> Where do you get this interpretation from, honest question. In Bucharest 2008 France and Germany voiced opposition against a NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine. Despite that resistance the declarations of the summit says the following.

These are just nice words for consolation. At the same summit in Bucharest, NATO decided not to offer Ukraine and Georgia a Membership Action Plan, which is the procedure for joining NATO. NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia in any forseeable future was off the table. The prospect was from time to time dangled in front of them to encourage reforms and modernization, but that was it. The prospect of Turkey joining the EU has been of similar nature for many decades with little actual progress.

> Also article 10 says that new members must be in a position to contribute to the security in the treaty area. Depending on how one understands that sentence, a NATO membership of Ukraine - or even just its consideration - arguably achieved the exact opposite, at least for the moment.

That is generally understood as a requirement to maintain a capable fighting force and not to freeride on the backs of others in the alliance (see Article 3; Article 10 establishes the same requirement for new applicants). I don't think any reasonable person would call Ukraine freeriders. At the moment, they are one of the most capable fighting forces in the world, and will no doubt invest heavily in armed forces after the war.

> In December 2021 Russia made a final attempt to get a political resolution of the conflict, sending letters to the US president and NATO demanding an agreement. The response came in January 2022.

Russia demanded that the country I live in should be kicked out of NATO. The last time they made such ultimatums, my government chose to satisfy their demands in an attempt to use all means possible to avoid confrontation. In the end, Russians demanded military bases on our soil as forward posts against possible attacks from Central Europe (Napoleon and all that, 2023 isn't the first time around seeing that narrative). Tens of thousands of soldiers, countless tanks and artillery guns were brought in. Those bases were used as a staging area for taking over our national institutions and installing a puppet government that immediately asked Russians to officially occupy us. Widespread terror against the population followed, including deportation of tens of thousands of women and children in cattle cars to die in Siberian gulags. For half a century that followed, until 1991, they did all they could to suppress our language, culture and identity. They replaced a third of the population in the country with Russians, in an attempt to destroy our identity and merge us into an indistinguishable and unseparatable part of Russia. We were literally becoming a minority in our own country.

But by sheer luck, that Russian empire of shit collapsed due to chronic mismanagement and internal rotting. We were able to restore independence. Sweden helped immensely in getting Russian occupying force to leave in 1994. In a decade, we were able to crawl out of the shithole Russians forced us into, and satisfied all requirements needed to join the EU and NATO. Modern military with civilian oversight, a modern government with separation of powers, rule of law and high level of protection of human rights, high quality of life, some of the highest press freedom, economic freedom and other rankings in the world.

Why should we abandon all that, isolate ourselves internationally, and make ourselves a juicy target for Russians to invade again and force us back under their boot?

Finland, I stress, took the other route the last time around. Facing Russian ultimatums, they chose war. While they lost Karelia and Petsamo, they managed to keep their independence. After the war, they chose political neutrality and stayed out of NATO, but spent decades building up one of the largest armes in Europe against any future Russian invasions. Seeing the genocidal nature and the immense scale of Russian war against Ukraine dashed any hope of fighting off another Russian war alone. Finland abandoned the strategy of neutrality and chose to step into alliance with other European nations, as did the Swedes.

So despite quite different paths our countries took in the 20th century, we've all now reached the same conclusion that strong international cooperation is the best way to maintain our independence and security in the 21st century.

Are we all dumb and wrong? Should we cut ties and put our hopes on prayers that we won't become the target of the next war Russia decides to launch?

If you are the prime minister of Finland, Estonia or Poland, what is the responsible choice here that serves the interests of your people the best?