By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KiigelHeart said:
Ryuu96 said:

A walkback from their earlier statements, but this is actually the first reasonable thing he has said in a long while. There's no trusting him though.

I can agree deploying military infrastructure could be provocative and even unnecessary, we have a capable and Nato-compatible defence force already.

Bolded.

Pretty much, it's an excuse, he knows there's nothing he can do to stop Finland/Sweden from joining NATO now, especially since they're having their asses kicked by Ukraine so he's trying to spin their eventual ascension into NATO as not Putin looking like a massive fuck up to his people after spending the last few weeks ranting about how dangerous NATO is and constant threats towards Finland/Sweden.

The issue with believing his statement at face value as I see it will be it gives him an excuse as to why he invaded Ukraine, people and Putin will be like "see, he only invaded Ukraine because they were going to have permanent US troops (they weren't) and he's not invading Finland/Sweden because they've promised to not have US bases" which of course we know is just a lie to save face but others will use it nonetheless.

End of the day, it really makes zero difference as to whether Finland has permanent US troops or not, it literally doesn't matter, Finland doesn't need them, they're already very well militarised and able to work compatibly with NATO, these "NATO bases" are just a country (in this case, Finland) hosting a military base which has the presence of troops from other countries but they still play by Finland's rules or the host countries rules.

America's nukes can reach Russia regardless. Now when Finland does join, Russia gains another member of NATO on its 1,340 km border which is even more equipped than Ukraine whom they apparently attacked to stop them from joining NATO, Lol. So yeah, it's just Putin trying to spin anything so he doesn't look like a failure.