Comments by "King Ace" (@kingace6186) on "Finland and Sweden consider NATO membership" video.

  1. Pretty ironic how Russia's desperate actions to protect its security are the same variables that are threatening to enlarge NATO's expansion.
    5
  2.  @a.oshankar8741  First of all, it's 10-15% of CONVENTIONAL forces. This leaves out nuclear capabilities, irregular warfare, and cyber attacks. And second of all, as you said, only a small percent of the Russian Armed Force is available for Putin's war. The rest are stationed in prior defense commitments (like the Baltics) and ongoing foreign "special military operations".
    3
  3. "I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the shield that guards the realms of men."
    1
  4. Putin might be desperate enough to escalate further by deploying low-yield tactical nukes to end the Ukrainian War quickly and messily. Then he would set his sights up north. Obviously, the reality would be much more different and volatile, but frantic strong often abandon foresight.
    1
  5.  @usmcmma  True that the US is spread too thin in order to protect NATO. But: 1) powerful, historical NATO members have failed to meet budget requirements. Why should strategic nations that want to join be singled out? Especially since Sweden & Finland are closer to 2% defense spending than most of NATO. 2) Pax Americana is very much more vulnerable without the support and existence of NATO. Even if the US has to keep lifting their wait, it is all worth it.
    1
  6. Yes. They agreed to this relationship to strengthen their neutrality leverage.
    1
  7. A positive feedback loop that may lead to a Russia triggering WW3
    1