Same than me, you seem to write from a certain perspective. Not all people might share that perspective. The ones who lead might look it a bit different. There is also way worse scenarios than what you come up with, and you really cannot know does it happen or not.
Even Medvedev would only play a role. The thing is he have an audience for it and they have a reason for someone to play this kind of role. That in itself is alarming and the moment your leader needs to play this role, then there you have it. Play or not, its still what it is.
And i do think Russia is directly aggressive with their nuclear arsenal.
The official Russian government statement have been to Finnish Prime Minister that "you can go in front of mirror and succumb to a nuclear fallout"
So how is this not aggressive ?
How it is defensive ?
Finland did not threaten Russia in official government statements.
They only gave a statement where they condemn the Russian attack on Ukraine. And on response of that they tell the Prime Minister to go "succumb on a nuclear fallout" at the same time, than directly threatening everyone with nuclear arsenal and reminding everyone they have them. And later that same Prime Minister did not participate on elections even she would have clearly won, and felt the need to escape the country instead and moved to UK.
The US does the same. They do threaten others with Nuclear Weapons, even directly stating it. Or at least their current President have a history for it. There have even been rumors that they had to make safety mechanisms on his last term, that he wont suddenly start launching nuclear weapons at random.
The US and Russian populace also seem to be very similar. They both like this. They like the military aggression, they like to conquer, and they like to intimidate others. So in a Democracy like Russia and US, you become a popular leader when you offer your people what they want. Aggression.
But like you say, or maybe meant ? When i comes to Weapons of Mass Destruction, the focus point in US and Russia seem different. Russia builds more attack arsenal, when US is focused more to defense. US is not as ready to trade than Russia, it seems. They want to make sure that if it comes to that, they are left untouched, and only the opposing side is annihilated when Russia seems to emphasis on aspects like "mutual destruction". Even the Russian games they make seem to portrait the nuclear war as so, that they get annihilated as well, but annihilate others more.
Then regarding Conventional inventory. US focuses a lot more on offensive capabilities while with weapons of mass destruction, they want to ensure the defense first.
In case of Finland. They have vast underground networks to store their people for prolonged times. Vast places, for tens or hundreds of thousands of people in underground vaults. They also upheld strategic reserves to stay there for long period of times and have constructed water, air filtering, electricity and similar infrasructure in there. In the past, they did not give construction permit if the construction dont have an underground vault, no matter how small building it is, for example a family home for one family. Then the areas they built were always full of locked metal doors that go inside solid rock. They do not do this anymore, but in the past, they did.
In Finlands case i suspect the place they would aim to threaten with this kind of exchange is St.Petersburg, which hold more people than entirety of Finland. So i do not think it seems that good of a trade on perspective of Russia, to even think of possibly trading St. Petersburg even to entirety of Finland, especially when most of the populace in the entire country have been transferred to filtered underground vaults ?
I really dont know what is up in Ukraine, or what they do. I just think they would need this kind of capability.
And of course, those countries that US threaten, would maybe really like to have them too ?
And then also, is there even a country that the US does not threaten ?
As anyone can understand, the number one threat to World Peace is of course the imperial ambitions of the United States, and you need the nuclear arsenal against them as well. And then Russia comes as good second.
Lets say for example, if you ask Danish people who they think as a bigger threat to Denmark. United States or Russia. I would put my money on them at least thinking of United States as the biggest threat on Danish sovereignity they have. Its not Russia threatening them actively, its actually United States even they are supposed to be "allies" but in reality, they are not. So why would Denmark need Nuclear Arsenal -> to deter US, not Russia.
But because of geographical reasons, the one Finland needs to deter more is Russia. Would Finland have territories near US, they would need to deter them, and their imperial ambitions. Would they have territories near China, they would need to deter them. But there seems to be always someone you need to deter. But China does have a land route to Finland trough Russia. So who knows, maybe Finland does need to deter China ?
Its a scary world suddenly, and the attack on Ukraine changed everything. Now people want to conquer, its an era of conquer we are living now and anyone with something worth conquering must be really alert.
The perspective suddenly shifts. "Why would we help those ones who they try to conquer. Why would we not use our resources to conquer something ourself ?" and yeah, lets do that. We want to conquer too.
But how i understand, Russia managed to make this shift. Now people suddenly want to become like them. There most likely is also people in Finland, who would want to conquer Russia. But they know they have not what it takes, so they keep their mouth shut. For example, they for certain would want Karelia and Viaborg. But they know they could not take them and would just lose. But would they be stronger than Russia, they would demand an attack.
So how i understand, Russia seems to be the coolest kid in town. And now suddenly everyone wants to be like them. Especially the US people. So they start to demand from their leadership to do as they do.
t.me
