The Turkish parliament on Thursday unanimously ratified Finland’s NATO membership, clearing the final hurdle to Helsinki joining the Western military alliance.
Finland’s ascension into NATO significantly expands the alliance’s territory on Russia’s border, as the Finnish-Russian border is over 800 miles long. The Russian military has plans to expand its presence in the region in response to NATO expanding into Finland.
Tensions in the region are bound to rise as a major motive for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch the war was NATO’s post-Cold War expansion and its cooperation with Kyiv following the 2014 US-backed coup that ousted former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Finland joining NATO could mean US troops will be deployed to the country as the US has beefed up its presence in the area NATO calls its “eastern flank” since around the time Russia invaded Ukraine. A US spy plane recently flew over Finland near the Russian border for the first time in recent history, and such flights could now become common.
Turkey’s approval came after almost one year of negotiations between Ankara and Helsinki. Sweden has been left in the cold as Finland previously vowed to only join the alliance with its nordic partner. But Finnish officials abandoned the position once Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey could approve Finland without Sweden.
The Turkish vote came a few days after Hungary’s parliament approved Finland’s NATO bid. Hungary also chose not to vote on Sweden’s ratification, citing Stockholm’s criticism of the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
This is another example of how Putin’s war of choice against Ukraine backfired. Fifteen months ago there was no way Finland or Sweden would have joined NATO. The alliance itself was teetering with Germany, France and Hungary calling for detente and cooperaion with Moscow. There was no way Ukraine could have joined NATO. Putin traded a security threat on Russia’s southern border for a forever war that Russia is losing. The fighting in Donbas had almost subsided and an annual average of 26 civilians were killed there in 2019, 2022 and 2021. Now thousands of ethnic Russians are dead who would have been alive if Putin had not launched his disastrous war.
Putin’s war is excellent proof that war is almost always the wrong choice.
Russia lost Putin’s war months ago. But in asymmetric wars of national resistance it often takes the invader years or longer to realize it has been defeated. I hope Xi can straighten this mess out.
The Anglo-Saxons are encircling Russia the same way they did Germany before WWI. Russians do know history, that is why Russia hoped a preventive war would help to get the USA to compromise with Russia showing understanding for Russia’s security concerns, they did not expect the neo-Nazis to be that unreasonable, insane as they proved they are.
They want the same humiliating unconditional surrender they tried twice on Germany.
Revanchism is working for Putin as well as it did for the Kaiser and Hitler. This war is a disaster for Russia.
Russia had legitimate security issues. NATO was arming Ukraine and held military exercises in a non NATO member nation. Russia knew it had to be militarily ready since NATO encroached on Russia, the
other US broken agreements. Putin knew he could not trust Americans, that included Obama, he knew Gorby made a mistake when he trusted Clinton who put Yeltsin in power, an alcoholic but Clinton’s boy.
And Western money elite robbed the Russian people blind, the people starved while oligarchs shared the booty with the Western Mafia.
Legitimate security issues don’t justify a war of aggression. Especially against a country that was an imperial vassal of Russia for centuries. The Ukrainians are fighting for their right to self determination.
Ironically, the war has been a disaster for Russia’s security.
Like Putin, Hitler had legitimate grievances in 1939. But revanchism does not justify war. Quite the reverse.
You need to read up history 101 WWI
Now Finland has over 70 thousands Russian troops and weapons logistics aimed at their boarder, they have to contribute portion of their budget into NATO military spending, and nuclear warheads aimed at every major city that they didn’t before.
The Finnish are done finished proving Einstein correct again. “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”–Einstein.
I think their elite smells money, profits to be made, what else could be the reason?
Like Finland gives a rat’s ass about. Finland is not afraid of Russia nor its nukes. And Putin better not dare playing games with a small but well trained and equipped Army of Finland.
And I think we now know how ‘good’ those 70k Russian troops in the finish border are.
If Finland has no fear of Russia, then why join NATO? And the downplaying of 6,000 nukes is getting humorous.
For that same reason, because it’s not afraid and because it wanted to let Russia knows that just cause you share a border with Russia doesn’t mean you cannot have alliances and agreements with other countries.
And again, you can’t just let Russia do whatever it wants because it has nukes.
So, they don’t need NATOs help but they’ll join the alliance just to stick it to Russia? And everyone wonders why we are where we are.
Then back them in a corner and cross your fingers, I guess. And believe me, this is one argument I do not want to win.
Really, Don, that is really a stupid post. It makes no sense. Little dogies are smart and don’t bite big dogs. See Ukraine, the little dog should have known better.
Ukraine had a big NATO armed, trained, and funded army, while Russia by all accounts was inferior and weak. What happened, what went wrong?
When Finland had a real President Kekkonen he negotiated neutrality with Russia and he brought Finland decades of peace and prosperity, now they have trashy characters in government who sold the
nation and the people to the a monster hegemon, the USA. They are not stupid, they did not do it for nothing, they are trashy characterless people. Why would they want to get involved and willingly wreck their nation to satisfy greedy American war profiteers if they don’t get paid for it? They get their share of the cake if there is any left.
as planned and designed. this is troubling
I’m confident the Turkish and Hungarian parliaments are full of honest hard working politicians, just like ours. (Sarcasm alert …of course)
notice that when contrary-man comments, his little brother is always less than an hour behind with a thumbs-up. and vice-versa.
Has anyone come across a coherent explanation from Sweden and Finland why they want NATO membership? De facto both nations have been NATO members, like the Ukraine is. But now with the benefit of hindsight they want to board a sinking ship. Why were there no public debates to speak of as is custom in true democracies? Maybe their “Military Industrial Government Complex” wants to feed on the trough with the other pigs. That is really the only explanation that comes to mind.
The Swedes want to join NATO because their population has changed their stance on the viability of neutrality – there was a ground shift after March 24’th 2022 – it happened too in Denmark.
We used to have parties that opposed NATO membership, even more that opposed the proposed EU collaboration on defense – in early 2022 all polls told these parties that they were bleeding support on account of these policies – hence they stated that they had changed their stance and that there was currently no viable alternative to NATO membership – i.e. they would still prefer a different arrangement over time, but there was none for now.
It was the same in Sweden – the politicians followed the people fairly slowly and did not lead the process.
The population in Finland know only all too well the difference between de-facto and de-jure – one will get you a lot of declarations of support and support in the shape of weapons exports, the other will call in actual military intervention by your allies – it is a huge difference.
They overwhelmingly do not see it this way.
There were debates – to many it felt rushed – but as there was an election politicians did not have time to prevaricate over the issue for months – the ones who were against joining were not rewarded at the ballot box.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220513-in-sweden-misgivings-over-rushed-debate-to-join-nato
https://www.statista.com/statistics/660842/survey-on-perception-of-nato-membership-in-sweden/
Before the SMO:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1486515/FULLTEXT02
A jump from 37% for joining NATO in January 2022 to 64% for joining in July 2022 cannot be explained by the MIC being fed – there is a MIC in Sweden but not so much in Finland – and the support for joining in Finland was growing faster than it was in Sweden:
https://yle.fi/a/3-12437506
https://www.voanews.com/a/finns-swedes-overwhelmingly-back-nato-poll-shows-/6751376.html
If that is all true why not vote on it? I am not convinced, I smell public manipulation and deception.
Why can’t they openly tell and explain the people why they should give up their neutrality to gain what? Why obfuscate if they don’t intend to manipulate the people?
I don’t think the public was informed, if they were there would have been a public debate in MSM, on TV and in print. Russia did not do anything to provoke the people to give up neutrality.
Manipulation propaganda is the only explanation.
We did in Denmark and indirectly in Sweden – in Denmark it was a clear win for joining in closer collaboration with EU on defense as a way to strengthen NATO, in Sweden the only parties that had no to NATO membership as part of their announced stance (Vänsterpartiet) lost a significant part of its support – other parties that had earlier been opposed to NATO membership wisely changed their stance in view of the change in public opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Swedish_general_election
The point was/is that they did but only reluctantly as many of them at first did not want to join NATO (e.g. Sverigedemokraterna and a bit earlier Moderaterna) i.e. this was not a measure forced upon an unwilling electorate but a stance adopted by the parties when they saw in which direction the electorate was swinging – and they were not out campaigning for this to happen.
The Swedes have been debating this issue since at least 2014 regularly and intensively – they have rejected the idea at every chance until 2022 – then after the start of the SMO things started to change – in January 2022 only 37& supported joining, by April 45%, by May 58%, by July 64% – Sverigedemokraterna only changed their stance on NATO by late April – so no this was not led by the parties but by the electorate.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sd-haller-extramote-om-nato
https://www.statista.com/statistics/660842/survey-on-perception-of-nato-membership-in-sweden/
They invaded a country much against the expectations in Sweden – which right up until 2022 always had more people against joining NATO than for.
If you believe that, you are left with the problem of explaining how this did not work earlier – also you need to find the propaganda which worked this magic – there was none different in type from earlier that I could spot – to achieve this fairly drastic change there ought to be a massive track of this campaign.
Jan. 2022, that is a telling date, public manipulation and corporate owned and controlled MSM helped change the public opinion. And now when NATO is in deep trouble they want to join? When sanctions imposed on them is destroying their economies they jump on the sinking ship? There are no honest debates, anyone who voices a word of critic on the neocon policies is being demonized, called Putin lover and worse. They always voice the caveated first, I don’t like Putin, and they make sure to not credit Putin with any word at all, the context of Ukraine war is willingly left out. BREXIT worked the same in the UK. Our elections are all about manipulation of the voters. The nations elections are not really honest, campaign propaganda. Honest Information is the real currency of democracy. Do we really have that with all the billions of $$$ swirling around?
Any evidence to support this claim – there were several big/leading parties who were not on board with joining NATO as late as late April – and there was no campaign driven by the large political parties to join NATO before at least May 2022, and even after that I cannot say that the leading parties were enthusiastic about this.
Sanctions were not imposed on them and they did not see what you present as a fact i.e. that NATO was/is in trouble – that is not the perception in Scandinavia.
Have you been to Sweden, do you understand Swedish – there were debates, and the notion that Sweden was led by neocon politicians is outright laughable.
This was not how things happened neither in Denmark nor in Sweden.
You are clearly not from a Scandinavian country – what you describe sounds true of the US and (perhaps) the UK where the political systems promote that kind of behavior – this is not the case in Denmark and Finland – the case for some democratic issues can be made for Sweden, where the voters have to get the party list for the party that they want to vote for before entering the voting booth – but that is it.
We have representative democracies, people can (and do) form their own parties and they can (and do) get elected into parliament – there is no first past the post systems in Scandinavia – members of parliament have very nearly all had above a certain level of support and there are very few cases of persons having had more personal votes but not getting a seat in parliament (that can basically only happen to local/single constituency parties.
In the NATO member democracies idiocy and money rule.
There has been no visible support in Sweden and Finland to join NATO, it all plays under the table, MANIPULATION of public opinion is the only plausible explanation.
I have shown you that very large parties in the Swedish political system were against joining NATO until late April 2022 – you have failed to show any evidence of a concerted campaign by the political elites to change the stance of the electorates – I can dig up even more evidence of Swedish parties dragging their feet – this was not a top down thing.
You may need it to be so, but there is no evidence to support that the Swedish elites decided to pull a fast one on an unwilling electorate.
“The Swedes want to join NATO because their population has changed their stance on the viability of neutrality ”
Sweden became a de facto NATO member a long time ago. What exactly had changed on the viability of neutrality? Russia never question it, the same is true for Finland.
Now, my question is, what does Sweden and Finland gain by giving up their neutrality? Did Russia threaten them? Both nations had peace and prosperity with a social free market economy, what can they possible gain from joining NATO? Follow the money, who is gaining from this?
The border issues between Sweden and Finland have long been settled. Why do they want to join NATO and fight and die in wars for American interests?
There is a huge difference between your de-facto membership and a de-jure one – article 5 (you know the actual purpose of the alliance). The thing that changed for the Swedes and Finns was the realization that their defense strategy (relying upon dealing any invader a very bloody nose) apparently was no longer enough to keep Putin at bay. It had worked for the Soviet Union, but it was no longer a viable option.
Yes the Russians threatened them – Putin referred to reestablishing the Russia of Peter the great – and there were threats in Russian media fairly frequently. I am not aware that significant proportions of either the Swedes or the Finns changed their stance on NATO based on what they could gain financially or as a society, but what they actually can gain is the ability to lower their defense spending very significantly.
No NATO country has had to have their soldiers fight and die for the US – even the participation in the article 5 action in Afghanistan was based on what nations felt they could spare. As for the borders being settled – that matters very little when they basically as a neutral force can bottle up Russian ships in the Baltic sea. So they (as in their electorates) felt threatened and changed their stance on Neutrality.
37% in Jan. to 64% in July, that is a jump in a short time big enough to be questioned.
Neither one of the nations was threatened at all, their neutrality was never in question, more than one hundred years of neutrality for Sweden and close to 80 years in Finland all thrown out in just a few months without a real cause in a democracy?
I don’t buy, our democratic officials are experienced liars.
It had been 50 years since the Russians had invaded a European country, so it’s reasonable that fear of such would be way down … until Russia up and invaded a European country for the first time in 50 years.
It was questioned – that was the answer i.e. do you want your country to join NATO – these results were the result of several independent surveys – also the ones carried out by anti NATO parties, which is why many of them change their stance.
More than 100 years for Sweden, but it all mattered little, once their defense strategy had been proven inadequate they did feel threatened enough to change their stance.
As indicated even the parties in Sweden which did not want to join NATO and that was quite a lot of them, carried out their own polls of their members and saw which way the wind was blowing, if your assumption was right then they would have been leading the process not following it – possibly the best case being Sverigedemokraterne a petty far right of center party a nd a solid anti NATO party, which changed their stance only by late April 2022.
But in Finland the party of the PM failed they lost the election and SHE is NOT the PM ANYMORE.
Sure, but that was not because she lost support, her party got an increased share of the votes going from 17.7 to 19.9% of the votes cast.
About the two other parties that increased their vote share we know the following (right click and choose translate to read in English):
Kokooomus went from 17.0 to 20.8% and has been pro joining NATO for 16 years
https://www.kokoomus.fi/petteri-orpo-suomen-malli-nato-jasenyytemme-perustaksi/
The second:
Perussuomalaiset went from 17.5% to 20.1% and went from not supporting joining NATO to doing so in early 2022
https://yle.fi/a/3-12422774
https://blogit.perussuomalaiset.fi/suvi-karhu/joskus-on-viisasta-ja-aikuismaista-muuttaa-kantaansa-nato/
https://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/rosa-guevara/meille-on-valehdeltu-soinin-halla-ahon-ja-purran-turvallisuuspoliittinen-linjaus/
https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/a/perussuomalaisten-nato-kriittinen-edustaja-muutti-kantaansa/#ac7b1f0f
The Left Alliance which held out very long before changing its NATO position, lost going from 8.2% to 7.1%
https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/71f10c52-e126-494a-b3f1-e3f4ffc31cec
While the green alliance went from 11.5% to 7% also holding not NATO enthusiasts, though they too changed the stance on membership by late April 2022.
https://yle.fi/a/3-12415139
So all in all this election was not a rejection of Sanna Marin’s stance on NATO quite the contrary the party which (as the only party to do so) supported joining NATO for many years was the party to get the best election progress.
Next year could be interesting. As a NATO member Russia could deploy nuclear missiles along the Finnish border, then NATO would station American nuclear weapons in Finland, and so it could go. And Finland will be a vassal state to the USA like the rest of Europe, the same would be true for Sweden.
Time will tell.
No that is not how it works – the Russians may have a need to station some (e.g. hypersonic) missiles closer to their targets – the US/NATO not so much – the issue being that NATO defense is not predicated upon tactical nuclear strikes – originally it was the plan (to stop a Russian tank advance on Paris) but not so any more.
Nukes in Finland would make all of the NATO countries much less safe – this is also the reason that no nukes have been stationed in the Baltic countries. None of the EU countries have become vassals of the US and Russia failing to end their SMO fast, is not going to change this.
That is my take on your proposed scenario – it is only what my observations have led me to believe, but you may have some insights as to why the US or anyone would want to put nukes in Finland when it is not needed for range and only elevates the chance of nuclear war by accident, while conferring no discernable advantage to Finland, NATO or the US.
I proposed nothing, I only considered possible actions the conflicting parties could take. Why did the Americans deploy nuclear weapons in Poland, and Rumania, and Germany, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, and possibly in Ukraine if it became a NATO member? Why do they even have them if they would not use them. The nuclear weapons would not be a deterrent if no one believes they would use them. Why do they waste billions of $$$ to modernize the nuclear weapons?
So Russia would station them in Belarus, so what? You know, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. All NATO members are US vassals, Hungary and Turkey are resisting and they face punishment, little Serbia is a possibility too. Many are silent, but they will jump ship at the first opportunity. Listen to the way Biden talks to nations which don’t roll over for him, there will be consequences for not following orders. NATO is cracking, the people want to end NATO, they want the AMERICANS to go home. The people and their countries are not for sale like Ukraine. Outside the US, Biden is not well liked, he is a bully. He humiliated Scholz, do you think Scholz likes him? Even Scholz resents to be humiliated.
The US did not deploy nukes in Poland or Rumania either – for much the same reason – which is also why they would not deploy nukes to Ukraine if/when it becomes a member. They did deploy nukes to Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey – these sites were ‘populated’ in the 60’ties – back when range was a bigger issue.
They remain as nuclear storage sites as the US still has troops there and as they make it even more difficult to make a win-all first strike.
No one is likely to use nukes in a first strike while the other party has nukes so dispersed that a retaliatory strike would be very devastating – that is why the nuclear powers retain their weapons, not because they intent to use them.
Which has been exactly the position of NATO – i.e. meh.
As indicated the reaction of the west was to say the least relaxed – so much so that the Russians were complaining that ‘we’ did not take them seriously / fear them – I can find the clips if you are not aware of this.
What is it to be a vassal – just asking, because we determine our own defense budgets and have up until 2022, spend the biggest part of the money on mostly pay and pensions – that is why the state of European NATO partners have been to say the least underwhelming.
So not only did we not spend the amounts we ought to, but we also spend it poorly. Add to this that only the NATO countries which felt they needed it supported the US in Iraq and NATO in Libya and I’m starting to wonder about your definition of a vassal. Oh and btw Serbia is not in NATO.
Could you name but a few? Just asking because Hungary which is the strongest candidate is also the only candidate AFAIK and even there NATO membership is supported by an overwhelming majority.
https://publicus.hu/en/blog/an-overwhelming-majority-supports-hungarys-nato-membership/
In which countries – there has been a few demonstrations in some NATO countries, but not very well attended and most often arranged by far right of far left parties – so I really cannot find the evidence for your claim that NATO is unpopular and nations want out (they can leave at any time btw).
I do not know that Biden is liked or not liked – I think you are right that Scholz is not a fan, but for the most of the rest of us I think the attitude is one of more indifference than of dislike – or to put it a different way some are frustrated that he has not done more for Ukraine, and some in (Germany, Italy, Hungary and France are frustrated that he has pushed so hard).
They were party #1 and now fell to # 3. Right of center and far out right of center won combined 41% of the votes.
NATO was a done deal, it was not a subject to be debated during the election campaign.
They had a statistically insignificant majority in April 2019 (17.7% where the two others had 17.5% and 17.0%). NATO was not a done deal, but for sure the popularity of joining NATO did not hurt the people who had been arguing for doing so for a long while.
NATO membership was debated quite seriously during early 2022, but it fell away as an election to, cause the parties understood that the electorate had changed their stance and adopted their stance accordingly – as I pointed out several of them were not very fast in changing their stance, hence the idea that they led the process and/or provided much propaganda for joining NATO is plainly wrong.
So you are left with the issue that the far out right (populist) Perussuomalaiset only making a u-turn on joining NATO by late April 2022 – as I’ve already pointed out. So the reason that it was not a serious part of the election debates were that the parties changed their stance because they were taking a beating in their own polls and consequently changed the party stance.
It is all there in the links I provided earlier – this is not a top down process, but the reverse – simply put none of the parties opposing NATO membership (before 2022 that was all of the large ones except: Kansallinen Kokoomus) as can be read here:
https://www.eva.fi/blog/2019/12/14/nato-kannat-vakaita-kannatuksessa-suuria-eroja-miesten-ja-naisten-valilla/
It is quite the read – but it does not give any credence to your suggestion that it was the elite or the political parties that forced this issue upon an unenthusiastic let alone unwilling electorate – they were all (except one) against joining but changed their stance as the polls showed them how much the electorate had changed theirs.
https://yle.fi/a/3-12437506
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/nato-membership-finland-now-likely
So the evidence clearly supports the notion that it was the Finish electorate which started changing their minds before the parties changed theirs – I would be very interested if you could find some Finish sources to support the notion that this was forced upon the electorate or even that it was not debated in 2022 (clearly the parties had gotten the message by the time the election debate started, but given the numbers this should not surprise).
“Turkey’s Parliament Ratifies Finland’s NATO Membership Finland can now become a formal NATO member, expanding the alliance on Russia’s border”
Better headline would be: Turkey votes to make Finland ground zero for nuclear weapons and a future radioactive no go zone!
The crazy prime minister act like a besotted young school girl around Jens Stoltenberg.
I will bet that the average citizen of Finland would agree to neutrality and life as normal.
Well you are just flat out wrong on those issues for a number of reasons:
1) The support for joining NATO only crept above 50% (reaching 53%) after the SMO – it is now at 78%, so the average Finish citizen most certainly wants to join NATO.
https://yle.fi/a/3-12337202
https://www.rferl.org/a/finland-nato-survey-membership/32145117.html
2) Finland as one of the few if not the only European country has nuclear shelters for all of its citizens living in cities worth wasting a nuke on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_defence_in_Finland#:~:text=The%20Ministry%20of%20Interior%20maintains,nuclear%20bomb%20at%20ground%20zero.
3) Nuclear weapons are by design not made to make territory a no go zone – that would in most cases be very bad for the Russians – the idea most often being to invade the place after using the nuke, not to create maximum lasting pollution – as the winds would carry much of the fallout towards the Russian side, for most of the likely targets of Russian nukes in Europe.
But hey do not let facts stand in the way of your narrative.
Fine Finland can live underground in shelters for a thousand years.
You do have a way of spewing NATO propaganda though Mr. Troll.
Quia debitis et debitis
The point is that they do not have to – or is it that you insist on staying ignorant on the nuke thing?
What I referenced was not NATO propaganda – but again I see you prefer your ignorant narrative over what is actually happening or what motivates events – fine by me the less informed your position is the less convincing it will be.
@Michael 64
Having nuclear shelters is great and Finns should not be worried about Russia wasting a missile to incinerating a city or 2. The lack of radioctive fall-out is also very encouraging specially after over 12,000 nuclear warheads (plus France’s, Britain, China and others) detonate on the ground or on the atmosphere without any radiation is achieving Nirvana. The future is bleak after a nuclear confrontation so they might as well join the party and drink the Kool Aid.
Unless of course, there is the possibility that only those near Russia’s borders get incinerated first and the rest will reconsider it is not worth the waste of humanity and stop.
I did not claim that there would be no fallout – merely that Finland would not make Finland a future radioactive no go zone! There will be fallout and there will be a month or two where being above ground is likely to shorten your expected life span – it is however not the end of the world as the Japanese people who were not near ground zero but still living near of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have demonstrated.
The issue is as I pointed out the Finns have nuclear shelters for all the population living in what would be likely nuclear target zones (room for 3.6 million people – there are a total of about 5.5 million people in Finland) – so they would not get incinerated and they would be able to stay in shelters for long enough to avoid having to exit while the radiation was at very dangerous levels.
The simple fact is that nuking Finland is about as poor a prospect for the Russians as you could imagine – they will face total retaliation from NATO and have killed very few people in exchange. Just nuking London, Paris and Brussels will guarantee far more victims for a much lower expenditure of bombs.
In short the likelihood that the Russians would be dumb enough to waste nukes on Finland is about zero – at least if we are looking at a surprise first strike.
The NATO planners have great vision. If Russia was bothered for NATO’s expansion (and they have been complaining about it for 30 years), the thing to do to achieve peace is to double down and expand NATO even more. THAT will teach those Russians! A larger and bigger NATO will bring them into submission and Russia will disintegrate, they think.
As Biden once said back in the ’90’s, Russian oposition to NATO’s expansion is psychological. Eventually they will get over it. The fact that they have not accepted living with an enemy next door is inconsequential; they are not thinking logically.