***Yup. Obvious.
Posted on 05/11/2022 9:44:22 AM PDT by MercyFlush
Reports are surfacing of military equipment of the United States and other NATO countries on the Russia-Finland border. U.S. and NATO armored vehicles were spotted on the border, along with Finnish tanks and armored personnel vehicles, according to a translation of a Shraibikus News report. There have been reports of military exercises in Finland, but Russian intelligence reportedly suspects the military buildup will remain until Finland joins NATO. The report also indicates Finnish authorities are anticipating Finland joining NATO within a few months. Russian analysts consider the military presence on the Russia-Finland border to be a threat, particularly as NATO allies are supplying lethal aid to Ukraine amid the Russian invasion. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told RIANovosti that Russia is watching the situation and will consider a potential response. "It is clear that from the point of view of security we will not remain indifferent," Grushko said. "Our military will consider all the necessary measures that may be required to ensure the legitimate interests of defense." While the forces conducting the exercises are likely doing so to defend Finland against an invasion by Russia, Grushko added it represents a dangerous escalation that makes neither Finland nor NATO more safe. "This will not strengthen the security of either Finland or NATO itself," Grushko told RIA Novosti.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
That is still no justification of invading a country.
War will always be the deep state’s first choice.
***Interesting posture. Then the first country which chooses war over diplomacy and INVADEs, that country is the non-deep-state country?
In before the Putinsuckers come along to call the Finns Nazis in 3....2....1....
A lot will depend on how this $40 billion is designed to be spent. A lot of money spent in the US on armaments will provide jobs, taxes, and spending in the US. Money for humanitarian supplies may also be spent in the US with the same benefits. Money spent in Europe will enhance the economies over there which can result in an increase in trade with the US. Money spent in Ukraine will no doubt result in a lot of contracts to buy US goods to rebuild that country. Can anyone take a closer look at that bill and do a cost/benefit analysis on who will profit from this investment. Maybe a think tank will do that very thing. At the very least a statement of how much will be spent where will give us a baseline to determine cost/benefits.
We hear this argument a lot here - and it conveniently completely ignores 20 years of US deep-state/NATO activity in Ukraine, coups, color revolutions, arms sales, bombings elsewhere.
Starting on June 6th the Trade Association for the Emerging Markets will be using international pricing data as a primary settlement rate option
***Interesting news. I’m sure the currency traders knew this way beforehand.
Here’s what I wonder: Will the russkies retreat to a cryptocurrency in order to do the same thing their soviet counterparts did?
Have you ever posted anything that was not favorable to Russia vis-à-vis the West?
Well then, your position DEEPly ignores the simple fact that one country invaded the other over oil/gas/ports, and the last time that happened an international coalition kicked that @$$#O/e back to Iraq.
The Finns are NAZIs.
Again:
the first country which chooses war over diplomacy and INVADEs, that country is the non-deep-state country?
Wait a second. Billybob, whom we knew was waggin the dog, sent 150,000 NATO troops into this country you are mentioning? Nope. Not even close.
I’m perfectly happy having air-to-air engagements with the soviet...oops ... Russian Bloc of countries.
A lot of FReepers have been using Swedish and Finnish sources as the go-to place to get news about this Russian invasion.
They are noticeably silent. The 2nd contingent to withdraw on this conflict.
A lot will depend on how this $40 billion is designed to be spent.
***I perceive it is designed to be spent until there is some kind of backlash. That means the Biden folks will reconsider their position once the Ukrainians go past the obambam borders of 2014 towards the borders of 1994.
“If it wasn’t for Putin’s patience, NATO expansion (from 12 nations to 30 nations today) would have caused war long ago.”
Get your facts straight if you want anyone to give you any credibility. Since 2000, when Putin first took office as president, until today, NATO went from 19 nations to 30 (not from 12 to 30). Most of those 11 had been under Soviet domination and wanted nothing at all to do with Russia, as Russia had been an oppressor. So, it’s not like NATO went courting them, but rather they went to NATO, as they feared Russia (with good reason).
“Hope you enjoy Zelensky laughing all the way to the bank while you are paying 10$ per gallon for gas.”
Just wondering: Are you paid in rubles by your Russian handlers, or do you have other arrangements?
“We’re closer to war with Russia now than we ever were during the cold war.”
BS. I guess you’re young and have no recollection of October, 1962. But I remember it. Today is nowhere NEAR that as far as going to war with Russia.
“It astonishes me that so many here on this forum have aligned with the democrats, neocons and RINOs in support of the $hitshow being put on in Ukraine.”
Many of us haven’t aligned with them at all; but we do recognize naked aggression when we see it, and we want to see the victim of that naked aggression fight it off.
Russia is a bully and always has been. As with any bully, it is forever beating its chest, provoking and challenging those weaker than itself; and it will continue to seek out victims until it is stopped.
“I bet China is salivating at the opportunity to conquer Siberia and Eastern Russia.”
You can bet on it.
“Well, we do have 750 military bases across 80 nations.”
Because they want us there. We are not there as aggressors or conquerors. If the don’t want us there, we leave (as we did in the Philippines several years ago). And we have a permanent lease for Guantanamo, and it can only be broken if both the US and Cuba agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.