Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

NATO's nuclear deterrent must be real for Finland, says new president

31 Comments
By Anne Kauranen

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2024.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


31 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

NATO not serious about sending any member Troops into Ukraine. What is the mission?

Crimea, the Donbas, etc., all these people now happily and legally Russian citizens, they achieved this new status via 10year Ukraine Civil War. It cannot be undone.

It's great NATO has new Nordic Members, but there's no mission in Ukraine, except triggering WWIII. So, lets' stick with "Defense Alliance" rather than "Expansionary Aggressive Alliance", as that'll make better for the World!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

We read about shortfalls in US and NATO members military recruitment, safe to assume Ukraine war, Mid-East Chaos, Tawain risk, NATO eastward expansion, new Nordic members, etc. making young people think twice about enlistment.

Seems US and NATO should just empty their prisons as their next proxy fighting force to supplement Ukraine's rapid population exodus. Use some clever intermediaries to make it 'non-official', Russian Wagner model for example. That would be more politically palatable.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Finland won't send their troops abroad, least of all to the contact line in Ukraine.

You still don't get it, or you simply disregarding it, this isn't NATO vs russia (in the majority of the world's eyes). This is russia vs NATO in the kremlin narrative. Not even most russians believe that tripe.

IF France or any other country send troops to Ukraine, it will be in support of Ukraine, not an invasion on russia.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What people fail to realize is that Russia SEEKS to disengage with West. Russia seeks out partners and markets abroad that do not present risk or agenda of domestic destabilization of Russia. That's BRICS!!!

Recent passing of Navalny was a test case in Russian domestic interference by Globalists, those days are over. But mature independent neighboring democracies like Finland, may over time restore relations to a degree, even with a nuclear deterrent.

Transactional nature of US led Globalist Oligarchy Special Interests "Democracy" is not a reliable partner, that can ever be trusted long-term, too unstable. Russians know the "Navalny" rule, keep an arm's length.

However, plenty of economic activity with west can continue thru intermediaries, especially as many markets are commodity and fungible in nature. So, all is not lost!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

If Putin/Russia had not attacked Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would not have joined NATO.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Domestically their economy will suffer. Internationally they will be just another shill and be treated as such.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I hope Russia is slowly starting to get the hint that are not liked, wanted, or needed.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

And what price is too high to guarantee against an invasion by Russia? (Because Russia doesn’t attack NATO members)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

What will that price be, JJE?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Finland has sacrificed their post WWII neutrality which served them well internationally. There will be a price to pay.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Hope they pay their bills (that's 2.%). Or is this another handout from the honest US taxpayer?

Why do you even care if you are not from a NATO country?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

No energy, resources or tourism/over flights for them.

If it means fewer Russians, then sadly the Finns may have to make do.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Russia has also never invaded a NATO member now that I think about it. Good move, Finland. I am sure you can defend yourself just fine against this current Russian Federation, but always better to have powerful allies.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

They won’t be nuclear armed. Other people’s nukes would just be passing through. That’s a lot of risk and zero reward.

“transit”

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I’m not sure why Finland would even consider to have a nuclear weapons transiting their country. Is being in NATO really worth that?

Blacklabel - Russia doesn’t invade nuclear-armed countries. I woulda figured you would be on the side of more weapons, not fewer. Are you sure you are American? Lol

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Newsflash, the Finnish army never attacked, bombed or shelled the city (Leningrad) in the entire war, nor did it cut off the vital supplies flowing into the city. Some even claim that the Finns saved the city by their inaction but that's a different story. The reason was purely political but there were many such political reasons."

"Finland managed not to take part in the siege of Leningrad despite Hitler's wishes, and refused to cut the Murmansk railway. Finnish Jews were not persecuted, and even among extremists of the Finnish Right they were highly tolerated, as many leaders of the movement came from the clergy."

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I would make the argument that the countries closest to Russia should get an exemption from the 2% rule, but let’s be real y’all. Everyone will be spending a lot more than 2% of GDP on defense soon enough (because of the upcoming world war)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

13 NATO countries spend 2% or more of their GDP on defense. Poland spends more than the US.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hope they pay their bills (that's 2.%). Or is this another handout from the honest US taxpayer?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Yeah all these countries want into NATO (with minimal military or financial contributions) just to be able to hide behind the skirt of the United States.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

NATO Europe/Canada is a paper army. They couldn't knock the head off a beer.

Finland won't send their troops abroad, least of all to the contact line in Ukraine.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Yeah there is a whole group of people who just incessantly reply to other posters not even bothering to discuss the content of the article.

I’m not sure why Finland would even consider to have a nuclear weapons transiting their country. Is being in NATO really worth that?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

There may be some short term pain in some countries as we decouple from Russia, but much better for all in the long term.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We are working to isolate awful countries, not engage with them.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

What does Russia have that Finland needs?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Shaky little Putin will forever be remembered as the dictator who expanded NATO through his shameful actions. Fascist Russia - successor to the WW2 Nazi regime - has caused this through his aggressive and illegal land-grabbing.

Navalny's death is a kind of symbol of the state Russia is in at the moment. Human life does not seem to have any kind of significance to the current Russian leadership," Stubb said.

Perfectly stated by the new Finnish President. Life is cheap in Putins fascist Russia.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Finland will regret one day this step to join NATO.

Why?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We are going to need a lot more nukes.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites