The Prime Minister of Finland makes it very clear what the stakes are in the Ukraine. For them, for Europe, for all democratic countries.
Why Ukraine Must Win
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “The Prime Minister of Finland makes it very clear what the stakes are in the Ukraine.”
If 60 Minutes is to be believed, the stakes are that Sana Marine will have her humanity, maybe even her womanhood, cancelled by the evil Putin. And immigrants will not be able to enter Finland.
LikeLike
WTF are you talking about? You do not need to believe 60 minutes. They did not offer anything factual – just questions.
The takeaways from the interview could not be more clear.
The Finnish government sees Russia as a danger to Finland and the rest of Europe. That is a FACT
If Ukraine does not win their will be decades of other wars in Europe. That is a well-informed opinion from the Finnish government.
As for the right-wing nationalism that demonizes non-white immigrants, Marin could not have been more clear – Finland NEEDS immigrants. Their population is aging and they will suffer economically without them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “You do not need to believe 60 minutes.”
60 Minutes produced the interview and is responsible for its content, which comes across to me as a puff piece for anti-Putin wokery.
I get it that Finns fear being invaded by Russia and think that applying for NATO membership will prevent that. It would have been nice had 60 Minutes spent some time on that issue, but they didn’t. The video is horrendously shallow and apparently designed to appeal to shallow thinkers.
LikeLike
“The video is horrendously shallow and apparently designed to appeal to shallow thinkers.”
Not deep thinkers like you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not all shallow thinkers are alike.
LikeLike
“The video is horrendously shallow and apparently designed to appeal to shallow thinkers.”
Finland doesn’t care what you think. And the PM thinks people like you are mysoginistic idiots.
As far as their NATO application, why do you feel the need for Finland to justify it to you? They are a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions without permission of the great and wise JTR.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “As far as their NATO application, why do you feel the need for Finland to justify it to you?”
I don’t. You assume too much.
LikeLike
OK. Why do you feel the need for 60 Minutes to justify it
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t.
LikeLike
Sure sounded like it to me.
“It would have been nice had 60 Minutes spent some time on that issue, but they didn’t. The video is horrendously shallow and apparently designed to appeal to shallow thinkers.”
As far as shallow thinkers go, wrt Ukraine, your thinking seems quite shallow. – IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
“anti-Putin wokery”
We already knew that “woke” as used by MAGATS is virtually meaningless but “anti-Putin wokery?” You have jumped the shark with that one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you say so, but YOU are the one who chose to post a video featuring the social media life of Finnland’s Prime Minister as a way to illustrate “what the stakes are in the Ukraine.”
LikeLike
…” post a video featuring the social media life “…
A leaked video ON social media is NOT indicative of your claim of a “social media life”. She did not post the video in question.
I am not on any social media sites. The closest being this forum. However, the yoga studio I am a member of posts videos and pictures from classes and events at the studio that I appear in. That does NOT give me a “social media life”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If you say so . . .”
I do say so. You people cannot even define “woke” but you know you are against it. It is both laughable and telling that you would invoke that word to defend Putin.
It is true that the 60 Minutes piece after soliciting Marin’s opinion about what was at stake in the war covered some of the highlights of her rise to power. You seem to think that knowing something about the speaker negates what she has to say on the issues facing her country. It does not. Duh!
She could not be more clear. Putin cannot be reasoned with. He thinks that all the countries around Russia are fair game. He is a threat to Finland and to the rest of Europe. She knows what she is talking about. Anybody with any sense would pay close attention. But not you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course Russia is a danger to Finland. Russia is a danger to all of Europe. And they know it. That is why NATO was formed. To defend against Russian aggression!
But the Russian government’s incompetence caused the Soviet Union to collapse. It’s why East Berlin celebrated for months when the Wall fell and they were allowed to become part of the West. It’s why every member of the Soviet Union rejoiced at independence. They were free to govern themselves and Russia was left to govern Russia… or so most of the world thought.
Putin thought otherwise. Putin thinks every country that was ever forced to be part of the Soviet Union is still legally a part of Russia… whether they want to be or not.
Mr. Roberts believes NATO should stop “hurting Russia.” Well, Mr. Roberts, all you have to do is get Mr. Putin to remove all of his Russians from a country that doesn’t belong to them and Russians will no longer be getting hurt by NATO. Nobody is hurting Russians who are in Russia. It’s really that simple. Even a “shallow thinker” can figure it out. You, on the other hand, will no doubt have difficulty with the concept.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Mr. Roberts believes NATO should stop ‘hurting Russia.'”
You misquote me. You must need to lie to express your opinion.
LikeLike
“You must need to lie to express your opinion.” You are projecting again. You really need to stop that.
If you don’t believe NATO should stop hurting Russia, what exactly do you believe NATO should do about Russia?
Every syllable you have uttered here has lead me to believe you think NATO should abandon all efforts to hurt Russian interests.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “what exactly do you believe NATO should do about Russia?”
I think NATO should be dissolved and new international security arrangements that include Russia (and possibly China) should be negotiated to replace it.
LikeLike
NATO should be dissolved and a new and new international security arrangement should be arranged? To include Russian and possibly China??
And who, pray tell, would those security arrangements be securing against? Ukraine? Taiwan? No, no, let me guess — AMERICA! Sieg Heil MAGA!
Buddy, if you aren’t on Putin’s payroll, you should be. He’s getting a lot of free propaganda outta you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A suggestion: instead of accusations if you feel someone misquoted you, why not just explain and verify your position again or go back to the disputed quotes/position.
It might prevent the “he said, she said” that often ends in “so’s your old man”.
IMO
LikeLiked by 3 people
I hear you, but I’m the one who was misquoted here. I shouldn’t have to ignore misrepresentations.
LikeLike
Don’t ignore them; PROVE them. Quit whining and show those who allegedly misquote you, that they have. OR own up to what you have when called out for it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You were obviously not misrepresented in any way. What is wrong with you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Finland has more than enough experience dealing with Russian dictators.
See “Winter War” online.
Stalin wanted to take some Finnish territory to protect Leningrad which was close to the existing border.
Russia invaded, tried to take all of Finland, on the pretense of cleaning out fascists. The Finns were too tough, so Russia cut a deal. But Stalin really wanted to recreate the old Russian empire before the 1918 Revolution. Interestingly enough, the Russians lost around 350,000 men to Finlands 70,000. Finland lost about 20-30 tanks to Russia’s 1500-3500.
Deja vu all over again.
The Continuation War is complicated by the Germans, but essentially Finland tried to get its lost territory back. So they fought the Russians again only 15 months after the Winter War ended in a treaty. Again, the Soviet losses were many times the Finn’s.
With this in mind, I don’t think the PM of Finland is speaking from ignorance. Putin is a rerun of Stalin. Russian military is just as incompetent. And Russian citizens are just as expendable.
Bottom line: Russia and Putin are never to be trusted and they don’t learn much from history apparently.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Deja vu all over again.”
Those who refuse to learn form history are doomed to repeat it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
HERE Mr. Roberts, under the last article titled “Belerus Is Next,” you said:
I do, however, fault the U.S. for wanting to harm Russia. Before the Soviets, Russia was our friend, and now that the Soviets are gone, Russia could be our friend again. We seem determined to deny the possibility.
In case you have forgotten, the US is part of NATO! You said the US wants to “harm Russia.” You made it sound as if poor little Russia is being “harmed” by the big bad West. Before you accuse other people of lying about what you said, you should understand what the hell you say!
LikeLiked by 2 people
And HERE, Ms. Radford, is your misquote: “Mr. Roberts believes NATO should stop ‘hurting Russia.'”
I never said that. I would ask that you play fair by using accurate quotations.
As it happens, U.S. intentions to harm Russia are spelled out in Rand Corporation reports that you can look up. See, Extending Russia. As already stated, I object to this confrontational style of thinking in foreign affairs.
LikeLike
You said PRECISELY:
“I do, however, fault the U.S. for wanting to harm Russia.”
That is a copy/paste with quotation marks around it.
You called “harming Russia” a “fault.” In a sane interpretation that means you want the US to “stop hurting Russia.”
Or do you interpret that to mean the US only wants to harm Russia, but hasn’t harmed Russia yet. Because if that is what you believe, why have you spent the last year whining about the US sending aid to Ukraine if you believe that aid is doing no harm?
You “object to this confrontational style of thinking in foreign affairs,” but you seem just fine with Russia’s confrontational style on the battlefield… so long as no one confronts ’em back!
LikeLiked by 3 people
“I never said that. ”
First you whine that Lois is unfairly stating your thoughts. You even accuse her of lying. When she comes back to quote your words verbatim and they say exactly what she said you said, you again whine because the wording is slightly different than her paraphrase.
This is a frequent occurrence with you. You do not take ownership of the things you say. What is up with that?
LikeLiked by 3 people