The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
On May 12th, Russia’s RT bannered “Finland’s NATO membership will trigger response – Moscow”, and reported that
Moscow has warned that Finland joining NATO would pose a direct threat to Russia’s security and its acceptance to the military alliance would prompt Russia to develop measures to ensure its safety. That’s after Finnish officials confirmed on Thursday their commitment to join the US-led bloc and announced plans to pen a formal application later this week.
“There is a current instruction from the president to develop a list of measures to strengthen our western flanks in connection with the strengthening of NATO’s eastern flanks,” said Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov during a daily press briefing on Thursday. …
He added that Russia regrets Finland’s decision to join the hostile steps taken by the EU and warned that Helsinki’s attempts to join NATO would serve as a reason to develop respective mirror responses. …
Last month, the former Russian president and prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, who is currently deputy chairman of the country’s Security Council implied that if Finland and Sweden became members of NATO, Russia might be forced to deploy nuclear weapons to the Baltic region in order to preserve “the balance of power.”
It wouldn’t “preserve ‘the balance of power’,” because U.S./NATO will then be in position to place America’s nukes on Russia’s border near its brain-center Moscow, whereas Russia isn’t in position to place its nukes on America’s border near its brain-center Washington DC.
If Finland joins NATO, then America will station its missiles on Finland’s Russian border, 507 miles from Moscow, and that is 7 minutes away from blitz-nuking Moscow.
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, America threatened to initiate nuclear war against the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union would position nuclear missiles in Cuba, 1,134 miles from Washington DC, which would be about 10 minutes away from blitz-nuking Washington (but would have required much longer to reach Washington back in 1962).
Consequently, Russia now is in at least as dangerous a situation if Finland joins NATO as America was in during the Cuban Missile Crisis when America was threatening to launch a nuclear invasion against Russia if U.S.S.R. placed missiles in Cuba.
Furthermore: unlike America and the Soviet Union during the Cuba Missile Crisis, when BOTH nations were willing to negotiate a peaceful end to that Crisis, Russia is willing to negotiate a peaceful settlement this time around but America is not and has repeatedly refused to do so. Clearly, America is heading for conquest.
Consequently, Russia must now, if it is to adhere to the standards that both Kennedy and Khrushchev adhered to in 1962, make absolutely clear now to Finland’s Government that if and when Finland will join NATO, then Russia will have no alternative to blitz-nuking not only Finland but simultaneously nuking all other NATO-member nations.
Well, there actually IS an alternative: Russia’s Government can cede its sovereignty to America and begin negotiations on a surrender to the U.S. Government.
Russia’s current vaguely worded threat against Finland is just a vague way of doing that. However, another alternative exists for Russia, but one that Vladimir Putin seems not to be considering, at all, even though it really is the ONLY sensible one for Russia to do, and it would adhere to the model that JFK adhered to in 1962. But let’s first review what has led up to this Crisis, so as to place the Crisis into its proper historical context:
Russia’s first strategy against further enlargement of NATO was to demand, on 15 December 2021, to the U.S. Government; and, two days later, to America’s main anti-Russian military alliance, NATO; that NATO would never add any new member-nations — especially not Ukraine. This demand was firmly rejected, on 7 January 2022, by both America and its NATO arm. Worse yet for Russia: after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, hoping thereby to prevent at least that country joining NATO, both Finland and Sweden were so scared that they might be invaded next, that both countries expressed in early April 2022 a desire to join the anti-Russian alliance, and were welcomed by America and its NATO arm to apply to join. So, even if Russia wins its war in Ukraine, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have actually failed, because NATO seems now more likely even than before to increase — exactly the opposite of what Russia had been intending.
A more effective strategy by Russia might nonetheless still be possible. If so, I think that it would be something like this:
Russia will announce that its nuclear missiles will be targeted ONLY against the U.S. and its allies, including all NATO member-nations, no neutral or not-U.S.-allied nations. Consequently: Sweden, Finland, Ukraine, and any other nation that isn’t in NATO or otherwise treaty-bound militarily with the United States, will not be targeted by any Russian nuclear missiles.
In other words: any new NATO member-nation will thereby become a target added to Russia’s list for destruction in any WW III that might transpire between the United States and Russia.
Consequently, if Finland or Sweden join NATO, then that nation’s likelihood of becoming annihilated if and when a Third World War starts, will enormously and suddenly increase, merely on account of that nation’s having become a NATO member.
Furthermore, Russia will simultaneously be announcing that if any nation wishes to have an assurance that Russia will never, under any circumstance, invade it, then Russia will welcome from that nation a request for such an assurance from Russia; and Russia will include in that announcement explicit invitations not only to Finland and Sweden, but to all other nations which have, at some time, expressed an intention or a possible future intention to join either NATO or one of America’s other anti-Russia military alliances, such as AUKUS. In this regard, Russia will also state that if ever Russia were to provide to a nation such an assurance and subsequently to violate it, then Russia would not only be violating its own tradition of rigidly adhering to international treaties that it has signed, but would also thereby be forfeiting any and all of its rights under international law, by doing so. In other words: Russia would, in advance, be surrendering to any country that it would subsequently be violating by its having invaded the country that it had promised never to invade. This in-advance promise to forfeit all of Russia’s rights under all international laws in any such circumstance, would be a surrender in-advance, under all existing international laws; and, consequently, under the arrangement that is being proposed here, there would be no nation in the entire world that has, or ever did have, so strict an international legal obligation as Russia would be having under this proposed arrangement.
Finally: this proposed arrangement will be offering, to all existing member-nations of NATO and of America’s other anti-Russian military alliances, a promise that if and when any such existing member-nation will quit that anti-Russian military alliance, Russia will be happy to — at the moment that this is done — automatically provide to that nation the same legal commitment never to invade that nation, as has just been described here. In other words: the proposed arrangement will be offering, to the entire world, a stark and clear choice between two options: on the one hand, being allied with the most aggressive nation in all of the world’s history — the nation that sanctions, coups, and outright invades, any nation that fails to cooperate with its goal to replace the United Nations as being the ultimate arbiter of international laws, by the United States as being, instead, the ultimate arbiter of what it calls “the rules-based international order” (in which all of those ‘rules’ come ultimately from whomever rules the U.S. Government). Versus, on the other hand: building upon and remaking the U.N. into what had been the original intention for it by its creator and namer, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which was for the U.N. to replace the historically existing (until now) rule-of-force by-and-between contending international empires, by, instead, a peaceful and democratic international order, in which there will be a “United Nations” which will be a worldwide federation of all nations, in which international laws will be produced by the global legislature of duly authorized (under each individual nation’s own internal laws) representatives; and adjudicated by the global Supreme Court, and enforced by the sole global possessor and user of strategic weaponry, the U.N. itself, so that penalties that are ruled by this global Court of international relations can be enforced against the Government of any nation that has been ruled by this Court to have violated the rights of any other nation’s Government. In this understanding of the U.N.’s proper scope of power and of authority, the U.N. will have no authority and no power regarding the Constitution or laws of any nation that apply only internally to a given nation, but ONLY to international laws, which pertain only to international relations, never to a nation’s internal matters. FDR’s objective was to make another World War — another war between empires — impossible, by eliminating all empires, and replacing all of them by an international democracy of nations. Russia, in the proposed arrangement, would be striving to achieve, for the entire world, what FDR had planned for the post-WW-II world, but which tragically became promptly changed and abandoned by his immediate successor, Harry S. Truman — the founder (on 25 July 1945) of the present global U.S. empire (and of its hamstrung currently existing — Truman’s — U.N.).
There still might be time enough for Putin to make that offer, not only to Finland, but to the world.
NOTE: Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany in WW II, invading the Soviet Union during 1941-1944, in Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa”, aiming to conquer it and enslave the Soviet peoples to Hitler’s Nazi regime. This time, Finland would be serving the U.S. regime to conquer Russia. Unless, perhaps, Putin makes this offer, and Finland accepts the offer.
UPDATE: Late on May 13th, RT headlined “First phone call between Russian and US defense chiefs since start of Ukraine conflict: Lloyd Austin has urged his Russian counterpart, Sergei Shoigu, for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine”, which might mean that Biden now feels so confident of America’s having trapped Russia so that now he’s hoping that Russia will capitulate.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
If Finland wants to be a cock sucking vassal of the us led nato, so be it. Russia’s response will be measured and asymetrical, to the detriment of Finland.
What empty blather that is, just throwing around words and phrases, such as “measured” and “to the detriment of Finland” — mere blather, nothing at all.
After reading your ‘blather’, I’m not sure mine is worse.
Do you honestly think that Russia will allow nuclear weapons to placed on Finnish soil? It would strike those facilities with conventional weapons during construction. Is “NATO” then going to attack Russia with nuclear weapons as a response? What other response does it have at its disposal? Which European country will make the first strike against Russia? Because the US certainly will not..
“It would strike those facilities with conventional weapons during construction. Is “NATO” then going to attack Russia with nuclear weapons as a response?”: If Finland, just ten minutes away from Moscow, joins NATO, and America then starts positioning missiles there, then Russia attacks Finland with conventional weapons, NATO’s section 5 means that NATO will strike back. That would be conventional war between Russia and NATO. Whichever side will then be LOSING that conventional war, will then proceed to blitz-nuclear attack the opposite side. You think that this sequence of events ought to be acceptable to Russia. I do not. So… Read more »
NATO’s section 5 gives the members the option of coming to the defense, it does not obligate them to do so.
What you said is CLEARLY false. Read this:
It says “Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.” EACH member has obligated itself to then retaliate.
Problem with that, is there are nations that have already declared they won’t involve themselves in a Russian/U.S. conflict despite being a NATO member.
You haven’t answered the question of WHICH one of the member’s of NATO would strike Russia first. It certainly would not be Finland. Things have changed substantially in weaponry since WW2.
Once America will have its missiles in Finland, 7 minutes away from Moscow, those would likely be the first missiles to knock out Russia’s central command in Moscow. Russia must prevent those missiles being placed there, or else strike U.S.-NATO before those missiles WILL be placed there.
Those will actually be the first missiles to be taken out by Russia! So, I don’t think they count.
Those alleged missiles will never even be allowed to be established in the first instance.
You are saying that Russia would bomb even before it’s completed any U.S. missile-site that would be placed only 7 minutes away from Moscow on the Finnish border. You are saying that Russia would trigger Article 5 at that time. Really? REALLY? And you think that Putin has been correct to shrug off the possibility of Finland’s joining Nato, though that would endanger Russians almost as much as if Ukraine joins NATO? Really?
Do you really think Finland and Sweden are not aware that Russia will target its nukes at all NATO members? They surely know that, and yet are going forward. Why do you think that is happening? Do you think the West is honourable enough to accept Russia’s non invasion guarantees to countries that refuse NATO membership or give up current NATO membership? They will still paint a picture of a lying, untrustworthy Russia, and will try to put nukes even in the countries with guarantees from Russia. What should Russia do then? If Russia attack the nukes, the West will… Read more »
“Do you really think Finland and Sweden are not aware that Russia will target its nukes”:
It would already be too late then. Kennedy knew that in 1962. The decision needs to be made BEFOREHAND. If that decision is NOT to be an offer by Putin such as I’ve here suggested, then what do YOU propose it to be instead, and when?
I do not think anything will work. In the end, the most likely scenario is that Finland and Sweden will gain NATO membership, Russia will set the target on some of their nukes to Finnish and Swedish cities, and if nuclear weapons or nuclear capable missiles are placed on Finnish or Swedish soil, Russia will take them out, consequences be damned. Then, if the West chooses to retaliate, it will be nuclear Armageddon, and humanity will effectively cease to be. And that is fine with me. The earth will exist, some other creatures may evolve to be sentient after a… Read more »
Of course, in the years before Finland and Sweden get their membership, if the economies of the Collective West are in recession, and a fair and just global order is formed in a multipolar world, then the above scenario may be averted.
But I don’t have much hope.
WHY do you think that such an offer from Putin would be REJECTED byFinland?
I did not say that. I said such an offer would be accepted, but not be honoured by Finland. The West has no concept of honour.
“Do you think the West is honourable enough to accept Russia’s non invasion guarantees to countries that refuse NATO membership or give up current NATO membership?” That question pertains to the entire western alliance, but my proposal doesn’t concern the entire western alliance but instead concerns ONLY the two nations Russia and Finland, which would be making and signing this agreement between themselves. If Russia makes this offer to Finland, and Finland likes the deal and signs it, I think that it would OBVIOUSLY benefit BOTH Finland AND Russia, and that therefore, both sides would have that arrangement in FACT… Read more »
I wish there was a champion we could trust with all the military might in the world. I do not feel at all comfortable with giving the U.N. that power. Even a reconstituted U.N. with “beautiful”- competent.,altruistic people at its’ helm. Things change. What earthly entity would there be to counter an all and only powerful U.N. that was breaking bad?
Your wish is your demise. If the US citizenry would grow some balls and take back what is theirs, maybe there would be a chance, but no, US citizens are moral cowards hoping a Trump or Putin will take down the WEF and it’s minions. Both men are suspect and could be playing the role of deep false opposition. Putin has not decisively dealt with anything in terms of foreign policy. Syria is a bleeding wound, stuck in a forever war, with Ukraine looking like it will suffer a similar fate. Putin needed to derail Nuland and co with their… Read more »
When I wrote ‘I wish” it was in reference to one of those wishes one doesn’t think could ever come true. It was a prologue to my misgivings regarding Eric’s suggestions about the use of the U.N. in that role. And my last sentence gives a reason for not letting it come true if you substitute champion for U.N. Your comment accurately reflects our sad state of affairs and supports not looking to a champion (at least not an Earthly champion ) for relief
Fortunately the US is heading for a civil war which will cripple their plans. It will be very bloody and the US will take a long time to recover, if at all. The UK is going to break up. A simple matter of time and method. Finland and Sweden are wasting their time with joining NATO and when this happens, they will be very glad they were stopped by Erdogan from joining!
Sweden and Finland were de facto members of NATO/US which accounts for the apparent ‘weak’ statement from Russia. 2. Through Operation Paperclip the US/NATO are the 4th Reich conducting Barbarossa in slow motion. Nothing will dissuade them from direct confrontation with Russia. 3. China’s and India’s understanding that they are next is crucial to stopping this new Barbarossa. Alongside the economic deterioration of the US and allies this could free the global south from the north causing further costs on the would-be colonialists. 4. International organisations are mostly corrupted by the west, the UN in New York cannot be a… Read more »
“Sweden and Finland were de facto members of NATO/US which accounts for the apparent ‘weak’ statement from Russia.”: You are assuming the present situation in which Finland ISN’T in NATO. But this article addresses what the situation would be if and when Finland IS in NATO. Your comment is therefore not on topic. Russia won’t be able to make this offer AFTER Finland is in NATO. This is the REASON WHY Russia’s making this offer NOW is so crucially important. Instead, Russia has given only these mealy-mouthed threats, and offered NO carrots, no OFFER at all, for Finland to even… Read more »
NATO is no defense organization. Its a sale office for the military industrial complex. If the Fins think NATO will come to their rescue in case of “Russian Agression” grow a beard.
Finland has 5 million inhabitants, Sweden 10.
The Swedes and Finns are not afraid of Russia, so the two nations are forced into NATO without a vote. The USA has to give up Ukraine, which angers them and they think they have managed a coup with Finland-Sweden…. But these are small fleas.
Swedish neutrality is a myth anyway. Already the Palme murder was a transatlantic cooperation.
Russia has submarines, they can hit Washington or the London City if the Russians feel prompted.
I have full confidence in the Russian General Staff. First Ukraine and then we’ll see.
There is a HUGE difference between Finland IN the U.S.’s NATO v. Finland OUTSIDE it: Inside, America will be able to plant its missiles there only 7 minutes to Moscow. Outside, America won’t. Finland in NATO is just 2 minutes less bad than Ukraine in NATO. Finland in NATO is nearly as bad as Ukraine in NATO. It is A VERY BIG DEAL.
Quote, “The Swedes and Finns are not afraid of Russia,” Unquote. If that’s true, why the sudden rush to join NATO ? You say they are ‘FORCED” to join NATO. Who “FORCED” them and how ?
I’m Finnish by birth and it will be a tragedy if it joined NATO. It is time the SCO was given teeth which would terrify Washington!