- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
This one I don't understand, at least until more details are revealed. I get that NATO might arm Sweden and Finland if they applied to join and were in the interim. However before they have even decided to apply, Johnston decided UK will back both of these countries. So if Russia did invade Finland tomorrow, we would be duty bound to protect Finland! The reason I find it difficult is that at least in the case of Ukraine, they have been trying to join NATO and the EU for years, but basically were left on the shelf until other countries realised they could actually fight, and decided to support them with weapons, in what is for some a proxy war. (yeh shocker..like it hasn't happened in Syria etc) Anyway I get that and I am more favourable towards this as like I said Ukraine wanted to be free of the shackles of Putin. But I struggle with what appears to be a unilateral move by UK. and I imagine if there was comebacks we would not necessarily have the backing of NATO for going out on a limb? And that is the question probably most people are wondering. Not that I think for a minute USA would let Russia anywhere near the Holy Loch, bit I fail to understand how we can make this declaration alone. If Russia wanted an excuse to attack UK then they have it.
That said I reckon for Russia to contemplate expanding their war they would pretty much have to resort to Nuclear. They cannot have much left in terms of tanks and other vehicles and even Ukraine should start to knock out much of their artillery now they have better weapons being delivered. But it still confounds me why UK have to be part of every conflict.
That said I reckon for Russia to contemplate expanding their war they would pretty much have to resort to Nuclear. They cannot have much left in terms of tanks and other vehicles and even Ukraine should start to knock out much of their artillery now they have better weapons being delivered. But it still confounds me why UK have to be part of every conflict.
