by Alessio Andreoli
The Finland joined NATO. There Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an intergovernmental military alliance and was founded immediately after the end of the Second World War in 1949. It is a collective security system where the members undertake to defend each other from possible attacks by enemies. The participating countries can and do host military bases NATO including nuclear warheads or military airports.
Obviously the US is, shall we say, the major shareholders of this organization and is the state with the greatest weight within the organization itself. Confirming this is the fact that the treaty was signed in Washington and during the famous period of the cold war, the American role against the enemy represented by the time was fundamental Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, NATO has intervened militarily even when none of the member states has been directly attacked as for example in Bosnia or in Afghanistan and recently, as we know it is arming the Ukraine. Using an institutional grammar (if the Prime Minister uses this term, I can use it too, the important thing is that it is not an English language given how much it can cost me) it can be said that America, shielding itself from NATO, pushes the countries adhering to the Born itself to go to war even when it feels threatened its world hegemony. Of course if I wrote a nonsense then I can always retract or apologize.
With the accession of Finland, the border between Russia and the NATO countries has practically closed doubled, therefore using, once again, an institutional blunder, we can say that the border between the USA and Russia has lengthened by about 1300 km, practically double the current one. Double means double NATO-branded military bases close to Russia.
To understand what it is dangerous such a thing just go back in time and remember the Cuba crisis of 1962, when the then Soviet Union installed nuclear missiles on the ground Cuban about 150 km from Florida. To return to the present day, Finland no longer has that role of buffer between NATO and present-day Russia (not the Soviet Union) and there are 1300 km more where military bases of any type and kind can be deployed, including nuclear missiles.
Beyond the role that America has since 2014 in the Donbass I wonder if it really was necessary to approve the NATO annexation of Finland and therefore create the opportunity to install new NATO military bases on the border with Russia without risking that Russia itself perceives in this act a great and huge threat for itself exactly how America perceived the installation of missiles in Cuba in 1962 and therefore ask us how Russia itself will react to this new membership and to the expansion of American influence.
The other question I ask myself is: why didn’t the intergovernmental military alliance (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) of which we are also part dissolve after the dissolution of the Soviet Union? There are those who continue to reassure that there is no escalation of the conflict, it seems to me that on the contrary the escalation can no longer be stopped and no one is able to predict what will happen; at the moment the only conceivable scenarios are just catastrophic and if even by a miracle tomorrow the war in Ukraine stops, we will pay the consequences for years.
I forgot, among the many purposes of NATO there is also the promotion of international peace and stability, perhaps if someone wants to remind Biden of this…