Comment on What is it called when you believe the U.S. political parties shouldn’t exist?
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 15 hours agoThe US instituted a mandatory draft to fight that war.
But that was an offensive war, and most countries don’t do those.
Finland was much much safer before.
Depends on how you define “to be safe”. The Russia had declared that its goal is to return the borders of the Russian empire. That sounded a bit scary, but we shrugged it off, because it would require a war and that would hurt the Russia so much that such a war would be idiocy and therefore will not happen.
In case you don’t know where the borders of the Russian Empire were, they included for example these:
- Finland
- Estonia
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- half of Poland
- Ukraine
- Moldova
So, we were not in danger, because the Russia would not be stupid enough to begin a war in Ukraine or in Finland, as it was clear that it would hurt the Russia’s economy more than it could ever be of use to it. The Finnish defence doctrine was based on the concept of credible defence. We were told in school that “they can attack us and they could most likely even take over all of Finland, but our army is able to incur such big losses to them that they will not want to do that.” But then, it turned out that the Russia does not care about losses.
So, we found out two things:
- the Russia is really interested in acting to its declarations. They are not just empty words as we had assumed
- the Russia does not care about losses – therefore the doctrine of credible defence does not protect from the Russia
You can say that we were not in danger because we didn’t know that we are in danger. And in some way that’s true. But, once we found out that we are in danger, then, well, we were. Since the doctrine of credible defence went down the drain, meaning that Finland effectively did not have a defence that is able to protect it, what else than joining NATO do you suggest we should have done to gain a level of defence capability able to keep the Russia out of Finland? Name one other option that we had.
Your idea that the Russia has a right to defend itself by preemptively taking over Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, half of Poland, Ukraine, and Moldova is, well… It would be impolite saying what it makes you look like.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
That is an outright falsehood that would be exposed in democracy. Even idealist “Reconstitution of USSR” implies zero military threat to non-deranged non-propagandists.
They of course care about losses. Hopefully, you are not taking Ukrainian claims about their losses with any credibility. Not submitting to demonic evil is a very high priority for Russia. Dead, nuclear incinerated, Finns being more useful to world than the territory of Finland should be your primary concern with your rulers and the lies you repeated from them.
All of it based on programming that the US is not 100% responsible for nazification of Ukraine and starting the war they wanted 100% started. The corrupt tyranny of Finland that dooms its people to destruction based on this genuinely absurd lie, has corruption so strong in their CIA devotion, that Trump’s extortion and 5% of GDP as military spending US tribute gives them 0 pause in their fascism over you. Similar brainwashing levels apply to Canada, but we’re lucky to not pose enough of a threat in our evil that requires nuclear annihilation of our population.