Eric Zuesse
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.
Eric Zuesse
Russia has said many times that it will not accept any new nation’s being added to America’s main anti-Russian military alliance, NATO, because adding it might reduce to only 7 minutes or even less the amount of time for Russia to launch its retaliatory weapons if U.S. missiles become launched against Moscow from Ukraine or Finland, which are the two Russia-bordering nations that are the nearest ones to Moscow. Adding Ukraine or Finland to NATO would allow American nuclear weapons to be placed that close to Moscow; and this is at least as unacceptable to Russia as the prospect of Soviet missiles in Cuba was to America in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Consequently, if Ukraine or Finland become on the verge of joining NATO, then Russia might pre-emptively launch a bomb (such as this) to destroy that nation’s Government in Helsinki beforehand. The advantage of doing so would be that until the joining, the existing NATO member-nations would have no contractual obligation to go to war against Russia if Russia invades that prospective new NATO-member nation, but it would have such a contractual obligation AFTER Ukraine or Finland have already become NATO members. Article 5 of the NATO contract (or Treaty) obligates each and every existing NATO member-nation immediately to go to war against any nation that has invaded any other NATO member-nation. For some reason, Putin has not warned Finland that if Finland is about to become a NATO member-nation, then Russia will invade it before it joins, nor has he offered to Finland a binding treaty obligation from Russia NEVER to invade Finland if and only if Finland REMAINS outside of any and all military alliances with America or any other nation that is hostile toward Russia. It would be tragic if Putin destroys Helsinki pre-emptively without having previously informed Finland’s Government that Russia will be happy to give it a contractually binding and internationally enforceable promise never to invade Finland if and only if Finland remains a neutral nation. If he doesn’t make the offer ahead of time, then virtually the entire world will be blaming Russia — not America — if and when Russia pre-emptively invades Finland (such as by this) in order to prevent Finland from joining America’s anti-Russian military alliance. Thus far, all that Putin has offered to any nation that is considering to join NATO, is vague threats, no positive inducements that could increase the safety both of Russians and of residents in the nation that is considering to join NATO. Putin’s behavior in that regard is shockingly remiss — contrary to the interests not ONLY of prospective additional NATO-member nations, but of Russia’s own citizens. It’s a mystery why Putin hasn’t already publicly offered this deal to Finland.
As things now stand — with Putin speaking only of demands and making vague threats — the world is getting closer and closer each and every day to a WW III, in which the U.S. Government seeks to rule the entire world, while the Russian Government issues only threats and demands, no offers to nations that decide NOT to join America’s intensely dangerous anti-Russian gang. He seems to be offering no inducement to the nearest bordering nations, for them to be geostrategically neutral instead of to become part of the rabidly anti-Russian American empire. Whatever his strategy might be, it appears to lack fundamental common sense, because offering ONLY sticks and NO carrots isn’t in ANYONE’s best interest.
Russia is a severely threatened nation — threatened by the U.S. regime — but is responding only by demands (very rational and justified ones, I might add) and threats, and is therefore very easy for its enemies to portray falsely as being instead the aggressor (when the actual aggressor is clearly the U.S. regime). If Putin can’t do better than that, he probably won’t remain in power there much longer — and the U.S. regime might replace him, which it has long been trying to do. He needs to do much better, not only for the Russian people, but for the people of the entire world, in order to avoid a WW III. He needs to offer Finns this deal, and to do it publicly.
—————
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.
Asymmetric economic counter measures will hurt Finland and Sweden far more than military threats. Besides, what do you know about Russia’s plans? Acting in a calm and sane manner is more likely to get results than running around screaming threats and waving guns in the air.
Here is nice calm behavior. Shoigu says: Finland joining NATO is a very bad idea. If this proceeds, Helsinki residents might want to look for another place to live. Far away.
Are you saying Shoigu said that – or that he should say it?
No, he hasn’t said that. I’m just suggesting that sometimes one needs to remind people that playing with fire is dangerous.
What penrose calls “nice calm behavior” is would be a threat of great violence.
There is already great violence next door to the Finns. That statement would just be helpful advice to the Finns on how to avoid getting sucked in. Seems like he would be doing the Finns a favor, to me. A word to the wise, so to speak. Of course, a word to fools falls on deaf ears. The Finns should try to be wise rather than foolish.
I too read that release, so YES, Shoigu DID say that. B.T.W. it kinda verifies my earlier post regarding the missiles. L.O.L.
“calm and sane manner” is a meaningless phrase here and ignores this article’s argument and the existential threat to Russia that is now increasing and that Putin’s doing nothing to reduce. The fact that there are now seven upvotes for that reader-comment is therefore shocking. Putin’s response to the now rapidly increasing dangers that Russia now faces isn’t any such bromide as a “calm and sane manner” but instead nothing at all. He either will make this offer to Finland or else there will be a global nuclear war very soon.Apparently, readers here refuse to accept evidence that Putin’s leadership… Read more »
Seriously Eric, it’d be nice to hear from YOU, an alternative for Putin on these issues. BUT, given the FACT, the West, and in particular the U.S. and U.K. are totally committed, to the destruction of Russia as we know it today, (with no concern whatever, of the damage that will flow from such an action World Wide) I’d say your options to offer an alternative are extremely compromised.
There is an implied inducement (carrot), one that is already in effect. “Friendly” nations have the advantage of availing themselves of Russian resources at what seems like generous terms/prices. There is also a ‘stick’, an evidently, if one studies what is happening to the EU, very effective stick i.e., not being allowed to be an advantaged trading partner of Russia. Crossing the line into “unfriendly” territory is what divides the carrot from the stick. Finland has stated that they are not afraid of Russia and are willing to cross that line. Will an agreement precluding invasion by Russia be a… Read more »
Perhaps if the Kremlin were publicly to make the offer, Finland might accept it; and, if Finland publicly rejects it, then Russia could publicly question whether Finland’s Government really is seeking to protect Finns or has some ‘higher’ priority than protecting them. For Finland to join NATO would mean Finland’s inviting themselves to become military targets of Russia’s missiles. Is that what Finns want — to become targets of Russia? That seems insane.
It’s not correct to publicly make an offer, if publicly means somehow to get it into Finnish press, instead of direct to a government. Diplomatically, and historically, the sensible thing has been to leave it down to a nation’s press whether to report an important offer or not. But Russia faces only hositility , and not diplomacy. Can one make up for another’s lack of transparency in advance, and if it is ever possible, why bother? A good reason is if one suspects the government is a lying tyrant that does not represent its people, and/or somehow psychologically bullies them. Well,… Read more »
“It’s not correct to publicly make an offer, if publicly means somehow to get it into Finnish press, instead of direct to a government.”: It IS correct to make this offer publicly, because that would be the ONLY way by means of which Finland’s bought-and-paid-for leaders would be able to be pressured — by the public that had elected them — to act in the public’s interests instead of in the interests of U.S.-and-allied billionaires who receive the profits from NATO. If the offer is publicly made, then even the ‘news’-media would necessarily report the offer. Otherwise, they would keep… Read more »
The Finnish Government has already said, the decision to join NATO, is NOT UP TO THE PEOPLE. The Government was elected to make these decisions on behalf of the people, thus they will do that. Surprised you missed that bit Eric.
My points exactly John. NOTHING Russia does, will prevent this coming WW 111 which started with the destruction of Yugoslavia and guess who the main protagonist was in that event ? NATO. I forget though, who they were bringing freedom to though.
I can see the average Finn thinking that it is not Russia’s place to say whether or not Finland can join NATO. That, hopefully, would change if NATO planned to deploy,within Finland, any military infrastructure or weapons designed for or with the potential of striking Russia. Upon realizing this intent, I can see the average Finn questioning “whether Finland’s Government really is seeking to protect Finns or has some ‘higher’ priority than protecting them.” thus creating a huge political problem.
a fascinating possibility! But I have no idea of what most Finns would feel and think in such a situation.
Maybe a visit to Finland and asking such questions from the Fins in the street would clear that up pretty quick ?
C’mon Charles, it’d be a bit late, watching NATO instalations being installed and the citizens of Finland only then becoming aware of the repercussions of joining NATO. The horse would have truly bolted and there’s no going back then. I wonder what those same citizens would say, when those NATO instalations get blown to bits the next day.
Well, Finland needs to proceed with caution, Simo Hayha isn’t around to save them anymore.
“Article 5 of the NATO contract (or Treaty) obligates each and every existing NATO member-nation immediately to go to war against any nation that has invaded any other NATO member-nation.”
I think most people reading Article 5 of the treaty would agree it does not ‘obligate’ each or indeed any member state to go to war. At least put it this way, there is adequate scope for any NATO member state not to go to war under this article, if they so choose not to for whatever reason.
Article 5 text
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Source:
“will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”: Not “may assist” or “should assist,” but “WILL assist” and do it “forthwith” and WILL (not merely “might”) include “such action as it [the invaded Member(s)] deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” Universally, Article 5 is cited as an obligation — not MERELY as an OPTION. This is the REASON why Finland’s joining NATO would pose a severe existential threat to Russia’s survival — almost as much… Read more »
PS: I was strongly opposed to Putin’s “Special Operation” invading Ukraine on February 24th, and I still think that it was catastrophic and that if only Putin had continued playing his waiting-game with Biden, then Biden would have been the first to buckle and Biden would have ordered Zelensky to invade Donbass, in which case Russia could promptly invade and take over Kiev and The West wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it and Russia would now be executing all of Ukraine’s nazis and exposing those individuals’ war-crimes and the entire Obama-Biden operation there. That would have STOPPED… Read more »
We are now at the point where it does not matter what ‘the west thinks’. Individual adults in the West of some maturity will remain either dubious of their government, or not by now. There is really nothing more Russia can do to make things plain to us people, because of the behaviour of our governments both to ourselves, the people of the West, and to Russia. It’s all one big psy-op for globalist agenda, uttery lacking in common sense, decency or humanity. I feel sorry for all our children at this time. But I know, it is good to… Read more »
John, I’m a Vietnam Vet, spent 13 months of my life there, and the lessons learned are indelible on my brain. The WEST is intent of collective suicide, NOTHING, and NO ONE is going to stop it, the Leeming train is going full speed ahead towards the cliff, and no amount of waffling on with pretty words is going to stop it. This all started back when NATO attacked Yugoslavia, for no reason whatever, but to simply break it up into little pieces to be more amicable to NWO dictates and it has not stopped since. Countries listed as targets… Read more »
Finland is in the EU which is increasing its military development alongside NATO, Finland also deploys its troops alongside NATO troops. Much like Sweden it is neutral in name only. This membership application is for public consumption. If Russia ceased to exist NATO would continue to China, India and any other independent-minded nation. No concessions, diplomacy are enough for NATO.
Yes, BUT:
Article 5 is NOT in any EU contract; it is ONLY in the NATO contract. And THAT is the difference.
Absoluetly spot on Soph. Eric, amazing you still believe the U.S. or it’s co-conspirators, believe words can restrain them from fulfilling their agenda. There is massive detail too, in the U.N. Charter governing the behaviour of it’s member nations, in particular nations going to war without U.N. sanction, invading other countries ect, ect. Give us just ONE example, where the U.S. actually followed the U.N. Charter to the letter, before illegally invading a country and butchering it’s inhabitants. Just ONE mate. What did the U.N and the World in general do about these continual crimes being committed by the U.S.… Read more »
Finland already has a Treaty with Russia to remain Neutral so announcing that they are joining NATO violates that Treaty.
That statement is only an allegation, and like all unsourced allegations should therefore be ignored and distrusted, not accepted.
YES, correct. BUT that agreement was only for 70 years or so. Last I read on that, it has expired and they are not obliged now to adhere to it.
I don’t understand what “contractually binding guarantees” are among sovereign states. How are such guarantees enforced? If one country does not trust another, then could it trust its guarantees?
A warning of the consequences of an action – such as joining NATO – seems realistic. The nation receiving the warning could then decide: Is it a bluff? If not, could we deal with the consequences successfully? Is it all worth the gamble?
I included a link at my actual phrase there, “contractually binding and internationally enforceable promise” so that your answer to that question would be just a click away, but perhaps you failed to click onto it and instead decided to ask that question here in the reader-comments, withou even having looked to see its answer.
Ask Gough Whitlam what the value of a “contractually binding guarantees” is worth, if he was still alive, that is. And yet people choose to ignore such events, because they don’t fit in with their own perception of how they see/feel/think.
Finland is de facto a part of NATO, if conflict broke out with Russia and NATO Finland would join the NATO side, and that is a fact.
It won’t be obligatory unless and until Finland is a member.
W.T.F. is this LOVE AFFAIR Western people have with INVADING other countries ?? Even pathetic Australians threatening to INVADE the SOLOMAN’S, simply because they choose to make their own desions instead of cowtowing to U.S. U.K. Japanese. Australian demands. I don’t recall Putin ever saying anything of the sort, so where did this crap come from ? I DO recall Putin saying he’ll be OBLIGATED to take defensive action IF these nations join NATO. That, to my mind, does not equate to INVADING anyone. More than likely, it will mean few missiles landing on Finland’s Government, preferably when they are… Read more »