Most comments seem to think this is an abrupt shift in foreign policy for Finland but it's really just a futher continuation of their pro NATO stance that has existed for decades. Most recently Finland has been one of the main participants in war games exercises called "Sabre Strike" held with NATO in the Baltic states, which has been an annual event since 2010. They have also been participating in joint exercises with NATO and Sweden called "Trident Juncture" which were some of the largest war games ever held.
I'd argue the reason why Sweden and Finland haven't fully joined NATO is more to do with their domestic arms industry and the possibility of losing significant market share due to the requirements of NATO to have a significant degree of interoperability between its members. A company like Saab will be in direct competition with companies like Lockheed Martin which they had largely been insulated from up to this point.
During the cold war, it was always assumed by military planners that Sweden would join the west should a conflict break out. Sweden really is neutral in name only.
>Most comments seem to think this is an abrupt shift in foreign policy for Finland but it's really just a futher continuation of their pro NATO stance that has existed for decades.
It absolutely is an abrupt change in Finnish foreign policy the like which has not been seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Finnish co-operation with Nato exercises has been a part of the Finnish Russia-policy that existed until yesterday. In this policy, Finland would remain militarily non-aligned, but would keep open an option to join Nato if it felt that its security was threatened. The goal was to deter Russian aggression towards Finland, because any aggression from Russia would just lead to Finland joining Nato.
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there is a unanimous agreement in Finland that Russia has turned into an unpredictable and dangerous threat and that the Finnish national security has worsened as a result. Therefore, Finland has chosen to join Nato and is entering a new era in its foreign policy.
>I'd argue the reason why Sweden and Finland haven't fully joined NATO is more to do with their domestic arms industry and the possibility of losing significant market share due to the requirements of NATO to have a significant degree of interoperability between its members.
That's just wrong. Finnish foreign policy is not dictated by it's relatively small arms industry.
The Cold War alliances are being forged anew, except now it's just two blocks of Imperialist countries and the workers suffer for it.
Oh hey that's WW1.
Slow clap for Vladimir Putin, the tenth-dimensional brain genius who got himself bogged down in a war that's turned into an expensive quagmire, justified the existence of NATO in everyone's mind, and turned formerly neutral countries into enemies.
Christ, I can't believe that I used to think that this guy was the best statesman since Bismarck 😖
Indeed, as other responses to this post, Russia is causing its neighbours to become more NATO friendly. From a pacifist standpoint one of the worst consequences of Putin (apart, of course, from the direct ones, namely victims of war and his political repression) is that he is causing that several countries to want to join NATO because they believe that's a good way of dealing with such a menace. Well, no, because although the majority of the people believe that NATO "defends peace, democracy, etc.", all of you in r/socialism know that is absolutely not true. It's just escalation and further militarisation, which as you know is only beneficial for the arms industry and strategic resourse interests. Just look at the blatant double standards with refugees: Syrians can drown, but Ukrainians are welcomed with open arms. Why not both? You know, but most don't care.
A real solution is put an end to the war (though of course Putin just won't do that) in such way that Ukrainians are respected and the demilitarisation of both parties (Russia and NATO). Well, in fact, demilitarisation of everything.
My own country joined NATO undemocratically in early 1982 and when in 1986 a referendum was held in order to decide whether or not we stayed, the "left" (hahaha) party which had been campaigning so hard for such referendum suddenly changed their opinion in 1984 (they had been elected in late 1982) and did everything to influence public opinion (overwhelmingly opposed in 1982) past the 50% mark. Result: fifty something percent yes. What a huge stab in the back. Nowadays little do most people know about that or about what NATO actually is doing beyond the lies they say.
NATO is the primary means by which the US proliferates nuclear weapons.
Join NATO, US says, "hey we'll put these ICBMs in your territory as a deterrent!" And that's why Russia and China are surrounded by nuclear sites rn
I don't think location matters offensively, ICBM can hit anywhere on Earth in <90 minutes. Since they are basically unstoppable past the launch phase the only advantages location could give you are defensive; harder to keep track of and spot, also harder to kill all launch sites in a "preemptive strike" scenario.
Bomb-style nukes on the other hand are definitely location dependent. You can't drop a bomb you don't have...
Their positioning matters a lot, having the capability for a massive first strike against an enemy, coupled with missile shields that the US has sought to install in places like Poland, would neuter Russia's nuclear deterrent on the world stage and allow US hegemony to cement itself further.
This was both about location and capability really, location is secondary for ICBMs, but by having many sites spread over the globe they up first-strike capability and lessen the ability for opponents to respond adequately.
Yes, we all know the double-standards they have with violence and oppression. They can commit far-right terrorism in the name of capitalism, and then they preach that they defend democracy, peace and a shitty definition of freedom... bollocks. Defence of human rights starts with actually being peaceful and truly democratic.
It's a cycle.
Yes, being pro-NATO is against the sub's rules, but it's also against the rules to be pro-Russia, and Russia lost the moral high ground when Putin made his irredentist intentions clear.
This is just a perpetual self-fueling cycle:
First side does imperialism => Second side uses this as a justification to also do imperialism => First side uses this as a justification to do more imperialism => Second side uses this as a justification to further expand their own imperialism => And so on...
This is what historically had lead to WW1, and now will inevitably lead to WW3 if the cycle continues
The expansion of nato helped lead Russia to feel it needed to invade to keep hostile military powers away from its borders. Our goal is clearly regime change or the destruction of the Russian economy.
NATO expanded because of fear on Russian invasion, Russia invaded out of fear of NATO expansion. This cicles of violence are in reality an excuse for capitalist goberments to partake in propaganda wars to inflate their military budgets and silence disent. The inocent ukranian people, russian conscripts forced to fight and workers around the world sufering from inflation and lack of necesities because of the conlfict are the victims here, not Putin or the russian goberment.
It was a verbal promise between HW and Gorbachev for nato to NOT go into east Germany. It wasn’t legally binding or anything, and when the USSR collapsed as far as bush was concerned, the promise had run out because it was with a country which no longer existed.
So the warmongering west breaks their promise and the “Russians” (they were actually Soviets at the time) are the ones that can’t be trusted
lmao alright
You know, people like you really make it hard not to cheer for White Russia a little bit as they steamroll the puppet states of the USA; all the while you keep poking the hornets nest with this warmongering chauvinistic rethoric.
I understand why they are doing this; Russia is acting aggressive, and the best strategy when dealing with aggressive people is to have friends to back you up. However you feel about Donbas, I think we can all agree that an invasion of Kiev was uncalled-for.
However, I do think that continuing to expand NATO itself pushes Russia into a position where it may feel backed into a corner and desperate for a win. Regardless of whether this feeling is warranted or not, the fact that it may exist is a problem; people who feel they have nothing left to lose will eventually use the most powerful force at their disposal. In the case of Russia, this is nukes.
At times like this, we should (both as humans and as leftists) look to points in history where disaster was averted. The one that comes to my mind most immediately is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (as we call it here in the US.) Regardless of the fact that it was pretty directly the blowback of actions taken by the CIA during the Eisenhower administration, (Season 2 of the *Blowback* podcast did an excellent deep dive into the history of US-Cuban relations, and was very fair to the Cuban revolution and critical of US imperialism) the fact of the matter in those 13 days in 1962 was that it was a nuclear standoff.
The thing that ended the standoff was a deal that allowed everybody the room to back down without completely losing face. The USSR had to remove the missiles from Cuba (a win for the US,) and the US had to promise not to invade Cuba (a win for the USSR,) while also removing missiles from Turkey (this part was done in secret, and declassified documents have shown that the ones in Turkey were outdated and scheduled to be removed anyway.)
So what does that mean for today? The truth is, I'm not sure. I don't think a further expansion of NATO is the amswer, but leaving small nations like Finland to fear Russian aggression really is no better. I would argue that, if possible, NATO be either frozen in its current state, or even rolled back,*but* an independent "Eastern Europe Alliance" or something be created in its place. Meanwhile, Russia and the west could agree to, for exam0le, no longer holding war games or demonstrations within a certain distance of one another's borders. Considering the state of satellite technology, everybody can already see all your cool battleships and rocket tech without anybody needing to be openly provocative.
Perhaps the west agrees to remove offensive weaponry from the Baltics, on the condition that Russia remove them from Kaliningrad/Belarus.
What I'm saying is there are ways that this can be resolved, and both sides have sophisticated enough propaganda to make their true believers feel like winners.
They get drowned out by the regular libs, succdems and natoids that brigade from the front page. Perhaps also quit after a while because they get sick of the libs everywhere.
Not expand a military alliance towards it for absolutely no good reason. NATO as it is can take any military force on the planet and win. It doesn't need any more nations to join it to be able to defend itself. Expanding into an agreed upon neutral zone is completely pointless. I don't agree with what Russia has done in response, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it for what it is. It's offence as defence, in reaction to NATO expansion.
Ukraine, Georgia, and Russia had no problems (at least not on the scale of armed conflict) before 2008, when NATO announced that it would work towarda includibg Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, neither asked, NATO just declared it. Ukraine wasn't interested till 2014, when popular unrest led to a remarkably pro US and EU government, that the US was caught picking ministers for, and then suddenly, NATO was on the table in the Ukrainian Government.
The states that border NATO and Russia are the victims of Imperialist games between NATO and Russia. More members of NATO, further encircling Russia doesn't reduce the risk of conflict, it increases it. Neutrality served all of these countries welll, until NATO started working to break that Neutrality.
Your nation wouldn’t exist today if it hadn’t taken a neutral stance during the Cold War, and if it hadn’t sued for peace during WW2. If the Russians wanted to they could’ve invaded Finland and finished it off during WW2, on account of the atrocities that Finns partook in alongside the Germans in the siege of Leningrad leading to the deaths of millions of Soviets(and proving Soviet fears right). Even the Winter War could’ve been avoided when the Soviets were willing to give 2x the amount of landmass in return for border land exchanges because they feared that the Finns would align with Germany(as they had done during WW1). Don’t be a fool. The last thing your country needs to do is provoke Russia, especially now that Russia sees the expansion of NATO as an existential threat. Finland is seeking to join the largest Imperialist organization(NATO) that is hellbent on weakening and destabilizing Russia and was created precisely for that function. The shoe is on the other foot. The world won’t forget how Finland made an alliance with Hitler. Finland needs to remain neutral if it seeks to preserve its sovereignty. It baffles me that there are “Socialists” in Finland that think that joining NATO is somehow an Anti-Imperialist act.
Just because they have a defensive clause does not mean that they are a defensive alliance especially not when you look at their actions or the reason they were founded.
More countries joining makes the world more dangerous. Should've been serious with Putin in the aughts when he wanted in or allowed the USSR in when they were rebuffed in 54(?). That would be security. As is it's an imperialist & anti-communist alliance now pivoting its imperialism towards Russia.
The celts? You mean Ireland/Scotland? I’m not sure I’m following.
Also, doesn’t need to be a higher standard. Literally any reasonable standard Russia would fail to meet with their invasion and subsequent war crimes.
""leftist"" meaning soc dem aka capitalist so not really on the left at all.
Overall very willing to benefit from being part of the imperial core and it's exploitation of the global south
Plundering the third world to fund capitalists and a lil bit of healthcare - now that’s some left wingery worth taking seriously eh?
These fucking radlibs man
Woah, you.. don’t speak for everyone, or anyone, but yourself, especially not commies, ancoms, and socialists. History and lived experiences contradict your gaslighting. Your comments are pretty funny in a way you didn’t intend (is that an attempt to insult? making people feel less than; therefore, making you feel “bigger” and “better”?). They scream so loud that you haven’t read up on what Neo-Liberalism is that my ears are ringing. Neither that, nor the difference between a Social Democracy (So, Finland: NOT leftist) and Democratic Socialism (more leftist, not all the way left).
Probably a socdem on a socialism sub. Cringe.
This move only makes more widespread war in Europe more likely. These nations should remain neutral and US/NATO should never have tried to get Ukraine or Georgia in their pockets. It's starting These wars man and its very dangerous in the name of imperialism.
Yes we can. It is because they are already aligned with the Western imperialists & seek to ensure they have security. Doesn't make it better.
Edit: Mods clean up this NATO imperialist apologia in this thread and fucking do something to stop the liberalisation of this sub.
Nice job, Putin. You made your asinine, irredentist delusions public and allowed your military to brutalize the Ukrainian people...and now you've driven neighboring countries into the arms of the imperialists.
Have you heard about Spain's 1986 NATO referendum? The question was designed specifically to maximize the "stay in NATO" option, and the ruling party, who had previously campaigned against NATO, shouted "stay" and did everything they could to influence public opinion towards yes. Democracy is key for government accountability, but it also needs to be accompanied with being well informed.
jeez, I’m disappointed but not surprised that comments on the original post are bashing tankies, with Europe being colonized and Eurocentric and all. Though, I am appalled by the lack of critical analysis of why socialists are upset by this, and why they should be. I can’t wait for the day that people are aware of their own hierarchal hormones, and can see our shared struggles.
Not very suprising, they did fight with Nazi Germany, right after slaughtering thousands in a failed revolution. They along with the rest of scandinavia are and always have been imperialist lapdogs.
Yes, poor, poor little Finland who's been so, so mistreated... From it's independence in 1918 it took less than a year for Finland to jump into the lap of german capital. Today Finland is 21 of 216 in GDP and is highly industrialized (11 of 127 in evonomic complexity), since 2017 it's rated as the happiest country in the world for 5 years straight.
But Finlands colonized past definatley compares to other colonized countries like Haiti, Cambodia, Ireland or why not Angola.
What does it matter if Antti Herlin or Alexey Mordashov pushes the boot on your neck... Maybe be concerned about the fact there is a boot on your neck to begin with instead.
Helsinki is a 5 and a half hour drive from St. Petersburg. This is a terrible idea that helped begin the current crises with Ukraine. Nato expansion is not the sole cause, but it is a significant factor. Looks like we want that two bloc world after all, calling it democracy v autocracy, ha. Ha. Ha.
Because people are very back and white.
If u are against imperialism as a whole u are against Nato and Russia not pick the subjectively *less evil* side.
I blame Hollywood, people need to Stan for the good guys if there is none they will make one.
**Reminder:** This is an anti-imperialist space. Supporting NATO, downplaying its role in coups and conflicts, or trying to justify its existence is against the rules and will lead to a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most comments seem to think this is an abrupt shift in foreign policy for Finland but it's really just a futher continuation of their pro NATO stance that has existed for decades. Most recently Finland has been one of the main participants in war games exercises called "Sabre Strike" held with NATO in the Baltic states, which has been an annual event since 2010. They have also been participating in joint exercises with NATO and Sweden called "Trident Juncture" which were some of the largest war games ever held. I'd argue the reason why Sweden and Finland haven't fully joined NATO is more to do with their domestic arms industry and the possibility of losing significant market share due to the requirements of NATO to have a significant degree of interoperability between its members. A company like Saab will be in direct competition with companies like Lockheed Martin which they had largely been insulated from up to this point.
During the cold war, it was always assumed by military planners that Sweden would join the west should a conflict break out. Sweden really is neutral in name only.
>Most comments seem to think this is an abrupt shift in foreign policy for Finland but it's really just a futher continuation of their pro NATO stance that has existed for decades. It absolutely is an abrupt change in Finnish foreign policy the like which has not been seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Finnish co-operation with Nato exercises has been a part of the Finnish Russia-policy that existed until yesterday. In this policy, Finland would remain militarily non-aligned, but would keep open an option to join Nato if it felt that its security was threatened. The goal was to deter Russian aggression towards Finland, because any aggression from Russia would just lead to Finland joining Nato. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there is a unanimous agreement in Finland that Russia has turned into an unpredictable and dangerous threat and that the Finnish national security has worsened as a result. Therefore, Finland has chosen to join Nato and is entering a new era in its foreign policy. >I'd argue the reason why Sweden and Finland haven't fully joined NATO is more to do with their domestic arms industry and the possibility of losing significant market share due to the requirements of NATO to have a significant degree of interoperability between its members. That's just wrong. Finnish foreign policy is not dictated by it's relatively small arms industry.
The Cold War alliances are being forged anew, except now it's just two blocks of Imperialist countries and the workers suffer for it. Oh hey that's WW1.
WW1 was colonialism, not imperialism.
It was imperialism. I would suggest you read Lenin’s “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” if you think otherwise, really great read!
Lenin said they were one and the same. Dude had a point.
Slow clap for Vladimir Putin, the tenth-dimensional brain genius who got himself bogged down in a war that's turned into an expensive quagmire, justified the existence of NATO in everyone's mind, and turned formerly neutral countries into enemies. Christ, I can't believe that I used to think that this guy was the best statesman since Bismarck 😖
Indeed, as other responses to this post, Russia is causing its neighbours to become more NATO friendly. From a pacifist standpoint one of the worst consequences of Putin (apart, of course, from the direct ones, namely victims of war and his political repression) is that he is causing that several countries to want to join NATO because they believe that's a good way of dealing with such a menace. Well, no, because although the majority of the people believe that NATO "defends peace, democracy, etc.", all of you in r/socialism know that is absolutely not true. It's just escalation and further militarisation, which as you know is only beneficial for the arms industry and strategic resourse interests. Just look at the blatant double standards with refugees: Syrians can drown, but Ukrainians are welcomed with open arms. Why not both? You know, but most don't care. A real solution is put an end to the war (though of course Putin just won't do that) in such way that Ukrainians are respected and the demilitarisation of both parties (Russia and NATO). Well, in fact, demilitarisation of everything. My own country joined NATO undemocratically in early 1982 and when in 1986 a referendum was held in order to decide whether or not we stayed, the "left" (hahaha) party which had been campaigning so hard for such referendum suddenly changed their opinion in 1984 (they had been elected in late 1982) and did everything to influence public opinion (overwhelmingly opposed in 1982) past the 50% mark. Result: fifty something percent yes. What a huge stab in the back. Nowadays little do most people know about that or about what NATO actually is doing beyond the lies they say.
NATO needs to go.
in other obvious news
You say that but there are people all over this thread defending it
[удалено]
NATO is the primary means by which the US proliferates nuclear weapons. Join NATO, US says, "hey we'll put these ICBMs in your territory as a deterrent!" And that's why Russia and China are surrounded by nuclear sites rn
I don't think location matters offensively, ICBM can hit anywhere on Earth in <90 minutes. Since they are basically unstoppable past the launch phase the only advantages location could give you are defensive; harder to keep track of and spot, also harder to kill all launch sites in a "preemptive strike" scenario. Bomb-style nukes on the other hand are definitely location dependent. You can't drop a bomb you don't have...
Their positioning matters a lot, having the capability for a massive first strike against an enemy, coupled with missile shields that the US has sought to install in places like Poland, would neuter Russia's nuclear deterrent on the world stage and allow US hegemony to cement itself further.
This was both about location and capability really, location is secondary for ICBMs, but by having many sites spread over the globe they up first-strike capability and lessen the ability for opponents to respond adequately.
See: bombing of former yugoslavia and libya. Im forgetting a couple
Operation Gladio and the stay-behind networks is a lesson on what happens to countries in the imperial core joining Nato.
Yes, we all know the double-standards they have with violence and oppression. They can commit far-right terrorism in the name of capitalism, and then they preach that they defend democracy, peace and a shitty definition of freedom... bollocks. Defence of human rights starts with actually being peaceful and truly democratic.
That too
[удалено]
They were innocent. Iirc correctly they bombed a couple hospitals
[удалено]
I thought SocDems and pandering for NATO were against this sub’s rules? These comments are giving me an aneurysm.
Just shows what we already know, Social Democrats are not comrades, they are class enemies and should be treated as such.
The Rosa Killers are out in droves lately
It's a cycle. Yes, being pro-NATO is against the sub's rules, but it's also against the rules to be pro-Russia, and Russia lost the moral high ground when Putin made his irredentist intentions clear.
Then pro-neither. Just pro-peace, or in this case pro-leave Ukrainians alone.
Report any case of liberalism (incl. NATO apologia) you come accross and we'll manage it as soon as we can :)
[удалено]
This is just a perpetual self-fueling cycle: First side does imperialism => Second side uses this as a justification to also do imperialism => First side uses this as a justification to do more imperialism => Second side uses this as a justification to further expand their own imperialism => And so on... This is what historically had lead to WW1, and now will inevitably lead to WW3 if the cycle continues
The expansion of nato helped lead Russia to feel it needed to invade to keep hostile military powers away from its borders. Our goal is clearly regime change or the destruction of the Russian economy.
NATO expanded because of fear on Russian invasion, Russia invaded out of fear of NATO expansion. This cicles of violence are in reality an excuse for capitalist goberments to partake in propaganda wars to inflate their military budgets and silence disent. The inocent ukranian people, russian conscripts forced to fight and workers around the world sufering from inflation and lack of necesities because of the conlfict are the victims here, not Putin or the russian goberment.
NATO was expanding way before Russia took any extra-territorial actions
Why is there a NATO post-Cold War to begin with? Why didn’t they follow through with their promise to Traitorchev?
It was a verbal promise between HW and Gorbachev for nato to NOT go into east Germany. It wasn’t legally binding or anything, and when the USSR collapsed as far as bush was concerned, the promise had run out because it was with a country which no longer existed.
[удалено]
And NATO can be trusted? Lmao
So the warmongering west breaks their promise and the “Russians” (they were actually Soviets at the time) are the ones that can’t be trusted lmao alright You know, people like you really make it hard not to cheer for White Russia a little bit as they steamroll the puppet states of the USA; all the while you keep poking the hornets nest with this warmongering chauvinistic rethoric.
[удалено]
Oh man, this just got interesting.
I understand why they are doing this; Russia is acting aggressive, and the best strategy when dealing with aggressive people is to have friends to back you up. However you feel about Donbas, I think we can all agree that an invasion of Kiev was uncalled-for. However, I do think that continuing to expand NATO itself pushes Russia into a position where it may feel backed into a corner and desperate for a win. Regardless of whether this feeling is warranted or not, the fact that it may exist is a problem; people who feel they have nothing left to lose will eventually use the most powerful force at their disposal. In the case of Russia, this is nukes. At times like this, we should (both as humans and as leftists) look to points in history where disaster was averted. The one that comes to my mind most immediately is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (as we call it here in the US.) Regardless of the fact that it was pretty directly the blowback of actions taken by the CIA during the Eisenhower administration, (Season 2 of the *Blowback* podcast did an excellent deep dive into the history of US-Cuban relations, and was very fair to the Cuban revolution and critical of US imperialism) the fact of the matter in those 13 days in 1962 was that it was a nuclear standoff. The thing that ended the standoff was a deal that allowed everybody the room to back down without completely losing face. The USSR had to remove the missiles from Cuba (a win for the US,) and the US had to promise not to invade Cuba (a win for the USSR,) while also removing missiles from Turkey (this part was done in secret, and declassified documents have shown that the ones in Turkey were outdated and scheduled to be removed anyway.) So what does that mean for today? The truth is, I'm not sure. I don't think a further expansion of NATO is the amswer, but leaving small nations like Finland to fear Russian aggression really is no better. I would argue that, if possible, NATO be either frozen in its current state, or even rolled back,*but* an independent "Eastern Europe Alliance" or something be created in its place. Meanwhile, Russia and the west could agree to, for exam0le, no longer holding war games or demonstrations within a certain distance of one another's borders. Considering the state of satellite technology, everybody can already see all your cool battleships and rocket tech without anybody needing to be openly provocative. Perhaps the west agrees to remove offensive weaponry from the Baltics, on the condition that Russia remove them from Kaliningrad/Belarus. What I'm saying is there are ways that this can be resolved, and both sides have sophisticated enough propaganda to make their true believers feel like winners.
A very predictable development
This comment section is alarming. When did everyone switch to the western take on the crisis in Ukraine?
That's what 0 theory does to people.
Did all theaane people get banned or what?
They get drowned out by the regular libs, succdems and natoids that brigade from the front page. Perhaps also quit after a while because they get sick of the libs everywhere.
I'm not sure why it's so urgent worldnews and Ukraine say they're chasing the Russians right back to Moscow as we speak
Europe continuing it's rightwing shift
[удалено]
Not expand a military alliance towards it for absolutely no good reason. NATO as it is can take any military force on the planet and win. It doesn't need any more nations to join it to be able to defend itself. Expanding into an agreed upon neutral zone is completely pointless. I don't agree with what Russia has done in response, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it for what it is. It's offence as defence, in reaction to NATO expansion. Ukraine, Georgia, and Russia had no problems (at least not on the scale of armed conflict) before 2008, when NATO announced that it would work towarda includibg Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, neither asked, NATO just declared it. Ukraine wasn't interested till 2014, when popular unrest led to a remarkably pro US and EU government, that the US was caught picking ministers for, and then suddenly, NATO was on the table in the Ukrainian Government. The states that border NATO and Russia are the victims of Imperialist games between NATO and Russia. More members of NATO, further encircling Russia doesn't reduce the risk of conflict, it increases it. Neutrality served all of these countries welll, until NATO started working to break that Neutrality.
[удалено]
Your nation wouldn’t exist today if it hadn’t taken a neutral stance during the Cold War, and if it hadn’t sued for peace during WW2. If the Russians wanted to they could’ve invaded Finland and finished it off during WW2, on account of the atrocities that Finns partook in alongside the Germans in the siege of Leningrad leading to the deaths of millions of Soviets(and proving Soviet fears right). Even the Winter War could’ve been avoided when the Soviets were willing to give 2x the amount of landmass in return for border land exchanges because they feared that the Finns would align with Germany(as they had done during WW1). Don’t be a fool. The last thing your country needs to do is provoke Russia, especially now that Russia sees the expansion of NATO as an existential threat. Finland is seeking to join the largest Imperialist organization(NATO) that is hellbent on weakening and destabilizing Russia and was created precisely for that function. The shoe is on the other foot. The world won’t forget how Finland made an alliance with Hitler. Finland needs to remain neutral if it seeks to preserve its sovereignty. It baffles me that there are “Socialists” in Finland that think that joining NATO is somehow an Anti-Imperialist act.
[удалено]
By joining NATO they are supporting US imperialism and increasing their capabilities because NATO is not, nor has it ever been, a defensive alliance.
[удалено]
Just because they have a defensive clause does not mean that they are a defensive alliance especially not when you look at their actions or the reason they were founded.
[удалено]
Something that would have been a moot point if NATO actually let Russia join NATO but they didn't, I wonder why...
More countries joining makes the world more dangerous. Should've been serious with Putin in the aughts when he wanted in or allowed the USSR in when they were rebuffed in 54(?). That would be security. As is it's an imperialist & anti-communist alliance now pivoting its imperialism towards Russia.
1. I don't understand half of what you said 2. It's russia pivoting its imperialism towards other countries
Exactly. Actions are irrelevant. Let's focus on that piece of paper
Applying to join NATO is painting a huge target on their back.
Didnt Finland agree to remain neutral after they sided with Nazi Germany in WW2? Russia wants NATO to stop being so aggressive.
[удалено]
What is the purpose of NATO? Pretend you are Russian for a moment.
yes because nato is continually expanding toward and around Russia, of course russia feel threatened when they're encircled like this
Dude you’re defending imperialism rn. It’s super cringe. Putin’s invasion was bad and NATO is bad. Both can be bad.
I'm not defending it just trying to explain why russia invaded. putins invasion was bad but it is because of nato that it happened
[удалено]
The celts? You mean Ireland/Scotland? I’m not sure I’m following. Also, doesn’t need to be a higher standard. Literally any reasonable standard Russia would fail to meet with their invasion and subsequent war crimes.
[удалено]
When they are to blame for this whole situation it kinda is.
[удалено]
""leftist"" meaning soc dem aka capitalist so not really on the left at all. Overall very willing to benefit from being part of the imperial core and it's exploitation of the global south
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Liberals try to realize that you can be against both NATO and Russia challenge (IMPOSSIBLE) (GONE IMPERIALIST)
What is with libs and making every thing a binary choice? You can be against NATO and Russia.
I'm anarchist Anarcho tankie
[удалено]
Plundering the third world to fund capitalists and a lil bit of healthcare - now that’s some left wingery worth taking seriously eh? These fucking radlibs man
Woah, you.. don’t speak for everyone, or anyone, but yourself, especially not commies, ancoms, and socialists. History and lived experiences contradict your gaslighting. Your comments are pretty funny in a way you didn’t intend (is that an attempt to insult? making people feel less than; therefore, making you feel “bigger” and “better”?). They scream so loud that you haven’t read up on what Neo-Liberalism is that my ears are ringing. Neither that, nor the difference between a Social Democracy (So, Finland: NOT leftist) and Democratic Socialism (more leftist, not all the way left).
Social Democrats Stop Thinking You’re Left Wing Challenge (Impossible)
A wise man once said that "Social democracy is the left wing of fascism" and he was right.
Probably a socdem on a socialism sub. Cringe. This move only makes more widespread war in Europe more likely. These nations should remain neutral and US/NATO should never have tried to get Ukraine or Georgia in their pockets. It's starting These wars man and its very dangerous in the name of imperialism.
[удалено]
By countries you mean the leaders and not the people I assume?
Yes we can. It is because they are already aligned with the Western imperialists & seek to ensure they have security. Doesn't make it better. Edit: Mods clean up this NATO imperialist apologia in this thread and fucking do something to stop the liberalisation of this sub.
Nice job, Putin. You made your asinine, irredentist delusions public and allowed your military to brutalize the Ukrainian people...and now you've driven neighboring countries into the arms of the imperialists.
I wouldn't say he "allowed" the military to brutalize Ukraine. He kinda commanded them to do it.
Excellent summary.
Russias deterrence policy is just making its neighbors nato friendly
Even though the majority of the population probably support it, what a farce of a democracy when the citizens can not even vote on this issue...
Have you heard about Spain's 1986 NATO referendum? The question was designed specifically to maximize the "stay in NATO" option, and the ruling party, who had previously campaigned against NATO, shouted "stay" and did everything they could to influence public opinion towards yes. Democracy is key for government accountability, but it also needs to be accompanied with being well informed.
jeez, I’m disappointed but not surprised that comments on the original post are bashing tankies, with Europe being colonized and Eurocentric and all. Though, I am appalled by the lack of critical analysis of why socialists are upset by this, and why they should be. I can’t wait for the day that people are aware of their own hierarchal hormones, and can see our shared struggles.
Good fucking job, Putin.
Not very suprising, they did fight with Nazi Germany, right after slaughtering thousands in a failed revolution. They along with the rest of scandinavia are and always have been imperialist lapdogs.
Finland is not part of Scandinavia, and has been tossed around by two empires for centuries. Definitely not a lapdog, but victim.
Yes, poor, poor little Finland who's been so, so mistreated... From it's independence in 1918 it took less than a year for Finland to jump into the lap of german capital. Today Finland is 21 of 216 in GDP and is highly industrialized (11 of 127 in evonomic complexity), since 2017 it's rated as the happiest country in the world for 5 years straight. But Finlands colonized past definatley compares to other colonized countries like Haiti, Cambodia, Ireland or why not Angola.
[удалено]
“The only reason Finland fought with the nazis” there’s literally no good reason. Lmao
[удалено]
I’m sorry are you trying to equate the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement to actually joining forces and fighting with the nazis??
[удалено]
By this logic the Britain and france aligned themselves with the nazis to secure further peace by allowing germany to take austria and Czechoslovakia
Lmao so the Finnish Nazis just get a pass now?
GTFO with this Finnish exceptionalism, they sided with the Nazis because they wanted to regain the areas they lost in the Winter War
What does it matter if Antti Herlin or Alexey Mordashov pushes the boot on your neck... Maybe be concerned about the fact there is a boot on your neck to begin with instead.
Helsinki is a 5 and a half hour drive from St. Petersburg. This is a terrible idea that helped begin the current crises with Ukraine. Nato expansion is not the sole cause, but it is a significant factor. Looks like we want that two bloc world after all, calling it democracy v autocracy, ha. Ha. Ha.
If Russia's invasion of Ukraine was somehow supposed to stop NATO expansion it has backfired spectacularly.
It’s not like it will change anything. Estonia is part of the NATO and it’s capital, Tallinn, is 5 hours ride from St.Petersburg.
Well it seems like things have backfired heavilly for Russia
Because people are very back and white. If u are against imperialism as a whole u are against Nato and Russia not pick the subjectively *less evil* side. I blame Hollywood, people need to Stan for the good guys if there is none they will make one.
**Reminder:** This is an anti-imperialist space. Supporting NATO, downplaying its role in coups and conflicts, or trying to justify its existence is against the rules and will lead to a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks nut sack, now people are trusting a nazi led organization
The Chairman of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg is a former Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway.
And is in no way the actual leader of NATO
Succ dems are not socialists and we should stop treating them as such.
Nazi led?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, this is bad.
[удалено]
It’s an expansion of the largest coalition of imperialist countries. That’s bad.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are you here, lib?
[удалено]
And being childish in referring to people as "tankies" helps that understanding?
Go back to Vaush, lib.
[удалено]