russia, a famine, a lack of police force, and a general dissatisfaction among the working class, largely fueled by ideas from the Russian revolution of course.
>If you insist on nit-picking years, I only supplied the years of the start of the conflicts.
1941 was not the start of the conflict, it was the second in a series of two wars. The entire interbellum time was used by both sides to prepare for further conflict. It is not a nitpick to say that Finland was involved in the winter war (1939-1940) and the continuation war (1941-1944), these are the two main wars that Finland was involved in during the second world war (the third most important one being the Lapland war against Germany).
1918 was an incredibly short civil war that caused no direct losses to the Bolsheviks, except that a Red government would have been sympathetic to the USSR and possibly joined it.
On a more general note, using terms like "twisted view of history" is not a sign of a good-faith discussion, be civil.