NATO meidän aikanamme

Natoon kannattaa liittyä aina kun se on mahdollista.

* Venäjän federaatioon kannattaa liittyä aina, kun se on mahdollista, ja aina kun on sen täysjänesyysviikot. Viro, Liettua ja Latviakin liittyivät elokuussa 1940 Neuvostoliittoon, kun siihen tarjoutui historiallinen mahdollisuus.

Nyt Suomi on vielä sen verran vapaa Venäjän mielettömyydestä, että sopimus kannattaa tehdä nopeasti.

* Suomi on vain sadalla miehellä mukana Afganistanin sodassa, jonka NATO häviää. Venäjä ei käy Afganistanin sotaa eikä se edellytä, että ketkään muut kuin ammattilaiset osallistuisivat Tshetsenian rauhanturvaoperaatioon. Suomessa puolustusvoimalaki laajentaa reserviläisen asevelvollisuuden maailmanlaajuiseksi.

Kuka natoon liittymistä jarruttaa, se perillistensä elinikää lyhentää.

* Se, joka kannattaa NATO:a ja aasialaisiin sotiin osallistumista menettää nettotulonsa ja henkensä ennen kuin saa naisen kiinni ja jälkeläisiä.

Näin aloitti puolustusministeri Häkämies "linjanvastaisen" puheensa:

- - - - -
"At this particular point of history, most armed forces in the Western world are undergoing a process of profound, long-term transformation. Most countries are abandoning the concept of territorial defence and are emphasizing capabilities to conduct international peace-support operations in places far away from their borders. Not Finland.


Most countries are also discarding the great Napoleonic idea of raising mass armies by conscription and, instead, they are creating small all-professional armed forces. Not Finland.


Furthermore, for most western and central European countries NATO is the answer to their defence prayers. Once again, not for Finland.


How can this be explained? Why is Finland still holding on to the concepts of territorial defence, general conscription, and staying outside of the military alliances, while for practically all other countries in the developed world these concepts are ideas from the past?


To understand Finnish defence thinking, it might be useful to think of Finnish national security interests as three concentric circles. The outer circle comprises common values. Finland is interested in promoting and defending such values, as is demonstrated by our support, and participation in, the United Nations’ peace-keeping and humanitarian operations.


The second circle brings us closer to home, to Europe and to security threats affecting Europe. The more stable the European continent remains, the safer will Finland be. As a consequence, our forces continue to be involved in NATO-and EU-led operations, be it in the Balkans, Africa, or even in a far-away Afghanistan.


Finally, it is within the third circle where our national interest reigns supreme. Such core issues as national independence, security and well-being of the Finnish citizens, and, ultimately, even the very survival of the nation are at stake here. To defend the Finnish territory we need strong national defence. And since we are not a member of any military alliance, we have to build up our defence independently.


In sum, the Finnish forces are actively participating in peace-keeping and peace-support operations abroad, at the same time when we are making sure that our powder is dry to defend the country, should our territorial integrity or the nation’s very existence become under threat."
- - - -

Minusta tuossa on asiaa enemmän kuin demareiden esiin nostamassa, kolmessa Venäjä-sanassa.