The Finnish government is now a substantial way through its programme to cut €9 billion of public spending by 2027, including large reductions to social security (including housing, child, and unemployment benefits) healthcare, education, and municipal funding budgets, while it also increasing taxes on average earners. Cuts to healthcare provision have been particularly brutal, including a large reduction in hospital staff numbers, elderly care and disability services while redefining “minimum service obligations” to justify providing patients with lower quality care. The government has also slashed funding for organisations working on peace and initiatives which would address the new cold war-style relations with Russia.
And among the beneficiaries of a new tooled-up and aggressive Finland are the arms dealers of the Israeli apartheid-genocide complex, which in 2024 sold Finland its questionably functional “David’s Sling” air defence system for €316 million. Finland has also bought tank and ship missiles from the Israeli company Rafael which supplied most of the weapons and equipment used to commit the genocide of Gaza. The Finnish government said Israel’s genocide of Gaza would not stop it buying weapons from the country, a position which is par for the course among the morally bankrupt leaders of Europe.
Wait so you’d prefer Russia shells you AFTER you leave the alliance? Wouldn’t that leave you more vulnerable?
Russia has no interest in invading anyone unless provoked. But we’re so scared that we seem to ignore how NATO, a “defensive” coalition has only engaged in aggressive, unprovoked wars that has never been defensive. And countless innocents have died from that.
Yes because Russia isn’t always looking for justification for war.
There are multiple countries in Eastern Europe that likely would no longer be independent without NATO. My own home among them.
Neighbours that aren’t in an alliance seem to get invaded. Georgia first, now Ukraine twice.
Russia always finds a genocide or whatever to justify military action. Both Georgia and Ukraine were mentioned as targets all the way back in 1997.
How did Ukraine provoke them?
Previously:
Previously:
Shelling Donbass for 8 years nonstop? Killing 14 thousand Russian-Ukrainians?
Your numbers are even wrong.
14 thousand people were killed. But most of them were soldiers. Roughly 30% were civilians. The soldiers fought directly at a city. So its no wonder civilians died.
This was not ehtnic cleansing.
You were Lied to by russian propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fsMqYqHnN0
This is what you advocate for. You’re defending nazis and even your western media called them nazis all the time before 2022. You’re a fucking idiot.
If you really think Putin fights for justice then you are lost.
It is not as easy as that. Russia took crimea beforehand and destabilized east ukraine with russian soldiers without uniforms.
Ukraine is defends itself since crimea. Russia is the aggressor. Dont get confused on that.
The people of Crimea chose Russia over the Nazis of Ukraine and would defend themselves.
Or Russian-Ukrainians don’t want to be ethnically cleansed and were defending themselves
There was no ethnic cleaning. Russia just made that up to justify their invasion and desire to steal land and people from ukraine.
The only party doing ethning cleansing in this conflict is russia.
Dont be a fool.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/5/zelenskyy-says-wants-ukraine-to-become-a-big-israel
The article is all about zelensky saying that Ukraine needs to be able defend itself against russia even after the war ends. And that is just real. Its not about being aggressive against neighboring countries or even commit genocide like israel.
Maybe Russia shouldn’t have invaded Donbass with a bunch of unlabeled mercs?
Lazy justification for killing civilians
Removed by mod
nice ableist slur
Go back to reddit
When you sign up to .world, do they make you sweat that you’ll compulsively point it out every time you see the letters ml? It’s fucking Pavlovian for you people.
They just don’t know how to argue with someone who doesn’t simply accept popular narratives without evidence and won’t let them cite “it is known” as a source.