“…at that time the USSR was collaborating with the Nazis still.”

“Warsaw pact nations…after being freed from Russian occupation.”

I have a feeling that this guy has trouble understanding why other people don’t believe what’s so obvious to him. Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Countries join NATO because it’s the world’s largest white supremacist organization and they want be invited to America’s hunting parties in the mid east and Africa so they can run the pockets of the global south after America beats them up and takes their gold chain first.

It’s like they’ve never heard of the concept of color revolutions, propaganda (only real when it’s done by the enemies of the West), and corrupt, co-opted elites.

NATO = Nazi-American Terror Organization

The same people also will say that all the countries in Warsaw Pact were forced by USSR and all the countries in CSTO are forced by Russia.

‘Those who are not a member of a government (or military commanders), can not participate in NATO decision making — even if they accept their involuntary membership through their nation. In sociological terms, the NATO, as a military and diplomatic organisation, draws its staff from the upper-class and ‘officer caste’ of each member country. Although there is no formal exclusion, in practice persons from low-status social groups can not take part in NATO decision-making. That includes some ethnic minorities — a NATO Secretary-General from the Roma minority is unthinkable.’

So the reason that so many Eastern European states are NATO members is that that is what their bourgeois governments decided. Ordinary people were too busy trying to make a living with their crappy jobs to care about what the NATO is or isn’t.

While Moscow undoubtedly loathed Helsinki, the Soviets had better things to worry about than taking over all of Finland:

The Finns indicated that they would be willing to concede some, but by no means all the land demanded. They were also willing to consider the lease of some, but not all the islands in the Gulf of Finland. They were adamant that a Soviet military base on at Hanko within 50 miles of their capital was simply unacceptable. Stalin expressed his frustration with the process, proceeded to stab at the map around Hanko, and said, “do you need this island, do you need that one?”¹⁶

[…]

In regards to the Soviet paranoia of [Fascist] influence in Finland, there were grounds for this suspicion. Because of German aid during the civil war, the military caste in Finland had remained friendly with the Germans over time. Trade with the Germans was more significant than with the USSR and political visits between Berlin and Helsinki continued at the highest levels.

Additionally, “Stalin was unrealistically influenced by the headline-grabbing antics²¹,” of the Finnish right wing splinter groups. It seems clear that in later negotiations, Stalin “really did believe that the interior of Finland seethed with class antagonism and fascist plotters and that all Finnish society was undercut by smoldering grudges left over from the civil war days.”²²

The Third option open to the Soviets was to invade Finland. They chose to exercise this option on November 30, 1939. Realistically, they were left with no reason to suppose that further negotiations would lead to any greater success. Similarly, they have been given no signs that the Finns had ultimately peaceful motives behind their wish for neutrality. The Soviets could not understand the Finns’ inability to perceive the Soviets’ fear of invasion.

[…]

Ultimately, […] it was imperative for the Soviets to have the Islands, and the buffer zones at any cost. If they could not get them through negotiations, they had no choice but to do so militarily.

(Source.)

the [Fascists] knew from experience that Soviet demands were “much harder to meet than Finnish demands.”

(Source.)

My question is, why did the Finnish ruling class sanction antisemitism in its media, deport over 2,800 POWs (including Jewish ones) to the Third Reich, and let thousands of Soviet POWs perish in Finnish concentration camps? Were those necessary for safeguarding Finnish sovereignty, too?

America is so very eager to blow its political ties with Europe to carve up Switzerland, a country famous for being easy to occupy, and full of easily extractable natural resources.

If these countries are good lapdops anyway, what would be the purpose of using coercion? Libs can only see one method of violating sovereignty…invasion. That was the only threat to Finnish sovereignty by the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile if they weren’t being collaborators, the Nazis could have easily cut off their only means of international trade by blockading their only way out the Baltic Sea.