Finland and Sweden Could Join NATO Soon - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15221694
It looks like there is a good chance that Finland and Sweden could join the NATO alliance soon in the aftermath of Russia's strategic error to invade Ukraine.

Jennifer Hansler and Natasha Bertrand of CNN wrote:
Finland and Sweden could soon join NATO, moves that would likely infuriate Moscow and that officials say would further underscore Russia's strategic error in invading Ukraine.

NATO officials told CNN that discussions about Sweden and Finland joining the bloc have gotten extremely serious since Russia's invasion, and US senior State Department officials said the matter came up at this week's NATO foreign ministerial, which was attended by the foreign ministers from Stockholm and Helsinki.

Officials said the discussions underline the extent to which Vladimir Putin's invasion has only served to reinvigorate and unify the NATO alliance -- the exact opposite of Putin's stated goals before the war began. The Russian President had demanded that NATO cease expanding east and admitting new members, accusing the bloc of threatening Russian security. Instead, NATO has increased its support to Ukraine and is preparing to welcome new members.


https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics ... index.html
#15221716
What will NATO benefit out of this? What will these small countries contribute NATO?

Their applications should be declined. I don't want Turkish Army to spend energy and money to protect some small countries in the north. NATO should stay as "big boys club".
#15221719
Istanbuller wrote:What will NATO benefit out of this? What will these small countries contribute NATO?

Their applications should be declined. I don't want Turkish Army to spend energy and money to protect some small countries in the north. NATO should stay as "big boys club".


Sweden has always had a good military far more capable than Turkeys.
#15221721
Istanbuller wrote:What will NATO benefit out of this? What will these small countries contribute NATO?

Their applications should be declined. I don't want Turkish Army to spend energy and money to protect some small countries in the north. NATO should stay as "big boys club".

Speaking as a shortly-to-be-retired Army major, I don't think you understand NATO, Istanbuller.

It's very existence is to pool resources in the 'big boys club' precisely to 'protect small countries'. If you or Turkey don't want to play, that suggests you erroneously think NATO is about power-projection. It's not. It's a protective umbrella for Western or Westernised democracies.
#15221723
Cartertonian wrote:It's a protective umbrella for Western or Westernised democracies.

You could have made that argument some years ago, but it is increasingly difficult now. Impossible, I would say, with the American strike first policy and its efforts to deploy dual capability tomahawk missiles in the East.
#15221724
Cartertonian wrote:Speaking as a shortly-to-be-retired Army major, I don't think you understand NATO, Istanbuller.

It's very existence is to pool resources in the 'big boys club' precisely to 'protect small countries'. If you or Turkey don't want to play, that suggests you erroneously think NATO is about power-projection. It's not. It's a protective umbrella for Western or Westernised democracies.

There is nothing that NATO benefits from rift with Russia. America can protect them itself. But it should not use NATO.

If these small countries agree to pay fees to Turkey for their protections, then it can be acceptable. That also means giving up some of their sovereignty.
#15221731
ingliz wrote:You could have made that argument some years ago, but it is increasingly difficult now. Impossible, I would say, with the American strike first policy and its efforts to deploy dual capability tomahawk missiles in the East.


Bullshit, when did NATO attack Russia? Now when did Russia attack democratic states?

The answer to the first is never. The answer to the 2nd is: Georgia, Ukraine 2 times.

So stop spouting bullshit.
#15221734
@JohnRawls

Who gives a shit what the US has or has not done. The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.
#15221740
ingliz wrote:You could have made that argument some years ago, but it is increasingly difficult now.


Increasingly difficult? Are you mad? :lol:

ingliz wrote:Impossible, I would say, with the American strike first policy and its efforts to deploy dual capability tomahawk missiles in the East.


No nukes are stationed in Eastern Europe.

Tomahawks don't carry nukes. Meanwhile Russia has stationed Iskanders in Kaliningrad and is totally into tactical nukes. Goes without saying that Russia also has a first strike policy.

Try harder, shill.
#15221741
Rugoz wrote:Tomahawks don't carry nukes.

The Tomahawk can carry either conventional or nuclear payloads.


:)
#15221742
Rugoz wrote:Russia has stationed Iskanders in Kaliningrad

Range Iskander missile - 500 km

Kaliningrad to New York - 6,679 km


:lol:
#15221743
Istanbuller wrote:What will NATO benefit out of this? What will these small countries contribute NATO?


Finland and Sweden are important strategically for the defense of the Baltics. Look at a map.

Also, while NATO expansion was only a pretext for Putler, it's good that he cannot possibly claim victory on that front.

ingliz wrote:The Tomahawk can carry either conventional or nuclear payloads.


They don't carry nukes. Iskanders do (some of them).

ingliz wrote::)


That stupid smiley below every post of yours is really something. No better way to say "I'm a jerk".
Last edited by Rugoz on 09 Apr 2022 12:01, edited 1 time in total.
#15221745
Rugoz wrote:Russia has stationed Iskanders in Kaliningrad

Range Tomahawk missile - 2,400 km

Warsaw to Moscow - 1,250 km


:)
#15221746
ingliz wrote:Range Tomahawk missile - 2,400 km

Warsaw to Moscow - 1,250 km


The range is half of that, nuclear Tomahawks don't exist, and Russia obviously can easily nuke Warsaw from Russia.

NATO is actually far too nice by not stationing nukes in Eastern Europe. Those countries deserve protection too.
#15221747
Rugoz wrote:The range is half of that

The Tomahawk is a long-range, unmanned weapon with an accuracy of about 5 meters (16 feet). The 5.6-meter (18.4-foot)-long missile has a range of up to approximately 2,400 km (about 1,500 miles).


— Tomahawk | cruise missile - Encyclopedia Britannica


:)
#15221749
Rugoz wrote:NATO [America] is actually far too nice by not stationing nukes in Eastern Europe.

On May 15, the U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw, Georgette Mosbacher, suggested relocating U.S. nuclear weapons based in Germany to Poland.

— US nukes in Poland are a truly bad idea, Brookings Institution, 18 May 2020


:lol:
#15221754
Rugoz wrote:Finland and Sweden are important strategically for the defense of the Baltics. Look at a map.

Also, while NATO expansion was only a pretext for Putler, it's good that he cannot possibly claim victory on that front.

Baltics is just another joke. Why do we need to defend those little countries? Wouldn't it be better if we focus real threats in Asia?
#15221817
@ingliz

We have nuclear weapons that can reach Russia from here in the United States or from our submarines. The only real reason we would station nuclear weapons in Poland is tactical nukes perhaps and that's about it. But most of the tactical nukes we would actually use on Russia in the event of war in which it escalates to nuclear would be fired from our submarines given those tactical nukes can't be located and can penetrate Russian air defenses. It doesn't seem like there is any real incentive to station tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons in Poland. It certainly makes them more easily targetable by Russian forces. We would want our weapons to be very difficult for the Russians to locate and target. Hence, why we put tactical nukes on submarines.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

At heart, Beren is an imperialist. At heart I'm […]

January 6 Hearings LIVE

@wat0n , @BlutoSays basically focuses on one l[…]

Why not a nationwide referendum about this iss[…]

ignorant donkey (ass). Project much??