Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "NATO chief Stoltenberg urges Turkey to endorse Finland, Sweden accession | DW News" video.

  1. It would've been an exercise in futility. The outcome wouldn't have been any different; popular support for NATO membership was that overwhelming. Referendums have their place when consensus is difficult to gauge.
    4
  2.  @julianpetkov8320  A Russian called Finland corrupt? Russia rates as very corrupt, while Finland rates as very clean.
    4
  3.  @Greksallad  It's the weirdest thing that Krembots think this Russo-Mexican military alliance meme makes for a strong argument.
    3
  4. We're actually training up American troops for winter warfare in Scandinavia.
    3
  5.  @stefanolov  Except to the EU. Sweden got a bit hasty there.
    3
  6.  @babyyoda6567  Only Russia keeps nuclear weapons right next to NATO. NATO isn't doing same to Russia.
    3
  7.  @julietator3948  Which bad bet failed? Are you actually mixing up Finland and Ukraine?
    2
  8. Turkey doesn't make the grade. The EU sets clear conditions for accession -- the so-called Copenhagen criteria -- and Turkey doesn't fulfil them. In fact, Turkey falls foul of most of them, if not all.
    2
  9. An atomised Putin won't be able to enjoy it.
    1
  10. Both the US and the UK have a reputation for military adventurism. Sweden and Finland weren't exactly keen on the Iraq War.
    1
  11. Did you remember to vote for a party or a candidate that opposes NATO membership? Maybe the trappings of parliamentary democracy are new to you.
    1
  12. What, will Russia recruit Indian sepoys to do the honours? Because its own soldiers can't get the job done in Ukraine. I'd like to see how Indians cope in the subarctic climate.
    1
  13.  @rishirahul4823  Your mighty Russia is a giant with feet of clay -- that much is clear after 8 months of aimless Russian "special operations" in Ukraine. NATO -- if it were to get involved in the fighting -- would drive Russia out of Ukraine in a matter of weeks. You evidently don't understand your place in the world economically, much less that of Russia. Russia screwed itself over royally, leaving it only with bargain hunters for customers -- India and China. Neither of you dares to engage in sanction-busting, lest you'll be sanctioned yourselves.
    1
  14.  @rishirahul4823  What's With The Title Case? A New Craze In India? If India and China actively bust sanctions, the exporting companies in question will be hit with sanctions. They'll be in the same boat as Huawei. Don't flatter yourselves unduly with being manufacturing hubs. Final assembly adds relative little value to a product. There are enlightening case studies about the iPhone. Apple imported the iPhone 7 from China at a cost of $240. Of that, only $8.50 stayed in China. There's your "mighty powers". I suppose it hasn't sunk in with you how technology brands are busily looking to mitigate risk by spreading their manufacturing over multiple low-cost countries. You don't have to be an economist to realise that this spells trouble for both India and China.
    1
  15.  @eoz6840  Erdogan doesn't care even if that were true. Erdogan wants weapons from NATO to fight the Kurds, and like the child that he is, he's throwing his toys out of the pram because we can't have them.
    1
  16. NATO doesn't stop you from solving Sweden's social woes. You have an grossly exaggerated notion of the interconnectedness of things.
    1
  17.  @throughput6674  Oh, the Russians will extradite Putin, just like the Serbs extradited Milosevich.
    1
  18.  @throughput6674  How is one guillable [sic]?
    1
  19.  @babyyoda6567  How exactly is the "global reach" of NATO nukes greater than those of Russia?
    1
  20.  @babyyoda6567  Duh, an ICBM has per definition "global reach". All major powers, including Russia, have ICBMs. You need to join a debate club or something, because your debating skills leave a lot to be desired.
    1
  21.  @babyyoda6567  ICBMs are typically launched from subs. US, Russian, UK, French and Chinese subs are nuclear-powered, meaning they have the range to go pretty much anywhere in the seven seas to launch their ICBMs. Kaliningrad, which has Russian nukes, is wedged between Poland and Lithuania, both of which are in NATO. Ukraine isn't in NATO, and it isn't planning on getting nuclear weapons even if it were. As a case in point, Poland has been in NATO for more than twenty years, and it has no nukes. You can hit back? By the looks of it, you're an intellectual flyweight. If you want to prove otherwise, try to explain what you meant by "global reach" and how that supposedly makes a difference.
    1
  22.  @babyyoda6567  So you are incapable of argumentation. If Russia doesn't want NATO on its borders, it shouldn't instil a desire in its neighbours to join NATO. NATO doesn't have to recruit new members -- Putin drives them into NATO's arms. As I already tried to explain to you, NATO expansion doesn't mean nuclear weapons start appearing on Russia's borders. You have no counterargument to that, so you act out like a child.
    1
  23. Turkey has given up on the idea of EU membership once and for all. It would entail sweeping economic and political reforms, which would fatally weaken Erdogan. Turkey withholding ratification has everything to do with NATO arms embargoes, which Erdogan wants lifted so he can fight the Kurds.
    1
  24. Both Finland and Sweden would've preferred a European military alliance to NATO. Something to do with US and UK military adventurism, as witnessed in Iraq.
    1