France's doctrine in the 1970s was basically to use tactical nukes on Soviet mass armored formations once they entered Germany. Then if the Warsaw Pact forces continued towards their border they would nuke: Moscow, St. Petersburg, London, and New York if I remember correctly. All at the same time. This was supposed to ensure total destruction of the Warsaw Pact forces. Since France never had enough nukes to blow it all up themselves.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Hahaha so much for that. Word are cheap. That's all US and NATO can afford. All this useless talk and mental masturbation is really showing.
I would like a link to some source(s) for your interpretation since mine aren't good enough for you.
We are discussing whether Finland can become a NATO member or not, aren't we?
That said we can definitely agree that the treaty could and most likely would become void in case of Finnish NATO membership.
That depends how Russia sees it at that time.
It might also be formally denounced as part of that process if deemed legally nessesary or even possible.
Finally, cease being neutral does not give legitimate ground to being hostile or declaring war either.
For relevans to the current situation in Ukraine this definitely isn't the kind of neutrality treaty Russia would demand.
Something akin to the old one from 1948 would be much more likely.
That is like if you win the lottery and a friend tells you that you shouldn't take that free money, you are going to flip that finger faster than the speed of light.
Finland isn't "forbidden" to join NATO just like Russia isn't forbidden to treat Finland as an enemy if Finland does join.
Finland can violate as many bilateral and multi-lateral treaties as she deems fit to satisfy her desire to be part of the NATO club, just like Russia has no doubt violated numerous international treaties and agreements on sovereignty and territorial integrity by invading Ukraine.
And no, to cease being neutral does not mean you have to be hostile to your neighbour, but it certainly does not guarantee you won't act hostile towards them, and them towards you, because you throw away the only piece of paper that gives you that guarantee.
On that we can agree !
Actually, the US has been overplaying its hand since withdrawing from the INF, but was, and remains, too impressed by the appearance of its own strength to appreciate it.
The foundational strength of Russia is she can destroy the US and, as a great power, has nothing to lose.
When confronted by a power reaching for a goal for truly existential reasons, you should either be prepared to kill him, or you stay out of his way. US can’t kill Russia without being killed. And the US, as a great power has too much to lose. But the US was not smart enough to stay out of the way, and it may be dawning on the US That might be wise to not resist too hard to being shoved out of the way.
The foundational strength of Russia is she can destroy the US and, as a great power, has nothing to lose.
When confronted by a power reaching for a goal for truly existential reasons, you should either be prepared to kill him, or you stay out of his way. US can’t kill Russia without being killed. And the US, as a great power has too much to lose. But the US was not smart enough to stay out of the way, and it may be dawning on the US That might be wise to not resist too hard to being shoved out of the way.
Last edited:
Which Treaties has Finland violated?
None.
- Status