Comments by "Sergey Misik" (@Jimmy1972) on "The Helsinki bunker that can withstand a nuclear strike amid Finland Russia tensions over Nato bid" video.

Is it some kind of special wisdom to join NATO and then start thinking whether your bomb shelter will withstand a Russian nuclear strike? Or maybe it's better not to join and forget about this problem?
19
@mcfoolskully Chechnya has always been part of Russia. As for Ukraine and Georgia, they, like Finland, aspired to join NATO. For which they paid. Not a good example. Crimea is Russia.
3
@zoolkhan By joining NATO, you exacerbate worries. Without NATO, nothing threatens you, but in NATO you become targets for Russia's strategic forces. How many missiles does Finland need to destroy? Two. And Russia has more than 6,000 of them. Enough for everyone.
3
@pohjantuulet247 and what did Russia do bad to Finland?
1
@Holyproperty Russia has nothing to worry about, but Finland should if it is going to join NATO.
1
@Holyproperty Moscow and St. Petersburg is far from the whole of Russia. In addition, you do not have the means to destroy them, since Russia is the largest country in the world with the most advanced missile defense systems in the world. Therefore, it is completely impossible to destroy it, but Russia can do this with any country in the world.
1
@pohjantuulet247 This is hypocrisy on your part, since it is Europe that attacked Russia in the second world war, and not vice versa, and is expanding its military infrastructure to the borders of Russia. The US and Europe cannot do this with impunity. When nuclear missiles fly at you from our side, it will be your fault. Don't threaten us, and you'll be all right. NATO - an aggressive military bloc, which is a power link in US policy, so Russia has every reason to defend itself by any available means.
1
@jooseppib1082 NATO threatens Russia, and Russia has something to answer NATO with. After all, NATO is expanding towards the borders of Russia, and not vice versa. You are confusing cause and effect.
1
@jooseppib1082 NATO bombed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Tell me about the most benevolent military bloc in the world)) And to remind you which country is the only one in the history of mankind that used nuclear weapons against civilians?
1
@jooseppib1082 Do you know that the Ukrainian regime has been destroying civilians in Donbass for 8 years under bombing and shelling, which killed about 14,000 people? And they were Russian people. If the United States had the right to aggression in the case when it was not about the destruction of the Americans, then all the more so Russia has such a right, because it was about the destruction of the Russian people. Do you think NATO has the right to bomb and invade independent countries, but Russia does not? And why is that?
1
@argr absolutely correct
1
@UltraCasualPenguin Britain illegally invaded the Falkland Islands. And Finland was part of Russia. In addition, Finland illegally invaded the USSR in 1941.
1
@peabase I'm just asking you to use your brain. Every decision has its consequences. If now nothing threatens the Finns, then later on the conflict, which will not even be started by the Finns, but, for example, by the USA, the Finns will be threatened with complete annihilation. NATO is an irrational choice.
1
@peabase firstly, no one demanded anything, and secondly, no one threatened Finland. This only shows that Finland is becoming another US vassal. And if not the United States attacks, but another NATO country, for example, Poland? Finland is making itself a hostage in the geo-political struggle between the West and Russia, and this is not very smart, considering that it threatens her with complete annihilation.
1
@peabase Do you know that joining NATO is in itself a limitation of sovereignty? From the moment you join NATO, you will be fully responsible for the crimes of any of its members. It's not about Article 5. The point is that you will become a target regardless of whether you attacked Russia or not, if someone else did it, because, joining a hostile military bloc, Russia will automatically begin to perceive you as an enemy. Now Russia does not perceive you as an enemy, therefore it does not have the goal of destruction. You must be aware that NATO membership will not protect you from Russian ballistic missiles, so joining does not make any sense. And even contrary to common sense, since it is a neutral status that could ensure the survival of the entire nation in a potential conflict. It's your choice, but it's stupid because it's irrational, illogical, and not in the interest of national security. By acting against its own interests, Finland demonstrates that she is not independent in making decisions. NATO is not a defensive bloc, but an aggressive one, since NATO has carried out invasions of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and this is obvious to everyone in the world, except for you.
1
@peabase NATO is an aggressive military bloc. This proves the fact of aggression against countries that have not attacked any NATO country - Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. As a result of NATO aggression, hundreds of thousands of civilians, and possibly millions, were killed in these countries. This is exactly how Russia perceives this bloc - as hostile and aggressive, and if Finland and Sweden join him, this will in itself be a declaration of their hostile status towards Russia, with all the ensuing consequences, up to complete destruction, if there is an open conflict between NATO and Russia.
1
@peabase And this is a different question. The main thing here is that NATO attacked an independent state at a time when it did not threaten any member of NATO. This fact proves that NATO is an aggressive military bloc.
1