Everyone does that to a certain extent. Frankly, the first part is a good thing too, if there's one thing the forum software downgrade did it's mitigate tiresome wall of text/ line by line posting (and I freely admit, I did a fair bit of it myself).
Ideally we'd all acknowledge when the other person has made a good point, but meh, humans gonna human. Again, I'd do a fair bit of that myself too.
I'd generally be happy with, say, simply not getting "the EU never made the association agreement an us or Russia proposition" or "the association agreement was never a first step to EU accession" said again after providing the relevant quotes showing they actually did exactly that, I don't need people to publicly accept they were wrong*.
I don't think Russia cares that much about Finland joining for precisely that reason; they're also already in the EU. Most of the Finnish border is very low infrastructure forest/ swamp/ marsh, seasonally, with blasted winter wasteland.
There's a border with Norway too, Murmansk is actually closer to Norway than Finland iirc (and Archangelsk about the same distance). Same most definitely cannot be said for Ukraine and the south of Russia though, it moves a load of cities far, far closer to NATO and gives a second easy attack vector on Moscow if there were a conventional war.
11 million immigrants in Russia, 3rd most in the world.
I'll be frank: I'd probably come across as a lot less pro Russian if people didn't continually post stuff which they want to be true- and feel like it's true- but simply isn't*.
*I have a fair bit of sympathy because I know perfectly well that things like 'no one immigrates to Russia' or 'the EU never made it us or them' is a Well Known Fact that you can find in rather a lot of opinion pieces and articles and the like, and most people just presume it's true. They just happen to be well known facts that aren't actual facts. Or to quote Blake's 7
Vila: It's a well known fact!
Avon: Actually it's a well known opinion
Tarrant: As are most well known facts