Sorry but you are getting quite incoherent and emotional. In what way does Sweden and Finland benefit from joining NATO after years of being independent of NATO. How does this make those countries seem less of a threat to Russia if Russian concerns are NATO expansionism?

The bloke carded on account of routinely reeling off profanity at others during his rage fits (where there isn't total subservience to Kremlin propoganda) thinks others are being 'emotional'.

Sweden and Finland benefit from protection offered should they be attacked. They likey didn't view they needed such protection but Russias eratic conduct have resulted in massive public support for joining (or no doubt to you, 'wicked lies from corrupt western media!). Of course your warped stance is that an attack on them is now made somehow more legitimate on account that they have joined a 'defensive pact'. Why should they care if Russia imagine them to be more of threat, when Russia is the country engaging in threats and bombing and they are not? Grow a pair of balls, instead of bending over for Russia at every opportunity.

Edited by BlueJay (29 Jun 2022 7.53pm)

What makes you think Sweden and Finland were under threat after decades happily outside of NATO? What reason has Russia to attack either other than them being part of a block of countries that are hostile?

Would you talk to me like this if we were in a pub, would you call someone who disagreed with you "warped" face to face? Happy to meet up for a face to face that if it helps your understanding of my position.

Some positions just seem so entrenched, they're not worth trying to engage with.

Red and Blue Army!

And the internet encourages cowardice

Well, then he has seen sense. There is no point arguing with you, debating with you or giving any benefit of the doubt.