oldspiceland t1_j6kdquh wrote

Because it’s ultimately beneficial to have both of them in NATO from the perspectives of them and other NATO member states. They’re hoping that by creating a buffer of states large enough they will be able to ensure that Russia’s aggressive tendencies are outweighed by the knowledge that anyone they attack will have NATO riding to defend them instead of might.

Might allows for a lot of room for stupid decisions.


oldspiceland t1_j6k9jg6 wrote

Your premise exists on the idea that the thing you called ridiculous (Sweden not coming to their defense regardless of treaty status) is not actually ridiculous at all.

None of this actually matters until it does. It’s not like NATO has ever actually been tested. Who knows, if Russia invaded Turkey, Greece might refuse the call to aid despite NATO. What is NATO’s recourse in that situation? Invading Greece? They will have larger issues to deal with.


oldspiceland t1_j6k87o1 wrote

Honestly I don’t understand how you think it doesn’t make sense. You explained it pretty well.

The point is that Finland is trying to leverage the possibility of this as a reason to not join as a lever to move Turkey to allow Sweden to join.

Like, the context here in the post is already pretty clear so?


oldspiceland t1_j6k6f19 wrote

I explained it pretty clearly. Finland sees joining NATO without a commitment from Sweden as putting themselves in a poor strategic situation.

Sweden is vital to Finland’s strategic security in the event of a war with Russia and if Sweden were to remain neutral in such a scenario it would be catastrophic for Finland as they would effectively be cut off.

This isn’t rocket science. Finland is trying to guarantee that they will have supply routes in case of a war, otherwise they aren’t willing to participate in that war. Theoretically joining NATO means that participation is not optional in this scenario. If Finland joins NATO without Sweden then Russia could potentially cut Finland off from NATO if Sweden were to remain neutral.

Whether it’s likely or not doesn’t counter the catastrophe if it happens.


oldspiceland t1_j5kd86e wrote

Moving goalposts. This isn’t about how many people they killed, it’s about dead children.

But beyond that, The Terror accounts for 17,000 public executions in under a year but only 20 of them were children.

19 children were left to die by police in Uvalde alone.

Robespierre, along with 80+ other conspirators, was executed himself, none of the police in Uvalde are going to be executed.

Maybe comparing protests to The Reign of Terror isn’t the best huh?


oldspiceland t1_j1ly3jo wrote

The only way to help these Afghani children would be to remove the Taliban from power, which the west got bored of having done because it wasn’t easy and fast.

If the NGO can’t have female staff then the Taliban will also not let the NGO work with female children either immediately or very very soon after. Honestly blaming the NGO by saying they shouldn’t hold back assistance because of an ideological stance is hilarious. The NGO can stop aid for any reason it wants and if you were in their shoes you’d feel the same.