So you’re saying that Finland, a country with an 800 mile long border with Russia, joining NATO won’t cost us a dime? Do you think Finland will be paying entirely for its own defense?
You are getting side tracked. You are digressing. My disagreement with your post was your almost willful misinterpretation of her remarks to mean almost the exact opposite of what she said.
But to answer your point about whether Finland joining NATO will cost us “a dime”: Are you completely without strategic or tactical insight? If Finland joining NATO brought in new potential enemies, there might be some balancing or trades to consider. Since it does not, it adds one more ally to our side. That 800 mile border is a bigger problem for the “main enemy”. Where Russia might have thinly held or defended it previously in the event of war against NATO now it is an enormous strategic vulnerability. Finland joining NATO unequivocally acts very much to strengthen NATO militarily and weaken Russia. It would be hard to think of a worse result for Russia and a better result for NATO.
So you’re saying that Finland, a country with an 800 mile long border with Russia, joining NATO won’t cost us a dime? Do you think Finland will be paying entirely for its own defense?
That border has some of the worst terrain in Europe. Permafrosted tundra up north, swamps, forests, thousands of lake, some bare rock like the Canadian Shield, only in the south is there much open land. The Soviets and then the Nazis found out how hard it is to operate modern armies there.