LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Sweden and Finland have been at peace with Russia/Soviet Union since 1938. They have been at peace with Russia since it has been out on its own, no longer a Communist State.

Ever since the 90s under Clinton, NATO, a declared enemy of Russia, has been expanding towards Russia. All this besides promising Russia that they wouldn't expand NATO.

Russia and Putin has said that further expansion of NATO towards encircling Russia is not acceptable. They are self declared enemies of Russia and their expansion is a direct threat to Russia's existence. They drew a red line in Georgia and now in Ukraine. Look what that got them. Russia will not and can not except hostile forces setting up on their borders.

And now we have Sweden and Finland wanting to join NATO. They don't want any attacks from Russia. Russia has no desire or need, at this point, to attack or threaten them. And that is the real issue.

The only reason that countries might feel a need to join NATO is to defend themselves against Russia. But the only reason they need to defend themselves against Russia is joining NATO.

The simple solution is, don't join NATO and engage Russia in trade and commerce and tourism and become mutually, profitable, and socially engaged, and mutually entwined together.

Logically Right

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

1) If Russia is successful in taking over Ukraine wouldn't then four additional NATO countries be on the Russia border? The NATO border argument is illogical.

2) Ukraine is not a member of NATO and is still in a position of defending itself from Russia. To assume that Finland or Sweden would never be in the same position of an attack from Russia is illogical.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Wrong.

1) Russia does not want to stay in Ukraine in any sense. They wish to establish a neutral status, disarmament, a new constitution guaranteeing that. Freedom for the south east provinces to establish whether they want to go it alone, stay within Ukraine with special status and the rights to use the Russian language, or just back within Ukraine.
They also want NATO to guarantee in writing that they would never expand NATO, as the willingly agreed to in 1991.

2)They were trying to become a member of NATO and NATO and America were arming and training their army well before the Russian action. Especially since the illegal coup NATO, European Union and America sponsored in 2014. This directly led to actions taken against the ethnic Russian areas of Ukraine causing them to move to leave Ukraine and a war that has cost 14000 lives mostly civilians in the southeast, ethnic Russians.

***To assume that Finland or Sweden would never be in the same position of an attack from Russia is illogical.
>>>Disagree. Russia has no interest in invading any country. They are not empire building, but insuring the integrity and safety of their own country from invasion from a NATO, that is not acting like a defensive force, but is actively trying to contain a large and powerful former enemy, that has no interests in being an enemy, but a friendly country engaged in commerce with all. Sweden and Finland have no fear from such a neighbor. They are doing fine, as free and un-encombered neighbors engaging in free commerce with the countries all around them.

I would suggest that the way to peace is through free trade and commerce and tourism between neighboring countries with friendly respected diplomatic corps working to ease any unwanted issues between them.

I see this other side as a prelude to possible hostilities and war. It makes no sense to maintain and expand a defensive military alliance 30+ years after the old adversary it was created for, has disbanded and ceased to exist. It just acts as a threat to the former countries, or in this case, the main country in that long gone military alliance.

A neutral Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and its perceived enemy, Russia, is a win win situation keeping these parties apart, physically, as they try to come together economically, etc.

We had a chance and Biden blew it. He was a part of the coup in 2014 and he would personally benefit as much as possible with the burying of anything about his son in Ukraine. He gets his war, the military complex gets its profits, and someone else fights and dies.

Pathetic and none of it ever needed to happen. You blame Russia with glee. I blame biden and the whole sequence of events leading up to this, with regret.

Logically Right.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Just because Russia called it a coup in 2014 does not make it so. Russia wants to reestablish a pro-Russian puppet government in Ukraine. Not saying the EU doesn't prefer a pro-EU government as no doubt they do. However, didn't the Ukrainian people elect a pro-west leader at the end of what was , more or less, a civil war between pro-russian and pro-west factions? Hardly a coup. Russian didn't like the outcome of that conflict so he invaded a sovereign nation taking Crimea and now going after more. The current President, Zelensky, a Jew, was elected with 70% of the people's vote. And now the Ukrainian people are fighting to the death to maintain their sovereignty and resolve their own conflicts. Seems to me the people have spoken.

When has NATO ever attacked Russia militarily or shown any interest in conquering Russia? NATO was formed as an alliance to secure all of Europe from another aggressor against any NATO country to avoid another aggressor, like Germany in WWII, from taking Europe again. Russia was the likely threat at the time but the NATO alliance protects against any threat to Europe from any aggressor from anywhere. There is strength in unity.

You say Finland and Sweden have nothing to worry about from Russia. The attacks on Ukraine and Georgia show differently. They have nothing to worry about as long as they make Russia happy. Not so much if Russia decides it is unhappy with them or finds another bogus excuse to invade like it has with Ukraine.

NATO never agreed in 1991 to not expand. That is just a propaganda talking point of Putin's. In fact in 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that that Nato’s enlargement “was not discussed at all” at the time:

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

If Sweden and Finland want to suffer, they should join NATO. No one else is going to help them against Russia. Because they all know what Putin is really doing in Ukraine. Killing the last of the Nazis and saving the people. The rest is propaganda by the MSM. Which will soon lose all their broadcasting licenses and privileges.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Good points. And if for some unfathomable reason Russia were to respond, militarily, to some attack by Greece or Turkey, yhe Finns and Swedes would have to go to Turkey and die for them. All over joining an organization that is at the root cause of this current military action.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Well, you knew I had to respond, and it is because with all the knowledge I personally have at this time. I believe you are wrong.

So let's start with your first sentence. "Just because Russia called it a coup in 2014 does not make it so." So, you weren't aware of this. I was in 2014. I heard back then that the West sponsored it, and included using snipers on one side shooting police and security, and setting up other snipers to shoot protesters and looking like they were from the Government side. And the ethnic Russian President fled for his life. So, your statement is false from the get go. It was in local American media.

Russia does not want a Pro Russian Government in Ukraine but a neutral government that doesn't persecute its own citizens in war crime fashion in the south east regions, like they have been doing. Freely elected by all of Ukraine and not just western Ukraine. Set up Neutrally in their Constitution, and work with the SE regions is some sort of satisfactory form of self government, or peacefully let them go to set up their own republics since Ukraine doesn't want to allow them equal status with ethnic Ukrainians. Disarm. And stay out of NATO written into their Constitution. And that civil war was and is still ongoing as the Ukraine army was about to move on those ethnic Russian areas when Putin crossed the border. In part to protect them.

The Crimean People virtually invited the Russians to take over Crimea and it was right after the Coup and before any form of open elections could have been held. They then voted to join Russia. And Russia is not going after more, but rather their independence.

The current President, Zelensky, a Jew, was elected with 70% of the people's vote but that didn't include any votes from the ethnic Russians under fire from Ukrainian Fascist militias and those that fled to Russia from the south east, from the war crimes of those militias.

As for those Ukrainian people fighting to the death, many were not allowed to flee by the government or drafted. I'll agree that many believe in fighting back. But they also don't know about the real history that got them there in the first place. And yes, many soldiers and innocent civilians have faced death in every war ever fought, often without really knowing the truth or being allowed to choose. I feel sorry for both sides and I blame NATO's aggressive expansion and trying to contain Russia on the west without justification.

As for NATO. they have been attacking Russia since the late nineties by slowly trying to cut off Russia to their west. And they are attacking Russia by arming and training the Ukrainian Army for at least 8 years in an attempt to eventually use Ukraine to further their attempts to contain Russia. A country that offered peace in 1991, attempted to join NATO at one time as a unified all Europe defense force and was turned down.

And remember, it was Europe that attacked Russia several times over the last few centuries. They have a right to mistrust Europe and they didn't attack Europe.

I disagree with your analysis of why NATO was formed. Your opinion seems at conflict with every opinion I ever heard before. That NATO was set up to act as a wall against any advancement by the Warsaw Pact nations. They never tried. So, once the Warsaw pact disbanded, NATO's reason for existence ended. It they reconstituted their mission after that, I'm not sure. But in conversations with Gorbachev they did agree, although not in writing, to never expand NATO to the east. Clinton broke that promise. I did hear one expression that NATO was kept to keep Germany down, Russia out and America in. They wanted out money.

Russia was no threat in the 90's or later. Communism was gone in Russia. Stalin was long dead. The Soviet Union was dead. The USSR was dead. Russia was in recovery mode. Funny how America helped Japan and Italy and Germany recover after the war and they became great friends to our country. But they gave a stiff shoulder to Russia.

I seriously believe that Finland and Sweden have nothing to worry about. Georgia, and Ukraine in part, were to halt NATO from setting up hostile forces on Russia's border. I repeat. Apparently the only need to join NATO is to protect your country from Russia. The only reason you need to protect yourself from Russia is if you joined NATO. It is a no brainer. Don't join NATO and give Peace a chance.

You state, "NATO never agreed in 1991 to not expand. That is just a propaganda talking point of Putin's." I disagree. I have seen statements that at the time that was agreed to. I don't have that at hand as proof, but I wouldn't have used it all along if I hadn't read it somewhere. If you have Gorbachev's comment and source I will agree if I can't find mine. But why would they not ask for anything in turn while disbanding. Makes no sense, logically.

***I wish I could agree with you, but, then we would both be wrong.
>>>I wish I could agree with you, but, then we would both be wrong.

Logically Right

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

In answer to the Gorbachev's comment try this link from a The Brookings Institute.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

As far as the rest, there are always two sides to every story and both sides are not known as angels in cold war provocation. Truth lies somewhere in the middle. However, Russia's military aggression three times into neighboring states is beyond an acceptable response in my opinion.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Lets state the we will have to agree, peacefully, to disagree as seeing things from different viewpoints. And I respect a more intelligent discussion then normally found on OPP.

I read the Gorbachev comments from years later. But I looked further because I remember reading something, some months back, to the contrary.
https://larouchepub.com/other/2021/4824-chatham_house_lies_about_aggre.html
Old records and files have been declassified. From that site I find these quotes of interest.

"Lough claimed that U.S. Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev in July 1990 that NATO would not expand eastwards past Germany,"

"with 30 declassified documents showing that, indeed, NATO expansion was discussed from the earliest moment that German reunification became a distinct possibility. Moreover, Gorbachev was assured then that NATO would not expand eastwards—not only by Secretary of State Baker, but by European officials as well."

"Genscher specified that a reunified Germany would remain part of the Western alliance: But at the same time, the unification process “must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests’.” Therefore, Genscher continued, “NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east; i.e., moving it closer to Soviet borders’.”

"Baker frankly admitted to Gorbachev that NATO is the mechanism for maintaining the U.S. military presence in Europe:" "If you abolish NATO, there will be no more U.S. presence. We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east."

"Would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?"
Gorbachev responded: "[W]e will think everything over. We intend to discuss all these questions in depth at the leadership level. It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable."
Soviet account stated, Baker affirmed: "We agree with that."

"NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, is reported to have said that the purpose of NATO was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” More than 70 years later, the Chatham House report clearly indicates that the British intend to make sure that this remains the Alliance’s purpose."

Apparently they also want to keep Russia down and contained. These kinds or reports have led to a lot of my opinions.
We'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Cheers and have a nice day
Logically Right