Okay Trump is the new president, how is it going to affect Nordic and Baltic region, Finland and NATO overall?

[Maksim_Frolov]

Originally Posted by GymFanatic

Annexation of any foreign territory is inexcusable.

I agree. But this is not Russia beginning this dirty game called "including Eastern Europe in NATO." The bombing of Belgrade was also inexcusable.

[KuuKulgur]

Originally Posted by Maksim_Frolov

I agree. But this is not Russia beginning this dirty game called "including Eastern Europe in NATO." The bombing of Belgrade was also inexcusable.

If it wasn't for the dirty games of Russia back in time, NATO wouldn't exist in the first place. Including Eastern Europe in NATO was dirty how?

[Maksim_Frolov]

Originally Posted by KuuKulgur

If it wasn't for the dirty games of Russia back in time, NATO wouldn't exist in the first place.

We could finish it in '91. But the chance was lost.

Originally Posted by KuuKulgur

Including Eastern Europe in NATO was dirty how?

Support for radical groups, interference in the internal affairs of the states.

[karstic]

If those European countries want to join Nato, they can do it. Those are democratic countries and are afraid.

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by Maksim_Frolov

Ariete, Russia does not want to fight, Russia does not need new territories, Russia does not want to lose people to no purpose. Russia and Finland don't have territorial disputes. But you look funny when you say that Russians and Putin is afraid of you. Finns are lazy, they are accustomed to stand in queues for free food. And the Finns did not fight for 70 years. The Russians are very different.

I didn't said that Putin and Russia is afraid of us, I said that it would be a disaster for Russia, as it cannot afford a full-scale war, it has nothing to gain from it, and I don't think the rest of the World would just sit back and watch.

But neither has Russia fought a war against a modern military in 70 years.

[karstic]

Right. They have good weapons for fringe wars. Sturdy and robust weapons, but they would be laid to waste if they face western armies...as usual, I might say.

Take those Abrams tanks...no comparison.

Irak was a perfect example.

[Maksim_Frolov]

Originally Posted by karstic

Right. They have good weapons for fringe wars. Sturdy and robust weapons, but they would be laid to waste if they face western armies...as usual, I might say.

Take those Abrams tanks...no comparison.

Irak was a perfect example.

[Maksim_Frolov]

Originally Posted by karstic

If those European countries want to join Nato, they can do it. Those are democratic countries and are afraid.

If Crimea want to join Russia, they can do it. Crimea are democratic region and are afraid.

[KuuKulgur]

Originally Posted by Maksim_Frolov

We could finish it in '91. But the chance was lost.

Who could finish what?

Support for radical groups, interference in the internal affairs of the states.

?Can you further explain?

[erasure]

Originally Posted by GymFanatic

Annexation of any foreign territory is inexcusable.

Says who?
The power that was the first one to directly benefit from non-intervention? And the ones that are sucking up to this power?