Finland and the U.S. are negotiating a defense cooperation agreement (DCA) that would allow the U.S. military to use Finnish land and bases for training and weapons storage.
Local media Helsingin Sanomat reported about this.
Last week, negotiations on a defense cooperation agreement between Finland and the United States took place in the capital of Finland.
Mikael Antell, the deputy head of the department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland said that the text of the agreement is almost ready. During the negotiations, it was revised only once “in a positive spirit and in search of a solution among the allies.”
The defense agreement is supposed to strengthen Finland’s defense capabilities through the presence of the United States and the possible early deployment of American defense systems.
The terms of the DCA will allow the deployment of military units. The rules will regulate their stay on the territory of the state, the storage of military equipment, and potential American investments in infrastructure.
As an example, the diplomat mentioned the possible option of creating a service center on the territory of Finland for the maintenance of American fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets. At the same time, an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland emphasized that the DCA does not concern the possible deployment of nuclear weapons in Finland.
It is known that at the beginning of the negotiations, the U.S. requested access to larger territories, but during the discussion, the request was reduced. The territories in the agreements are not called bases, but “agreed objects and zones”.
According to Helsingin Sanomat, negotiations on a defense cooperation agreement at the official level between the U.S. and Finland will continue until 2024. After that, the draft document will be submitted for consideration by representatives of the parliament.
The U.S. is currently conducting similar defense cooperation negotiations with Sweden and Denmark. The United States concluded a similar agreement with Norway in 2021.
As previously reported, Finland officially became a member of NATO on April 4. The country applied to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shortly after the start of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Until now, Finland had no plans to give up its neutral status.
This proves once and for all, that russia’s invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO expansion. Not a peep has come out of mafia land about the US building bases in Finland. Had the US built bases in Ukraine, the screaming would have been heard in Poland.
The master strategist in the mafia bunker sure has managed well keeping NATO from encroaching.
A couple of nukes placed 100km from St.Petersburg should keep the orcs quiet about nuking everyone.
Might as well place it in the center of Moscow. This would eliminate 90% of the mafiosi.
Not only has the integrity-free Nato allowed Finland to leapfrog Ukraine, but the US can’t wait to set up bases there.
One rule for one, one rule for another.
Why the fuck didn’t they build bases in Ukraine years ago? The agony Ukraine has had to suffer from one little nazi rat due to appalling foreign policy decisions is off the scale.
Just imagine: England invaded Ireland back in the 12th century (there was no Britain then) and stayed there for 800 years. Except it wasn’t England, it was the Normans, who occupied England for 300 years and made all the decisions. If the U.K. now invaded Ireland “to protect English-speakers and it’s our land anyway”, the world would be queueing up to bomb London to smithereens.
But putlerstan, which occupied Crimea for a tiny fraction of the time that England was in Ireland, somehow has managed to get western useful idiots like Trump to back its absurd claims.
Land was confiscated in Northern Ireland under Elizabeth I and given to colonists from England. This continued Until the mid 17th century and many Protestants settled there.
So Norther Ireland is effectively what Crimea would be if Russia retains control. Ukrainians would suffer under Russian rule the way the Irish Catholics suffered.
By the time Ireland became independent, so many who had settled in Northern Ireland under English rule that it chose to stay.
It’s kind of like how a referendum in Crimea now might go. But maybe some have already returned back to Russia so I am not sure what the numbers would say.
The world did nothing to help Irish Catholics against the English Protestants. Ukraine by contrast is getting massive, massive support.
I was just making a very simple point. Your absurd response is pure kremkrapp whataboutery.
Since you contrived to miss it, the point was : does every current and former imperial power reserve the right to retake each or any of its former dominions whenever it feels like it, or is that right reserved exclusively for putlerstan?
If the former, then France can retake Mexico, Louisiana, Quebec etc. Morocco can retake Spain; which it held for 500 years. And so on.
“Why the fuck didn’t they build bases in Ukraine years ago?”
Ukraine wasn’t in NATO. They’re talking about building bases in Finland *after* Finland joined NATO. Hopefully Ukraine will be allowed to join NATO after Russia is defeated, and that would be the time to discuss setting up similar bases in Ukraine.
When Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, they undoubtedly believed that they would have the same protection as Nato members. Otherwise they would not have signed it. Leonid Kravchuk was wavering at the last minute, but was pressured into it by Billl Clinton. Do you imagine even for one moment that if Clinton had said to him: “if Russia attacks, we will not provide you with air cover or ground troops”, that they would have signed?
By the way, if Ukraine had truly wanted to join NATO earlier, it should have disallowed Russia from having the Sevastopol Naval Base.
It seems a bit problematic to have NATO countries that also host Russia military bases. Are there any other cases of this? Other countries stopped hosting Russian military bases before joining NATO didn’t they?
It’s obvious that those kinds of close ties with Russia complicates the issue.