Where do the Members of SDF stand on the issue of the War in the Ukraine?

On the issue of the war (2008-2014-) between USA and Russia taking place in Ukraine ... My point of view as an inhabitant of Europe is as follows:

(1) Tomas de Torquemada ...


... was a fucking aficionado, an amateur ... The chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the parliament of Finland (which is not part of NATO) was forced to resign over a sentence, a simple, peaceful and reasonable sentence that said "maybe someone, for example Macron, should say that Ukraine should not be part of NATO."

That is to say: there is no trace of freedom of thought and expression, of course it is allowed to vent in a village tavern; but no European public official is allowed to deviate from the script dictated by London and Washington.

(2) If the Russian government had asked for 900 billion Euros and half of the women of Western Europe then, as you understand, the price was perhaps a bit high. But it turns out that what they were asking for was fair, reasonable and beneficial to all ... except for the fanatics in London and their heirs in Washington "inside the Beltway".

The so-called Chancellor of supposedly Germany, and Ursula and Josep Borrell and the rest of the rag dolls who claim to be our representatives will never explain to us why it was so terrible to listen to, understand and concede Russia's reasonable demand.

W20 said:

The so-called Chancellor of supposedly Germany, and Ursula and Josep Borrell and the rest of the rag dolls who claim to be our representatives will never explain to us why it was so terrible to listen to, understand and concede Russia's reasonable demand.

Click to expand...

Because countries have the right to choose! Unless you are the Soloman Islands and the choice is stand with China

If Russia does not go to war Finland over NATO formal accession (exceeding Ukraine's aspirational of NATO), then it would just prove it's more about sphere of influence over former Soviet/Tsarist territory than actual NATO membership per se. If Finland gets a free pass, then the Ukraine war is really about restoring sphere of influence and cementing Putin The Great, gatherer of lost territories, as his long-standing legacy.

Phead128 said:

If Russia does not go to war Finland over NATO formal accession (exceeding Ukraine's aspirational of NATO), then it would just prove it's more about sphere of influence over former Soviet/Tsarist territory than actual NATO membership per se. If Finland gets a free pass, then the Ukraine war is really about restoring sphere of influence and cementing Putin The Great, gatherer of lost territories, as his long-standing legacy.

Click to expand...

Except Finland used to be part of the Russian Empire.....

Phead128 said:

What's with so many former Russian colonies trying to get into NATO. Darn brainwashed Western stooges.

Click to expand...

Don't think those tsars treated their new territory very well. Once they got their independence, all wanted it to stay independent. No one wants to be exploited.

If you think about it, Russia is the only European country that kept their imperial spoils during the age of colonization (Siberia and far east). It just happens their expansions are into fairly empty territories in the far north where there is low population and is physically attached to Russia proper (European part). The English, French, Spanish and Portuguese all lost their colonies because they are across oceans.

Phead128 said:

What's with so many former Russian colonies trying to get into NATO. Darn brainwashed Western stooges.

Click to expand...

Who is the strongest, who is the richer?
Unless there are special circumstances, only a loser would side with the weaker side

Phead128 said:

If Russia does not go to war Finland over NATO formal accession (exceeding Ukraine's aspirational of NATO), then it would just prove it's more about sphere of influence over former Soviet/Tsarist territory than actual NATO membership per se. If Finland gets a free pass, then the Ukraine war is really about restoring sphere of influence and cementing Putin The Great, gatherer of lost territories, as his long-standing legacy.

Click to expand...

you really need to follow events prior it. Ukraine is not Europe let alone Finland which is basket case. UKraine is far more important than Europe which will be industrial waste land with dysfunctional demographics. EU is now willing to pay the price in trillions.
Sign of wealthy and educated nation is when attract farmers. there is difference between farm worker and farmer owner.
this was in 2018. what do you think climate change and water resources with melting of ice is creating now?

Addressing the Du Toits at his “Motherland” dairy farm in Kosyakovo, about 100km southeast of Moscow, general director Mikhail Baranov told the father and son: “You can be sure of one thing. You won’t find liberalism here, but family values instead.”

Click to expand...

Phead128 said:

If Russia does not go to war Finland over NATO formal accession (exceeding Ukraine's aspirational of NATO), then it would just prove it's more about sphere of influence over former Soviet/Tsarist territory than actual NATO membership per se. If Finland gets a free pass, then the Ukraine war is really about restoring sphere of influence and cementing Putin The Great, gatherer of lost territories, as his long-standing legacy.

Click to expand...

Finland is not a threat to Russia. Finnish is an Uralic language. Russian is mainly Uralic. Moskva is an Uralic word. Finland only has a few million people and Finland is de facto a NATO country. They use F-18.

Phead128 said:

What's with so many former Russian colonies trying to get into NATO. Darn brainwashed Western stooges.

Click to expand...

Why do you think Russia is a special case? Look around China, NK flirted with USSR, SK loved USA, Vietnam fought China for USSR and now is flirting with USA, Taiwan (not a colony but ethnically Chinese) would have joined Asian NATO in a eye blink if not for the threat from mainland China.

We can also look into the history further back in time and find even more examples everywhere in the world. In Europe around 1700 and 1800, the back and forth siding of countries between big powers like France, Austria, Russia and Britain.

Most people choose the strong and supposedly winning side at the junction of history. It is always like that. It has nothing to do with how one behaves and how one is treated.

Yommie said:

Finland is not a threat to Russia. Finnish is an Uralic language. Russian is mainly Uralic. Moskva is an Uralic word. Finland only has a few million people and Finland is de facto a NATO country. They use F-18.

Click to expand...

That is only TODAY, not after Finland formally joining NATO.

Finland as of today is not a threat to Russia even if it uses F-18. Finland after joining NATO will be a front line threat to Russia. Being official member of NATO obliges Finland to attack Russia if any conflict happens between Russia and another NATO member. Finland as of today does not have to do so even if it has close relationship with NATO.

Officially joining NATO does not necessarily prevent Russia attacking Finland if Russia felt a serious chance of conflict. Remember 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war, China invaded Vietnam after Vietnam signed a friendship and cooperation treaty with USSR in October 1978. At the time, the treaty's detailed texts were not published, so nobody knows if the treaty obliged USSR to militarily assist Vietnam in case of such war. China invaded Vietnam anyway. Why? 1. test the true nature of the treaty. 2. Call the USSR's bluff. This can happen to Finland too. Any ways, it was the Vietnamese paid the high cost. It is certainly Finland going to pay the cost if history repeats itself.

It is a extremely stupid move by the Finnish politician (and Swedish as well) to acquire more security by increasing the risk of loosing security. It is like gambling in a volatile stock market with one's whole pension saving.