Posted on 06/07/2022 11:34:37 AM PDT by Mount Athos
NATO refuses to give Russia guarantees not to deploy nuclear weapons in Sweden and Finland if they join the alliance. This was stated by Assistant Secretary General of the alliance Camille Grand, RTS reports.
When Grand was asked about any guarantees of non-deployment of nuclear weapons in Sweden and Finland, he said that each NATO member country decides "sovereignly" on the issue of nuclear weapons. "Every state has the freedom in the nuclear sphere, and is willing to accept or not to accept weapons. It is not about setting limits", he added.
The politician was also asked whether NATO expects a "military reaction" or a "show of force" from Russia in response to the entry of Finland and Sweden into the alliance. He answered that the Russians themselves consider this not necessary, and that he doesn't think it would be justified. At the same time, the Assistant Secretary General of NATO argued that Finland and Sweden have a "defensive position of peaceful states that do not seek confrontation with Russia".
Grand also expressed his hope that the disagreements between Turkey, Sweden and Finland would be settled by the summit. "NATO has its own way of dealing with the problem of terrorism. The Turks make more political demands on Finland", he noted.
Earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the country's position on the question of expanding NATO and joining the alliance of Sweden and Finland will not change without fulfilling Ankara's demands. According to him, for a membership in the North Atlantic bloc, countries must stop supporting terrorism, lift sanctions against Turkey, and also show allied solidarity.
hmmmmm.... Yeah, that’s not going to give the Russians a reason to nuke Finland, Poland, Germany, Sweden and maybe the Baltics...
It’s just like the difference between fighting in the street or in the suburbs. In the suburbs, everybody yaps and poses and does the big show.... in the street.... you know it’s going to happen so you just unload right off the bat and either kill them or knock them the f@#k out....
If you KNOW that there is going to be a war..... then go ahead and get it over with on your time table. Why wait for the enemy to determine the time and place of attack. That’s why every “military operational plan” doesn’t survive the first minutes of contact... because the enemy gets a vote on what to do.
Here’s a game to play..... It’s called the “What if” game.
1. Russia tells everyone that if you give Ukraine short range precision missiles that are capable of being loaded with nukes... not loaded but CAPABLE of being loaded with nukes, they are going to destroy them either in transit, on transfer depot/rail head or at their departure site.
“What if” Russia shells Rzeszow-Jasionka airport or Ramstein, with nuclear missiles or artillery? What do you strike with nukes in “retaliation”? Just one nuke at each site... just one “little” nuke. Do we go full strike on Russia?
2. “What if”..... After shelling those two sites.. Russia tells the Baltics, Sweden, Finland, and Romania to be neutral or something bad will happen...
3. “What if” at the same time China and NK do the same thing to Taiwan? They’ve lulled everyone to sleep with the random missile launches that just go into the Pacific..... and fly overs that are just “tests”... but decide that they need to go all in.... what do we “hit” with our ICBM, sub based and Air Force when it turns into a first strike?
Yes, since NATO is not attacking Russia (yet).
You're willing to bet a couple of million lives on that..... Because Russia wasn't stupid enough to invade Ukraine....or Crimea, Georgia, Chechnya, Syria either
So you’re willing to send your son or grab a weapon to defend Finland and Germany? In order for them to get fuel and make fun of fat stupid Americans....
If Russia hits any NATO country conventionally the response will be conventional.
If it's a nuclear strike the counter target is already pre-selected.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of a straw man argument. But that’s OK, most that use that phrase don’t either.
That's the goal with some of you.
There should be a "reciprocal agreement":
NATO doesn't deploy any nukes in Member States bordering Russia, and Russia doesn't deploy any nukes in states (incl. itself) bordering NATO.
Fair is fair!
Regards,
Russia is a vicious, gangster-state empire and always has been. After the piss poor performance of its armed forces in Ukraine it won't be attacking anyone else for a while.
It's a good moment for Sweden and Finland to join.
It's good to kick an enemy when he's down. My hope is that Russia takes such a shellacking in the Ukraine war that it gives up its neo-imperialist revanchism.
“When Grand was asked about any guarantees of non-deployment of nuclear weapons in Sweden and Finland, he said that each NATO member country decides “sovereignly” on the issue of nuclear weapons. “Every state has the freedom in the nuclear sphere, and is willing to accept or not to accept weapons. It is not about setting limits”, he added.”
Iran and North Korea should be glad to hear NATO supports their nuke goals
What is the whole point of your musings?
Maybe if you would just come out and directly state where you stand on the issue...
Are you saying that Russia is well within its rights to dictate to other, sovereign nations what alliances they may join?
Are you saying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a prudent and measured response to a perceived threat?
Are you saying that we (NATO) should now bow to Russian demands?
Are you saying that the West should undertake whatever is necessary to prevent a "humiliation" of Putin?
You've posed a lot of hypotheticals - some of them pretty speculative - without first establishing where you stand on the issue at hand.
If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were simply trying to stir up dissension and fear among us FReepers, Dick Vomer.
"What if a cryogenically preserved Adolph Hitler were to suddenly re-appear, and threaten to launch missiles at us from his secret Antarctic Base?!
What purpose does it serve to speculate about such things? I'd much rather speculate about Putin dropping dead in three months due to cancer.
Regards,
“Because Russia wasn’t stupid enough to invade Ukraine....or Crimea, Georgia, Chechnya, Syria either “
None of those countries are members of NATO. Russia picks on the weak, not on alliances that would obliterate them.
Is dying Putin stupid/desperate enough to launch a full-out nuclear attack against the U.S.? Well, according to your logic, we can't be sure that he won't, so we should instead just bend over and accede to all of his demands.
Once you start making concessions to someone because he's a madman / is unpredictable, you've already lost.
Regards,
McGruff: That's the goal with some of you.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I sincerely doubt that any FReeper is eager to see NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine.
It's also entirely unnecessary: With the weapons we supply to them, they are quite capable of defending themselves against the immoral, unprovoked, and unprecedented (since the end of WWII) invasion and land-grab by Russia of Ukraine.
Regards,
Oreanda.Ru - Russian state controlled “journalism”.
People should be afraid of what might happen if someone underestimates Russia and what they are capable and willing to do.
My point is that a lot of people are cheering on the Ukrainians to fight to the last man... their men. Ukraine will be Beirut, Syria, Chechnya... leveled to rubble and corpses. Congrats NATO on bleeding Russia.... they don’t care about that... they had 30 MILLION dead civilians in WW2 because they were invaded from the west.
We participated and encouraged them to poke the bear... with the “color revolutions”, the little pokes of Russian 3rd world status, and finally by putting a country on their border with an alliance specifically designed to combat Russia.... possibly even planting nukes and bioweapons there as a deterrent.
I’m not saying bow to Russian demands but also understand where this is going to end in the REAL WORLD.... Russia in NOT going to allow Ukraine to be a NATO gun and extend the border Russia has to defend by thousands of kilometers... They will level the entire country and do what the Mongols did to Baghdad and the Romans to Carthage.... burn everything, salt the fields, fill the canals and kill anyone around.
Russia doesn’t have the men and material to defend a border from the Gulf of Finland to the Azov Sea.
It needs buffer zones and that’s why they will need to destroy, control or take everything to the east of central Romania (look at a topographic map), Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics.
That puts minutes on missiles and miles/kilometers of mountains, rivers and land between Russia and NATO.
We would not allow Russia/China to put missiles, naval bases or airbases in Tijuana, Matamoros, Bahamas, Quebec, Montreal or Cuba.
If China and Russia were “smart” they’d put a naval base in Cuba, and offer to join an alliance with Canada for trade in oil and natural resources that China needs.
Then have China build a super port and a refinery in British Columbia and another on the Eastern shore of Canada in a “joint” free trade venture.
As for Putin dying.. ... we are all dying. But be careful for what you wish for.... think about the type of sociopath, alpha predator that can survive the Russian political snake pit... I’ve said it before and mean it... I hope he’s KGB and not Russian military.
“So will this be another unprovoked attack when Russia moves to protect itself?”
Are you implying that Russia invaded Ukraine because it had nuke missiles?
ok..... so you're saying that Russia conducts combat operations on countries it knows it can defeat..... that's so stupid, huh?
how did we do against weak countries? You know.. little sh#t, 3rd world countries without nukes, jets, carriers or subs..... like...hmmm Vietnam, Afghanistan, North Korea, .....
I know that we are the good guys, because we never killed civilians, lied to our allies, allowed our troops the most aggressive rule of engagement and gave tactical command to the field officers and not something stupid like central command all the way from Washington to the tactical level...right?
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.