The highly probable accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a very good example of the law of unintended consequences.

In an autocracy they don't dare address worst case scenarios.

That is one huge extra border, with a very good army, added to Putins paranoia.

And that last bit is what worries me the most. Not per se the prolonged War, because I can believe the Western Democracies can support Ukraine materially as Russia’s manpower losses and consumption of high-tech weaponry continue.

But Putin will not, and cannot, back down. So the more pressure applied, the more he is likely to over-react irrationally.

Wot - and the rest wasn't?

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what it is you're trying to say here

Are you saying that NATO shouldn't allow Finland to join because it would then abut Russia? but if so, what should NATO do once Russia attacks Finland like they did to Ukraine? Should they then remove Sweden [1] from NATO because now they abut Russia? and just keep going like that until we reach the Atlantic coast?

And the reason for this is what again? That we might make Russia angry and they might attack us with what's left of their military? I mean it's not like they're an impressive fighting force, though I suppose they could always attack unarmed civilians. Seriously now, the last 10 weeks have been a constant embarrassment for them.



[1] yes I know they're not part of NATO ... yet

That's not true for the UK.

Both not far from Salisbury, with its must-see spire ...

Boris is clearly a lot smarter than I'd imagined if he somehow persuaded Putin to invade Ukraine. This was his strategy to distract the press from Partygate perhaps?

Nigel Farage here cautions against poking the Russian bear. He seems to share a few more of your ideas.
Could you both be working to the same brief?

Not so sure I buy the poking the bear argument.
At the risk of exhausting a metaphor, said big-scary bear has actually turned out to be pretty skeletal, flea infested, with a bad case of mange and missing most of it's teeth.
It keeps growling and threatening to pull the house down - but is sounding increasingly lame.
If all you effectively have is a nuclear deterrent to threaten people with - then that leaves a lot of wiggle room for your opponent to ratchet up the pressure in small incremental steps doesn't it?

Why don't you ask the people from East Europe, what they think about the Russians?
I visited East Germany shortly after the Berlin wall fell, what the Russians did there and in other Eastern European countries was no better than the war crimes committed by Germany during WW2.

People were massacred or shipped out to Siberia.
Why don't you ask people from the Baltic countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, your view the Red comrade will be a lot less flattering.
Let's not forget their failed Afghanistan invasion.
Let's not forget Russias total destruction of parts of Georgia, Chechnya, and their support for their puppet in Belarus.

I have Russians friends, I have worked with Russian companies outside Russia on several occasions, wonder why most of them NEVER want to return to live in Russia, when they get the chance to live or escape somewhere else.

Unfortunately the amount of Russian disinformation is still dominating what Russian people get of news, and having local knowledge of how Belarus keep their power, by paying their police officers and army large amounts of cash and giving them privilege's only other people could dream of, the corruption is from within, and will be very hard to break down. These are both corrupt s.. countries who have very little regard for human life.

There is no mechanism to propose, or indeed come to an agreement for NATO to protect a third country. NATO is solely there as a defensive mechanism that binds other members to come to
the aid of a meme et who is attacked. If the NATO country was the one who started the attack, NATO protection isn’t enacted and the country is on its own.

Since 907, Russia has been involved in at least 175 wars. Of those, they were the assumed victors in 107 cases, and one of those is illogical but counted. In the rest, they were defeated or fought to a standstill. They are involved in 3 different active wars today, 2 of which are going to be long-term disasters for Russia, but there they are. Over their history of war the most striking observation is that a treaty carries little meaning in the Russian language, they get signed, and then, 1-2 years later the war starts up again. The wins that the Russians have had almost invariably been revisited at a later date. A term that gets used in relation to Russia is the concept of "defensive expansionism". Despite Russia being the aggressor in the majority of wars, the insecurity they feel results in taking action to attack a neighbor to protect their border with that neighbor. They then have a new border to be anxious over, and then attack that country. The term "trust" is not one that describes dealings with Russia over the last 1,000 years.

Finland and Sweden have every reason to be wary of Putin and his horde. The UK's declaration of support for Finland during the NATO membership process is one of the very few things that adds some credibility to the UK as a free state.

Don’t forget the ever successful invasion of Afghanistan by the soviets as well.

NATO (USA) could destroy Moscow without leaving its own shores. Western technology has moved on (as Russian forces in Ukraine are discovering to their considerable cost) and the only reason that Ukraine may join NATO is because it wants to. That is a concept that may appear difficult to comprehend in your part of the world but it is called freedom of choice, the right to self determination if you like.

I caught Beth RIgby's interview with Russia's ambassador to the EU yesterday on Sky. She kind of missed a trick because she didn't ask him about Russia's actions earlier this year, when they were almost daring Sweden and Finland to dispense with their neutrality, with the Russian embassy in Helsinki asking their citizens in Finland to report instances of Russophobia, and sending its aircraft into Swedish airspace. Of course this could have been their response to both of these countries sending military aid to Ukraine.

How could we forget, but the question was post-communist Russia era bombings and rapings of innocent civilians by Russian troops and/or mercenaries.
However we could add Central African Republic to the list.

Then why didn't Russia simply militarize the border (guard posts, minefields, razor wire, layered defences, the whole nine yards), like the USSR did back in the day? FWIW I think the most potent threat to Russia is Russia itself; it really is its own worst enemy.

You do struggle with the concept of sovereignty. Also, given the events of the past three weeks, do you not think Ukraine's fears, hence their desire to join NATO, was justified?

We have been able to do that for decades, but haven't - Latvia is just as close. Why is that, do you think?

This pretty much sums it up

Sorry. My mistake. Thought we were talking about post WW2.

You can not always choose your timing. And events often dictate policy.
While I support the policy, if it is not backed up by military strength, it is meaningless.
If you are going to talk tough, you need to be able to be tough. And given all the other competing needs of the UK, defense has to be given a priority.

I would also hope that the UK will not be an outlier on this.

FYI, Prunus Dessicata has no declared Military service nor association, and is no longer able to Access this Military Forum following his determined trolling of this thread.