STILL once NATO

After having spent all of October in Germany and also needed some time to install myself again in Helsingfors, I was finally able to turn to the issues of Husis which had been piling up in my absence. And what I found (among others) was a recent debate about the pld question whether Finland should join NATO. And of course the discussion was (nearly) as dissatisfactory as it has always been in the past.

For me, who has been thinking about psychology since 60 years, it is every time striking to notice how most contributors to the discussion seem honestly to believe that in the Western world they have to deal with honest partners. It is something like the same mistake which was made during the expansion of the EU: nobody expected that Poland and Hungary (and let’s see who else still in the near future) would develop as they did – and now the EU has no instruments how to deal with this. Similarly, the first time NATO article 5 was first time of all invoked was by the USA on the occasion of 9/11. And since then it has become clear that the official report about the matter is incompatible with the laws of physics (as I can explain in less than 5 minutes to anybody who has not completely forgotten school physics), that Israel was very obviously involved (google ”dancing Israelis”), and that the very ”fishy” explanations about 9/11 were very soon after followed up by lies concerning Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. But sure, the USA did succeed in tricking quite a number of NATO members into following the US lead into a number of wars.

Now it is so that I do NOT suspect, e.g., Russia of always spreading truth. But there is a rather clear and down-to-earth book by one Tim Marshall, titled ”Prisoners of Geography” which I warmly recommend. It makes, among others, rather clear why Russia had very obvious geopolitical reasons to grab the Crimea, but it does not give any indications why Russia should be eager to grab Finland. But of course it would have extremely good reasons to do so if Finland would allow itself to be built up (e.g. by NATO) into a base for an attack on Russia. Of course it is difficult to see why Finland should be interested in becoming such a base, but it is up to RUSSIA to interpret, e.g., a situation which might arise from (a) the US demand that the European NATO members should clearly increase their military spending, plus (b) the eagerness of the US Military-Industrial Complex to press just their products on their NATO partners (such as stealth planes, which are extremely fitting for just offensive purposes).

Altogether, and not for the first time, to me it is obvious that Finland should NOT join NATO (but rather, if possible in cooperation with Sweden, try to make Northern Scandinavia an area of political calm). And that it also should practise (and spread the idea of) a boycott of US military equipment (for the reason that it is just the US Military-Industrial Complex which is in blind eagerness developing ever more sophisticated and expensive weapons (which might be somewhat discouraged by a boycott), by that imposing on the world an arms race which (a) forces other nations to rely ever more on nuclear weapons as the only still functioning deterrent, and (b) forces all nations to spend astronomical amounts of money on armament – as if there were not better purposes to spend money on. And finally, I am fully aware that it will have no effect whatsoever if I write this in this blog, but perhaps somebody who is able to write in Swedish could fit some of my ideas into some letter to Husis, or similar.