Finland must apply for NATO membership "without delay", Finnish leaders say

[vi-va]

Sure, that is fake Boris Johnson signing a fake document with a fake defence pact.

LOL Jesus, you are really funny

The UK has agreed mutual security pacts with Sweden and Finland, agreeing to come to their aid should either nation come under attack.

UK agrees mutual security deals with Finland and Sweden

Boris Johnson pledges to support each nation if they are attacked, as they consider joining Nato.

www.bbc.com

This is just diplomatic language of famous fake news channel BBC. There is little obligation UK has in this deal. This is not pack.

NATO is pack.

UK is Westminster, real pack need parliament back. Those legal process is necessary.

Also, UK is part of NATO. UK has no rights to sign security pack with other countries without NATO approval.

There is little obligation, no pack, only fake news and diplomatic tricks.

 

[jhungary]

The UK has agreed mutual security pacts with Sweden and Finland, agreeing to come to their aid should either nation come under attack.

UK agrees mutual security deals with Finland and Sweden

Boris Johnson pledges to support each nation if they are attacked, as they consider joining Nato.

www.bbc.com

This is just diplomatic language of famous fake news channel BBC. There is little obligation UK has in this deal. This is not pack.

NATO is pack.

UK is Westminster, real pack need parliament back. Those legal process is necessary.

Also, UK is part of NATO. UK has no rights to sign security pack with other countries without NATO approval.

There is little obligation, no pack, only fake news and diplomatic tricks.

Dude, you are delusional, you need to seek help.

And I am pretty sure UK can sign security pact with anyone non-NATO seeing they just sign AUSUK pact , and US have a long standing ANZUS pact as well. So with all due respect, you are wrong.

And security pact is NOT a law, that is a defence agreement, it does NOT need to pass thru House of Common.

And it's PACT, not PACK, this is not a piece of furniture you are talking about.

 

[Apollon]

I don't know what would be worse. Russian soldiers in Finland or Russian missiles. I think Russians would just bomb Finland and I don't want that. Finland has a special place in my heart.

Best would be to make it Impossible for russia to be a threat. And thats done

 

[Foinikas]

Best would be to make it Impossible for russia to be a threat. And thats done

Best would be for people to co-exist without fear and mutual suspicion. And NATO has been trying to recreate the Cold War for 20 years,as if they are trying to find an excuse to exist as an organisation.

 

[vi-va]

Dude, you are delusional, you need to seek help.

And I am pretty sure UK can sign security pact with anyone non-NATO seeing they just sign AUSUK pact , and US have a long standing ANZUS pact as well. So with all due respect, you are wrong.

And security pact is NOT a law, that is a defence agreement, it does NOT need to pass thru House of Common.

And it's PACT, not PACK, this is not a piece of furniture you are talking about.

You are so naive, don't understand politics at all.

UK and U.S. were part of NATO, U.S. and Australia have security pact decades ago.

AUKUS doesn't change anything.

Finland is not part of NATO, Finland has no security pact with U.S., nor any other countries.

If U.K. provide security assurance, it will drag NATO into the potential conflicts.

U.K. has no appetite nor capability to protect Finland.

NATO won't help if U.K. was dragged into the conflict.

There is no security pact, just lip service, and empty promose.

U.K. is in huge trouble on Northern Ireland, U.K. just ignite, incite more tension between E.U. and Russia.

Once the war break out between Finland and Russia. U.K. won't jump into the war, nor fight for Finland.

This is no pact at all, just diplomatic tricks.

Grow up

 

[khansaheeb]

Finland, worried by Russian invasion of Ukraine, moves to join NATO; Kremlin warns of response

Finland must apply to join the NATO military alliance "without delay", its president and prime minister said on Thursday, in a historic policy shift triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

Joint statement by the President of the Republic and Prime Minister of Finland on Finland's NATO membership - Tasavallan presidentti Sauli Niinistö

Office of the President of the Republic of Finland Prime Minister’s Office Press release 30/2022 12 May 2022 During this spring, an important discussion on Finland’s possible NATO membership has...

www.presidentti.fi

Europe people is becoming insane under the spell of mainstream massmedia lies about Russia and Ukraine.

This is the US to the Europoodles:-

 

[jhungary]

You are so naive, don't understand politics at all.

UK and U.S. were part of NATO, U.S. and Australia have security pact decades ago.

AUKUS doesn't change anything.

Finland is not part of NATO, Finland has no security pact with U.S., nor any other countries.

If U.K. provide security assurance, it will drag NATO into the potential conflicts.

U.K. has no appetite nor capability to protect Finland.

NATO won't help if U.K. was dragged into the conflict.

There is no security pact, just lip service, and empty promose.

U.K. is in huge trouble on Northern Ireland, U.K. just ignite, incite more tension between E.U. and Russia.

Once the war break out between Finland and Russia. U.K. won't jump into the war, nor fight for Finland.

This is no pact at all, just diplomatic tricks.

Grow up

First of all, ANZUS pact was signed into effect on September 1, 1951. NATO was formed with US as member on April 1, 1949. So no. ANZUS was SIGNED AFTER US formed NATO and is already a NATO member. And there are NO RESTRICTION on NATO member signing defence pact with Non-NATO member. Go find me the clause if there are, I have read NATO charter a few times as a member of US military involved in a NATO operation. I didn't find any, if you can find it, let me know. Otherwise.......

And lol about your view on Britain not going to jump into war. Finland ARE Applying for NATO, and UK are already publicly say they are going to accept their membership, which mean they are ALREADY willing to fight for Finland, otherwise why allowing Finland into NATO, they would have rejected Finland Application if they don't want to fight the Russian for Finland.

I mean, you can dig your head into the sand and pretend Russia are going to do something about it. Come back to me if and when Russia attack Finland, it's a moot point if Russia can't even finish their war in Ukraine and thinking about a bigger enemy in Finland.

LOL

 

[Apollon]

Best would be for people to co-exist without fear and mutual suspicion. And NATO has been trying to recreate the Cold War for 20 years,as if they are trying to find an excuse to exist as an organisation.

You cant coexist with putins facist terror regime.

 

[Foinikas]

You cant coexist with putins facist terror regime.

Tell me how many countries has Russia invaded since 1991 and how many countries has USA and NATO invaded,intervened or supported an uprising at? Don't bother. USA and NATO heavily outnumber Russia when it comes to that and they have destabilized regions so much,that countries haven't been able to live peacefully for decades.

 

[vi-va]

First of all, ANZUS pact was signed into effect on September 1, 1951. NATO was formed with US as member on April 1, 1949. So no. ANZUS was SIGNED AFTER US formed NATO and is already a NATO member. And there are NO RESTRICTION on NATO member signing defence pact with Non-NATO member. Go find me the clause if there are, I have read NATO charter a few times as a member of US military involved in a NATO operation. I didn't find any, if you can find it, let me know. Otherwise.......

And lol about your view on Britain not going to jump into war. Finland ARE Applying for NATO, and UK are already publicly say they are going to accept their membership, which mean they are ALREADY willing to fight for Finland, otherwise why allowing Finland into NATO, they would have rejected Finland Application if they don't want to fight the Russian for Finland.

I mean, you can dig your head into the sand and pretend Russia are going to do something about it. Come back to me if and when Russia attack Finland, it's a moot point if Russia can't even finish their war in Ukraine and thinking about a bigger enemy in Finland.

LOL

Finland of course can seek protection from NATO once join in. Not yet.

In the early days, back in 1949 and 1951, NATO is very small group, all strong nations were either destroyed, or weakened.

U.S. itself is NATO, other smaller nations of NATO were just seeking protection from U.S.

U.S. can have the freedom to sign ANZUS, the rest countries in NATO can't complain.

U.S. is the net contributor of NATO in 1949, and 1951.

U.K. is U.S. protectorate state right now. If U.K. want to join the war with Russia, go ahead. U.S. has no appetite nor interest to have a direct confrontation with Russia right now.

If U.K. want to protect Finland, go ahead, but U.K. is part of NATO, the rest of NATO countries won't allow U.K. to drag NATO into this war.

U.K. has no rights to drag other countries into the war.

Mostly importantly, U.K. has no capability to stop Russia invasion, U.K. can only provide weapons, or some mercenaries.

 

[jhungary]

Finland of course can seek protection from NATO once join in. Not yet.

In the early days, back in 1949 and 1951, NATO is very small group, all strong nations were either destroyed, or weakened.

U.S. itself is NATO, other smaller nations of NATO were just seeking protection from U.S.

U.S. can have the freedom to sign ANZUS, the rest countries in NATO can't complain.

U.S. is the net contributor of NATO in 1949, and 1951.

U.K. is U.S. protectorate state right now. If U.K. want to join the war with Russia, go ahead. U.S. has no appetite nor interest to have a direct confrontation with Russia right now.

If U.K. want to protect Finland, go ahead, but U.K. is part of NATO, the rest of NATO countries won't allow U.K. to drag NATO into this war.

U.K. has no rights to drag other countries into the war.

Mostly importantly, U.K. has no capability to stop Russia invasion, U.K. can only provide weapons, or some mercenaries.

lol, I love how you move from UK cannot form a security pact to NATO will not go to fight, or in your words "Drag" into a fight with UK once you found out NATO member CAN form security pact with other.

If NATO are not going to fight if UK is under attacked, then why we have an organisation called "NATO" to begin with. You are literally saying Security Pact (NATO itself is a security pact) like UK offer to Sweden and Finland are either not going to be honor or country are too cheap skate to honor it.

If so, then what are you blabbing about the Security Pact between UK, Sweden and Finland? Because either UK will not be obliged to fight for Finland, or NATO is not obliged to fight for UK anyway?

lol, UK has no right to "Drag" other country to war?? Again, then ask yourself what exactly is NATO? Aren't Article 5 itself is dragging other country to war if one country is attacked?? Or Finland applying for NATO membership is dragging other country to war if they were attacked?? If UK have no right to drag other country to war, then why bother with NATO??

Dude, you have a comprehension problem. as I said seek help. And for some reason, you are pissed about it, I don't know why, I mean, you are free to move to China, Vietnam or Russia or where-ever you come from if you don't want to get "Dragged" into war, but the issue you are on and on about is basically the core value of NATO, and you are saying this core value does not exist....

 

[jhungary]

Tell me how many countries has Russia invaded since 1991 and how many countries has USA and NATO invaded,intervened or supported an uprising at? Don't bother. USA and NATO heavily outnumber Russia when it comes to that and they have destabilized regions so much,that countries haven't been able to live peacefully for decades.

lol, I like how you pretend Russia is minding his own business since 1991 while NATO is starting fire everywhere

List of war involved US since 1991

1. -First Iraq War 1990-1991
2. -Somalia 1992-1996
3. -Yugoslav War (Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia/Kosovo) 1992-ongoing (In the form of KFOR)
4. -Military Operation in Haiti 1995
5. -War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) Including Drone War in Northern Pakistan as part of OEF
6. -Philippine MORO/MILF rebellion 2001 to ongoing
7. -Second Iraq War (2003-2011)/ISIS (2011-2017)
8. -Gulf of Eden (2008-Ongoing)
9. Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines 2009-2021
10. -Libya Intervention (2011 - 2019 (ISIS))
11. -Operation Servent Compass - Uganda 2015

List of war Involved Russia since 1991

1. -Georgian Civil War 1991
2. -First Nagorno-Karabakh War 1988-1994
3. -Moldova-Transnistria War 1991-1992
4. -Abkhazia War 1993
5. -East Prigorodny War/Ingush revolt 1992-1994
6. -Tajikistan Civil War 1992-1997
7. -First Chechen War 1994-1996
8. -War in Dagestan 1999
9. -Second Chechen War -2000-2009
10. -Russo-Georgia War - 2008
11. Gulf of Eden - 2008-2016
12. -ISIS Operation in North Caucasus 2010-2015
13. -War in Donbas 2014
14. -Syrian Civil War 2016-Ongoing
15. -Central African Republic Civil War - 2018-ongoing
16. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war - 2020
17. -Mali War 2021-ongoing
18. -Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 - ongoing

Even if we break up the 2 Somalian war and 2 Libyan war, Russia still ahead 18 to 13. And I know what you will say next. US war started by greed, Russian are forced to defend themselves in the aforementioned war....

 

[BHAN85]

This is the US to the Europoodles:-

USA is protected by two oceans.
USA and Europe interests never can't be the same.

USA did a exception to stop USSR communism spread to whole Europe decades ago, but that's not a problem anymore.

So now USA can conspire to destroy West Europe in a war against Russia, using the european corrupt agents who obbey American orders instead European interests (all the European ruling elite).

And that's a urgent thing when cheap oil start to running out. European wellness and richness is not needed for USA anymore, and it's dangerous for USA interests, because energy resources and raw materials will become expensive in the coming years.

 

[Apollon]

Tell me how many countries has Russia invaded since 1991 and how many countries has USA and NATO invaded,intervened or supported an uprising at? Don't bother. USA and NATO heavily outnumber Russia when it comes to that and they have destabilized regions so much,that countries haven't been able to live peacefully for decades.

Tell me how many countries has Russia invaded since 1991 and how many countries has USA and NATO invaded,intervened or supported an uprising at? Don't bother. USA and NATO heavily outnumber Russia when it comes to that and they have destabilized regions so much,that countries haven't been able to live peacefully for decades.

Sure, more than happy to tell you.

1992 - Moldawia
1999 - Chechenya
2008 - Georgia
2014 - Ukraine
2022 - Ukraine.


That ends now. I want to see Russia crished enough that is poses no threat anymore.


Btw sad news for you. EU plans to put Cyrill or how that corrupted mafia thug is called on sanctions list. Bye bye russian orthodox church

USA is protected by two oceans.
USA and Europe interests never can't be the same.

USA did a exception to stop USSR communism spread to whole Europe decades ago, but that's not a problem anymore.

So now USA can conspire to destroy West Europe in a war against Russia, using the european corrupt agents who obbey American orders instead European interests (all the European ruling elite).

And that's a urgent thing when cheap oil start to running out. European wellness and richness is not needed for USA anymore, and it's dangerous for USA interests, because energy resources and raw materials will become expensive in the coming years.

Russian facism is not in europe interest.

 

[Foinikas]

Sure, more than happy to tell you.

1992 - Moldawia
1999 - Chechenya
2008 - Georgia
2014 - Ukraine
2022 - Ukraine.

1992 Transnistria's Russians wanted to seceded,Moldovans didn't want them too.
1999 Chechnya was an internal matter,it's like an American State trying to leave.
2008 Georgia was attacking South Ossetians who wanted to secede and also wanted to join NATO
2014 Ukraine's government was toppled and the pro-Russian populations of Eastern and Southern Ukraine protested against this. Russians went in to secure Crimea,protect the local population.

1. -Georgian Civil War 1991
2. -First Nagorno-Karabakh War 1988-1994
3. -Moldova-Transnistria War 1991-1992
4. -Abkhazia War 1993
5. -East Prigorodny War/Ingush revolt 1992-1994
6. -Tajikistan Civil War 1992-1997
7. -First Chechen War 1994-1996
8. -War in Dagestan 1999
9. -Second Chechen War -2000-2009
10. -Russo-Georgia War - 2008
11. Gulf of Eden - 2008-2016
12. -ISIS Operation in North Caucasus 2010-2015
13. -War in Donbas 2014
14. -Syrian Civil War 2016-Ongoing
15. -Central African Republic Civil War - 2018-ongoing
16. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war - 2020
17. -Mali War 2021-ongoing
18. -Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 - ongoing

More than half of what you mentioned were conflicts in the former Soviet Republics right after breakup.
The Chechen Wars and Dagestan were an internal matter of Russia.
ISIS operation,Syrian Civil War were not even "invasions".
Central African Republic,Mali got invited by the governments,didn't they?

Gulf of Aden? You mean the operations against Somali pirates?