Reasons why Russia can’t just go to war with Finland and Sweden the same way as Ukraine:
Ukraine was carrying out ethnic cleansing in the Donbass, Russia can’t justify a war against Finland or Sweden in the same way.
They have already long since been de-facto part of the West, the West was still in the process of sinking it’s teeth into Ukraine and training them for inter-operability.
They were already protected by the European Commission.
The terrain up there sucks for invading.
Russia is still fighting Ukraine, expanding on more fronts at the same time isn’t exactly wise.
That is idealistic. The same conditions are not present in those countries as in Ukraine. They do not have ongoing civil wars in which they shell Russians for eight years, nor are they threatening to invade Russian territory.
The Russians don’t have any problems with Finland or Sweden, there was no coup there, they did not refuse for years to abide by the terms of a UN ratified agreement. They don’t have the same military potential that Ukraine has. They just don’t pose the same kind of threat to Russia that a NATO Ukraine would.
Sure Russia would prefer they stayed neutral, but ultimately them joining NATO is a bigger loss for Finland and Sweden (loss of sovereignty, loss of security, loss of money that they now have to pay to maintain NATO bases and buying NATO junk, etc.) than it is for Russia.
Think your questions through yourself before asking them. You may be able to answer some of your questions yourself, or else refine them them before asking, if you take the time to think them through.
.
Edit to add: In particular, please read theory on how to think in a dialectical materialist way. Someone may have better suggestions, but the first that pops into my head is Georges Politzer’s Elementary principles of philosophy.
The same that they are doing in Ukraine
Reasons why Russia can’t just go to war with Finland and Sweden the same way as Ukraine:
Ukraine was carrying out ethnic cleansing in the Donbass, Russia can’t justify a war against Finland or Sweden in the same way.
They have already long since been de-facto part of the West, the West was still in the process of sinking it’s teeth into Ukraine and training them for inter-operability.
They were already protected by the European Commission.
The terrain up there sucks for invading.
Russia is still fighting Ukraine, expanding on more fronts at the same time isn’t exactly wise.
All very good points.
But most importantly, what would it even achieve? What would even be the goal of a war there? Russia has nothing to gain from doing it.
If they were to go to war against a NATO or EU member it would be one of the Baltic chihuahuas to stop their stupid yapping once and for all.
I hope they do it ASAP
That is idealistic. The same conditions are not present in those countries as in Ukraine. They do not have ongoing civil wars in which they shell Russians for eight years, nor are they threatening to invade Russian territory.
The Russians don’t have any problems with Finland or Sweden, there was no coup there, they did not refuse for years to abide by the terms of a UN ratified agreement. They don’t have the same military potential that Ukraine has. They just don’t pose the same kind of threat to Russia that a NATO Ukraine would.
Sure Russia would prefer they stayed neutral, but ultimately them joining NATO is a bigger loss for Finland and Sweden (loss of sovereignty, loss of security, loss of money that they now have to pay to maintain NATO bases and buying NATO junk, etc.) than it is for Russia.
Seriously, @Skipper1402@lemmygrad.ml,
.
Edit to add: In particular, please read theory on how to think in a dialectical materialist way. Someone may have better suggestions, but the first that pops into my head is Georges Politzer’s Elementary principles of philosophy.