News like this, shows what?
(www.nbcnews.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
That naval base was rented after Finland exit WWII and made a peace deal with USSR in 1944. This base was necessary at the time, because WWII was going. It was not necessary when war ended, so the base was removed, so there was no any sense in rent deal, so it was discontinued. What is so hard to understand here? Why you need to believe in fucking gulags bullshit and in some non-existent border tensions?
That's good. Sweden have to join too as soon as possible. You might be aware that on most decisions NATO need unanimous vote. So more members with tensions, higher probability of stalling NATO. Sweden and Finland are old enemies, Swedes opressed Finns for millenia. They hate each other and more than suspicious to each other. It will be fun. Like Turkey-Greece discord in NATO was not enough. :)
Crimea is Russia. Sevastopol is a town in Crimea. Why would Russia rent anything on Russian territory from Russia?
Crimea was never rented to anybody.
On the USSR fall, Crimea declared independence before Ukraine. At the time Ukraine declared exit from USSR Crimea already was an independent state with own authorities, president and so on. Being water/energy/transport/everything tied to ex-Ukrainian SSR, Crimea agreed to federate with Ukraine in exchange to full autonomy and independence from Ukrainian authorities. But very soon, Ukrainian authorities overthrow Crimea government and install occupation administration. Sevastopol, being an important naval base had a special status in USSR and Crimea, and was part of Russian Federative Republic in USSR and so left part of Russian Federation after USSR fall. Something like Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg region in the Baltic. Ukrainian authorities who seized Crimea, with push from Britain (who have absolutely no any fucking business in that region at all, but for whatever reason still trying to squeeze here getting its ass kicked again and again since Crimean war in 1850s) right after the 2014 coup began to plan to seize Sevastopol from Russian Federation. However, on the top of protests against 2014 coup, Crimeans fuck new Ukrainian authorities out, declared independence, as independent state called for help to Russia and voted to join Russia back. The question of Sevastopol was completely resolved along with question of Crimea. With full support of Crimea population and without a single shot.
No Sweden wasn't part of a hard nato border. Norway, Finland make. Sweden doesn't even need to be in Nato to be in Nato. It effectively is. Scandinavian treaty.
Why are you such a dumbass.
Base seized in WW2, cites assumed rent. Kept incase of conflict.
Sent tens of thousands of Fins to gulag, genocided others, displaced so many more, annexed others.
Every post is being down voted by niggers. Nigger tier apes, literal apes, hostile and stupid, make up this forum, but they simply want it to echo. It's full of a very dumb World view thinking votes mean shit, in a forum of a closed echo chamber. It throws shit at a wall. It amounts to a bunch of flat earther, no nukes bullshit, while spamming praise Jesus nonsense. When it isn't that it's wahaaa Covid.
I am not out to change your opinion. I don't care.
But the fact is there is far more to the subject. Those wars were a result of figure it out. You've said it already. Suddenly you've assumed it's back to before communism? No. Despite many Russian integrating since. Those agreements with Nato and Europe had been there longer than the present Ukraine conflict. Nato simply made a hard border.
Why would it make a hard border there? Murmansk. The baltics. Etc
You missed the part with unanimous voting in NATO. More members, more tensions, less chance of getting unanimous vote. Simple as that.
So you suspicious to moonhoax, may be even don't believe in holocaust, but for completely irrational reasons blindly believe in jewish gulag myth? Do you understand that it is exactly same kind of lies like holocaust purely for profit and shaiming?
There was Finnish POW, during WWII, but far less than tens of thousands. something like 2000, around 500 died. And after peace agreement most of them returned back to Finland. From the other side from 60000 Russians around 15000 died in Finnish concentration camps. Finns also participated in Leningrad blockade. Really, I think, Finland, as a state, still owns a lot to Russians. Once we will come for a favor, in payyment of all debts. And something tell me that Finns will do that favor for us. May be even gladly and willingly.
USSR didn't occupy Finland because Finns had enough brains to make a peace deal with USSR, there was no any occupation of Finland, so no any of that genocide, deportation or other shit you talking about could happen at all.
We have several regions where Ugro-Finn etnicities live, not only Finns. Most live in Russia since ancient times. None was genocided. Moreover, Finns really are from West of Ural mountains. Like Hungarians. We live side-by-side since fucking paleolite.
Etnicies displaced was those who onely and violently support Germans. Like Crimea Tatars or Chechens. Ironically, Stalin saved them from extermination with that displacement. If they was not displaced, that whole etnicities would have sided with enemy, and eventually would have been killed in battles. Since they was not very important for Germans and due to low numbers could not change anything, their faith would have been much worse. Thanks to displacements, their blodlines was saved from meat grinder they so much want to fall to. Suddenly, descendants of that displaced Chechens now fighting on the Russian side.
There was no Finns among displaced.
Do you understand, that Finland exists at all only thanks to Russians? It was part of Russia since the beginning. It is impossible to annex something that you created. Even if all Finland would have been acquired into USSR after WWII it could not be "annexation" just by definition. Karelia was a part of Russian Empire long before liberation and creation of Finland.
Are you an idiot? Like braindead retarded?
Scandinavian treaty is with 3 out 4 Nato members. Denmark, Norway, Finland. Sweden doesn't need to be in Nato to be in Nato. It is also separately aligned with the UK, Germany, possibly France. I think Iceland, obviously Greenland are part of the Scandinavian treaty. USA to some extents is also aligned in there.
The fine print on the Nato treaty is not simply about a defense pact they have through interconnected alliances regardless. It's about directives. Turkish boots alongside Swedes in other global hotspots, Sweden having access to Turkish weapons and security protocols. If in the event of direct warfare who defends it.
Well with Sweden it's Europe, the majority, at least all the larger players having alliances with it. Most are in sworn defense of it outside Nato. Does it require Nato access. It's simply a title, a vote. It through interconnected alliances has almost all but the namesake. It's also hosting, training, arming alongside Nato.
It's like Switzerland isn't in Nato but Nato not all but most would defend it. Maybe Turkey and Hungary won't, who knows. But shots get fired on another member, whoosh.
They did I've provided evidence you're far too dumb to read.