Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Putin warns Finland: Russia will respond if Helsinki joins NATO" video.

Sailesh Kuturu So you foolishly assume I'm American. Putin's dynamism? He's doing improv, constantly catching even his closest associates off guard. They, like you, have to put a positive spin on his erratic behaviour, as if it was all part of a master plan. Then Putin goes and ruins the elaborately concocted cover story. Dynamism indeed. If anything, Brexit is a joke on the Brexiteers. Haven't you noticed how utterly disorganised they are? Like Putin, no plan. Just desperate efforts to make the best of a bad situation. That and their sudden reluctance to actually quit the union take the wind out of the sails of the Eurosceptics, bolstering support for the EU rather than weakening it. In your shoes, I would pick my heroes more carefully. You sound decidedly North Korean in your hero worship.
5
Sailesh Kuturu I see you're intentionally ignoring Chechnya. You must think I was born yesterday. The First Chechen War (1994-1996) was an eye-opener to the Balts. The Russians brutally squashed the Chechens' bid for independence. Understandably, the newly-independent Balts grew concerned -- very concerned, because they had seen it all before. Lo and behold, Russia established a pattern of aggressive behaviour: Chechnya (again), Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine. In hindsight, yes, we can only commend the Balts for their foresight. At the same time, we should blame NATO's older members for the lack of it. There was much debate about whether it was prudent to enlarge NATO to the borders of Russia, until someone came up with the idea that the enlargement should not stop at the Russian border. Rogozin's statement proves that Russia was not unreceptive to the idea. NATO does not vet US foreign policy. Also, the Pentagon doesn't dictate to NATO members what they must and must not do. They have a say in the matter. You must be confusing NATO with the defunct Warsaw Pact, which the Kremlin controlled 100%. By the way, have you noticed how the latter's members made a beeline for NATO once the Iron Curtain fell? Again, nobody held a gun to their head.
2
Sailesh Kuturu Apparently you're unawares -- and I guess it has something to do with your ethnicity -- that cults of personality are regarded as distasteful in developed countries. Putin is in no position to deal with NATO other than by blowing hot air. Brexit is not helping Putin. The UK needs the US more than ever, so the sanctions against Russia aren't going away. Now go shampoo off that Putin poop.
1
Sailesh Kuturu So you've swallowed Russian propaganda whole and now you're regurgitating it for our benefit. There's nothing sinister about NATO's enlargement. The new members, formerly under the yoke of the USSR, saw NATO membership as a security guarantee against Russia, the legal successor to the USSR. Before becoming full members, they joined NATO's Partnership for Peace programme, which Russia also joined. As late as 2009, Russia wasn't ruling out following suit some time in the future. It must be a throwback to Soviet times that Russia is now trying to rewrite history and portray NATO's expansion as an evil American plot to corner Russia. You can't blame Yeltsin's naivety, because Putin has been in power since 1999 (well, no one believes the job swap with Medvedev meant anything).
1
Sailesh Kuturu There comes the tired old 'mainstream media' argument. Copying from a propaganda leaflet? Explain to me where my imagination got the better of me. It's all based on irrefutable facts. To this day, Russia remains in NATO's Partnership for Peace programme. In 2009, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's then-ambassador to NATO, explicitly stated that Russia didn't rule out future membership: https://euobserver.com/news/27890 There's such a thing as self-determination, which has it that countries get to decide for themselves which alliances they join or form. America doesn't expand NATO, the member states do, and with popular support, too. Nobody put a gun to their head. Finally, you claim that NATO hasn't grown since Putin came to power. Blatantly untrue, that. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined in 2004, five years into Putin's tenure. Sweden and Finland are on the verge of joining, despite Putin's sabre-rattling. It appears your fact-checking is just as shitty as Trump's.
1
Sailesh Kuturu There you go again, the tired, old mainstream media argument. You have no clue as to which media I follow. I'm sorry, I absolutely cannot imagine Mexico and Canada forming any sort of military alliance with present-day Russia -- they'd be raving mad if they did. But in theory, they have that right. The Yanks would just have to grin and bear it. You're massively confusing cause and consequence. The Balts unanimously sought security guarantees against Russian aggression, examples of which abound: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Syria... Despite hastily concocted, after-the-fact conspiracy theories by the Kremlin, NATO played no role in those conflicts breaking out. Russia will think twice about invading Finland. In defending hearth and home, the Finns are only second to the Israelis, and perhaps the Swiss, in terms of determination and capability. Then there are the so-called host nation agreements that both Sweden and Finland have signed with NATO. In plain terms, both countries will immediately open a backdoor to NATO in the event of Russia's militarism spilling over onto their territory. So, was I factually right about Russia, in 2009, not ruling out future NATO membership? A yes-no answer will suffice -- I could make head nor tail of your earlier response. You're deluding yourself if you think Trump can or will radically change America's stance towards NATO. Even if he were to try (he's backtracking on his earlier comments already), the conservative majorities in the Senate and Congress will thwart any effort. Trump knows better than to aggravate his already-wobbly support base. Not that I would mind if the US lessened their role in NATO...
1