Finland, the shiny new NATO member (want to be) shows its colours
Learning to lie like the best of them
When the idea of Finland and Sweden joining NATO was aired, I wrote, in an earlier note, the following observations from the Finnish president was included:
The Finnish president made the observation, after his call to Putin, of how calmly Putin responded to his announcement of his intent for Finland (which surprised him). To me, its not the calmness of Putin that is surprising. He is probably aware that if push comes to shove, regardless of what was the motivating factors, Finland and Sweden are unlikely to be on the side of Russia. He has probably thought through the pressure, these less than sovereign countries, must be under to pay homage to their imperial masters. He is aware, they would not even allow a referendum, for the voice of their own people to be heard, so he knows, his voice is not going to be heard. Unlike the US political landscape where politicians are in general herd creatures that love to show their pseudo-sincerity by theatrical outbursts of emotions, the Russian president’s statements tends to contain much less, rending of garments, for the cameras.
I also noted that Putin, as he did in Ukraine, demarcated the actions, by Finland, that would prove to be an existential treat to Russia and would provoke a response:
"Russia has no problem with those states (Finland and Sweden). So there is no direct threat from expansion (of NATO) to those countries. But deploying military infrastructure will provoke a response [...] based on the threats they create for us"
The Swedish government, at the time, made the following statement:
Sweden has voiced repeatedly that it will not host NATO bases or nuclear missiles on its soil - a key caveat it repeated Sunday.
Though there was no mention in the article of Finland making similar statements, Finland fully understands that hosting NATO military infrastructure would be a red line for Russia, specially nuclear ones. The statements of either of these, would be NATO countries, to reassure Russia, that its security would be respected, will be met by Russia with skepticism. Russia is likely to be fully aware any NATO assurances are just hot air, from ample experiences with NATO in the past. NATO and the empire that controls it are prone to make this type of verbal assurances with their actions almost always in contrast to their words. As Putin puts it they are an
"Empire of Lies".
I am sure that, even back then, Russia had no illusions that the words of NATO/Empire could be trusted, that, in my opinion, would have been factored into their plans. If I were in their shoes, I would almost plan more on the side that they would do just the opposite. I made this observation in the note as well:
The assurance that they will not put bases and nukes there (Finland/Sweden) is probably as good as NATO’s promise to not expand towards Russia in the past. The sad thing is you cannot count on the crazy man in the room to behave rationally. The results may not be good for the rest of us, if my musing turns out to be true.
Well, I wish I could say that my cynicism was unfounded, which would be such a pleasant change in global affairs. However, I/we are not to be gifted with actions towards peace.
Finland announces that it would host nukes next to Russia’s borders, after joining NATO. This country, that did not allow its citizens to have a referendum to let the people have a voice in that issue, is now voicing more moves that place the people in Finland in further danger, ignoring the truly existential threat to its citizens. The danger is not theoretical. If Russia has no time to ascertain the risk from actions taken by the rabid NATO/US agglomeration, Russia must assume the risk is real each time. Furthermore, Russia will be placed in a position to take preemptive action to safeguard its own people. How is this going to do anything but bring about WWIII. Perhaps, the situation, under the direction of the elitists, is so bad for the empire, that, they need the mother of all distractions. Who can say.
I again must stress, I do not pretend to be able to predict the future. Never the less, the actions of the empire in the last little while has made it abundantly clear that nuclear war is front and centre on the table. The current US nuclear posture, which considers nuclear strikes in both nuclear and non-nuclear situations as policy, and the bolstering of their nuclear arsenal for “limited nuclear confrontation”, should bring shivers down our collective spines. Neither Russia nor China has come out and said they have changed their nuclear posture. To the contrary Russia, in the recent past, has made overtures to renew and even renegotiate the old reduction treaties, while the US has unilaterally abandoned them. However, I am quite sure they are moving in accordance to the current actions taken by the empire. I sure hope all parties involved has a steady hand and not plagued by twitchy fingers over the button.
So given so many pointers in the same direction, there can’t be many people out there that cannot see that what I have outlined is at least a distinct possibility. This crisis in the making, will make all the crimes and fumbling during the covid debacle seem insignificant. Though it is all linked in terms of power grab and the neutering of populations of the empire and our unquestioned acceptance from crazed authority figures the totally unacceptable.
Articles after this note was written
Could Sweden join Finland on its nuke fetish?
Russia says “the top priority is to prevent any military clash of nuclear powers”, but, how is that possible with the current state of distrust and the mountain of lies.