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.
Your response was truly amazing. You accuse me of side tracking and digressing YET you go off on a tangent that completely avoids addressing the financial question of what this new burden is going to cost us. Your quote: “But to answer your point about whether Finland joining NATO will cost us “a dime”: Are you completely without strategic or tactical insight?”
So you’re saying you’re answering my point about cost but then go on to talk about everything but cost.
Notwithstanding the PM’s avoidance of the issue, this sudden “overnight” change in the priority of most Finns will definitely have a cost. And you can be 100% certain that Uncle Sam will be getting a portion of the bill.