Russia Threatening Finland And Sweden..

SAS A340 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:15 pm

It is president Vladimir Putin's Personal Envoy Sergei Markov as via Swedish Dagbladet and Finnish Hufvudstadsbladets sketches a brutal future prospects if neighbouring countries would come closer to Nato more formally

– Do you want to be with and start a third world war? Anti-Semitism started the second world war, russofobin can start a third. Finland is one of the most russofobiska countries in Europe after Sweden and the Baltic countries, says Markov to the two newspapers ' reporter.

How sweet this big "Little" country is

Russia seem to have difficulty to open it,s mouth without threatening a country or two now-a-days

moo · Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:19 pm

Any sources or links to what was actually said?

Quoting SAS A340 (Thread starter):
Anti-Semitism started the second world war,

No it didn't, not even close.

jetwet1 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:48 pm

Quoting SAS A340 (Thread starter):
Anti-Semitism started the second world war,

There were many reasons for WW II, but anti-semitism wasn't one of them, the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations can be blamed for that.

johns624 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:57 pm

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 2):
Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations can be blamed for that.

Someone named Hitler had something to do with it, also.

jetwet1 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:26 pm

Quoting johns624 (Reply 3):
Someone named Hitler had something to do with it, also.

Of course he did, but if not for the Treaty beating Germany into a desperation move (electing Hitler) and Britain, France and the rest of the league not taking action in 1936 when Germany invaded the Rhineland.

At that point Hitler could have been stopped by Britain and France, but neither country acted and the rest is history.

DeltaMD90 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:37 pm

Yeah I second what moo said, I'd like to see a source. I guess I could google it myself but nah.

Going only off what the OP said, I don't see how "being closer to NATO" = discriminating Russians in those countries. If that is true, it would be interesting to see how the Russian propagandists spin it

Aesma · Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:13 pm

Antisemitism saved the world, without it Hitler would have had a far better chance of making an atomic bomb before the end of the war.

SAS A340 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:22 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 1):
Any sources or links to what was actually said?

Sorry,can only find Swedish ones.....
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/finland-varnas-av-ryssland/

[Edited 2014-06-08 08:29:07]

Google translate:

Markov warns of consequences if Russia being pushed into a corner.

-Anti-semitism started the second world war, russofobin can start a third. The big problem is that Nato is trying to create artificial conflicts. Nato is no longer needed, it has lost its raison d ' être and therefore looks for new tasks. Nato is an American organisation. The u.s. defense budget is larger than the rest of the world together! United States nuclear arsenal at a furious pace and also creates their own private armies of mercenaries who no one controls, such as Blackwater. This development is lethal.

[Edited 2014-06-08 08:40:13]

pvjin · Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:34 pm

It's quite funny they call Finland a russophobic country despite exceptionally good relations Finland had with Soviet Union all the way until it collapsed.
Russian actions lately have managed to convince me to support NATO membership. Without NATO Finland has no real believable defense whatsoever against Russia, our own armed forces aren't capable of defending this land against full scale Russian invasion any more than those of Ukraine are.

Lack of NATO membership is one of the many reasons why I'm not going for military service but rather the civil version, in case of a war I don't feel like getting slaughtered by a totally superior enemy. It always amazes me how some people here still think we could successfully stand up against Russia totally alone. Equally pathetic are pro Russians who used to like Soviet Union and now like Russia despite it being pretty much everything any true commie should despise.

einsteinboricua · Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:05 pm

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 7):
The u.s. defense budget is larger than the rest of the world together

No it isn't.

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 7):
Anti-semitism started the second world war,

No it didn't.

The link seems to be either an opinion of a person or a rant of an organization.

DocLightning · Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:38 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
Russian actions lately have managed to convince me to support NATO membership. Without NATO Finland has no real believable defense whatsoever against Russia, our own armed forces aren't capable of defending this land against full scale Russian invasion any more than those of Ukraine are.

I assure you that if Russian troops so much as set one toe on Finnish soil without a formal invitation NATO will be there. Finland is too economically important to the NATO countries to just allow it to go to Russia.

The bigger issue is that if this actually happens, it's a few short steps to a doomsday scenario.

blueflyer · Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:52 pm

I'm no fan of Russia, but let's not forget that the Cold War was due, in part, to the Soviet Union feeling trapped in an "encirclement of unfriendly neighbors" that motivated them to create a security buffer around their borders. Recent history in Georgia and Ukraine might be all Russia needs to feel the same way.

Finland becoming a member of NATO is about as friendly a move as Canada joining the Warsaw Pact. Of course, Russia will never understand that its own bellicose behavior is the reason behind Finland considering membership.

romeobravo · Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:54 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Finland is too economically important to the NATO countries to just allow it to go to Russia

Finland is about as economically important as Greece.

HELyes · Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:22 pm

This article rose eyebrowns in Finland too today.

Funny how the comments like this from Sergei Markov actually push Finland and Sweden closer to NATO. According to the polls the mojority of Finns would still say no to NATO but many have changed their mind lately.

Quoting SAS A340 (Thread starter):
Finland is one of the most russophobic countries in Europe after Sweden and the Baltic countries

What a BS and he knows that.

They have been dropping these provocative comments from a high level every now and then, like testing how their small neighbours react. It started in 2012 when Russia’s children’s ombudsman Pavel Astahov said Russia might declare Finland to be “a dangerous country” for Russian (immigrant) families with children... That confusing campaign ended as quick as it started.

DIJKKIJK · Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:22 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 12):
Finland is about as economically important as Greece.

Huh??

A country that has a GDP greater than that of the UK and France, and is only slightly below Germany is as economically important as the Europe's no 1 economic basket case?????

I want some of that stuff you are smoking, mate!

romeobravo · Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:33 pm

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 14):
Huh??

A country that has a GDP greater than that of the UK and France, and is only slightly below Germany

Err?

I think you need to run a sanity check on that post.

johns624 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:36 pm

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 14):
A country that has a GDP greater than that of the UK and France, and is only slightly below Germany is as economically important as the Europe's no 1 economic basket case?????

You might want to clarify that it's Per Capita. That being said, I agree with you.

DeltaMD90 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:38 pm

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 14):

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 15):

Wikipedia, yeah, I know, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)

Looks like Finland is indeed, one country higher than Greece...

romeobravo · Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:47 pm

Of course Finland is in the EU so Putin wouldn't attempt anything anyway.

HELyes · Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:51 pm

I don't believe the economical aspect is relevant here... A hostile act against any EU state would really put the union to the test, heaven knows what would happen. Hard to imagine Russia would go that far.

[Edited 2014-06-08 11:56:41]

kaitak · Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:09 pm

Quoting helyes (Reply 13):
Funny how the comments like this from Sergei Markov actually push Finland and Sweden closer to NATO. According to the polls the mojority of Finns would still say no to NATO but many have changed their mind lately.

Quoting helyes (Reply 13):
They have been dropping these provocative comments from a high level every now and then, like testing how their small neighbours react.

It's kind of an odd psychology that Russia is using (or, more precisely, a lack of it). Peaceful co-existence works well, so why rock the boat. Russia must understand that neighbouring countries have the right of self-determination. Other countries look at how Russia is fomenting discord and division in Ukraine and are natureally more nervous and wary.

No-one is backing Russia into a corner; the message to Russia is just one of "leave us be; let us be friends as equals, but don't think you can bully us".

As for Finland, Russia's last attempt to invade didn't go entirely according to plan ...

einsteinboricua · Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:28 pm

Quoting helyes (Reply 19):
I don't believe the economical aspect is relevant here... A hostile act against any EU state would really put the union to the test, heaven knows what would happen. Hard to imagine Russia would go that far.

The Union will cry "help" and pary that the US steps in, even though the US has no obligation to Finland since the NATO charter of "an attack against one is an attack against all" only applies to members.

Quite interesting that the EU doesn't have a common army like the GCC members do with the Peninsula Force. I mean, NATO works high scale, but what about for those who aren't NATO members?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
Of course Finland is in the EU so Putin wouldn't attempt anything anyway.

If Putin really wants to test how far he can go, Finland is in perfect scope. Whether he'll do it is a different story, and my guess is that he won't. That will certainly cripple the Russian economy.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
Looks like Finland is indeed, one country higher than Greece...

But Finland doesn't have:

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 14):
GDP greater than that of the UK and France, and is only slightly below Germany

like he said. On the economic scale, Finland and Greece are to the EU just nickels when compared to the big five economies there. BUT, on the nominal per capita side, the Nordic region beats the continent.

PhilBy · Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:55 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 12):
Finland is about as economically important as Greece.

But strategically Finland is very important. It creates a 'neutral' buffer between Russia and the rest of the 'developed' world. And in this context neutral means one that NATO isn't obliged to defend. This doesn't mean that NATO wouldn't help defend but...if NATO and Russia(plus allied nations etc) shared a common border there would be too much international tension.

HELyes · Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:21 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 20):

This new bulling Russia reminds Finns of the Soviet era:

"We are happy to do business with you, our friendly little western neighbour, but do remember we share a 1,300 km long common border. A friendship toast, da?"

Quoting PhilBy (Reply 22):
.if NATO and Russia(plus allied nations etc) shared a common border there would be too much international tension.

But NATO and Russia share common borders already: Northern Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland.

[Edited 2014-06-08 13:25:46]

Aesma · Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:48 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 21):
Quite interesting that the EU doesn't have a common army like the GCC members do with the Peninsula Force. I mean, NATO works high scale, but what about for those who aren't NATO members?

The US made every effort to prevent the EU from forming an army. Now it's probably too late.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 21):
If Putin really wants to test how far he can go, Finland is in perfect scope. Whether he'll do it is a different story, and my guess is that he won't. That will certainly cripple the Russian economy.

Actually Ukraine is already that battleground, Finland would be the start of a war for sure.

jetwet1 · Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:44 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 24):
Actually Ukraine is already that battleground, Finland would be the start of a war for sure.

I am sure that the US and NATO would turn the economic screws on Russia before an actual war, going into Ukraine was treated more as a domestic issue outside of Russia (not true I know but thats the way it was treated) going into Finland, forget it, all hell would break lose.

dc9northwest · Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:47 pm

Smells like sour... stromming...

ltbewr · Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:07 pm

Putin's threat is about how former Soviet republics and former 'Warsaw Pact' members have shifted their economies and trade away from Russia and to Europe and Putin wants to bring them back into his circle as well as from other adjacent countries like Finland and Sweden. He need semi-forced trade partners to keep up his economy, to by Russian made goods to keep people employed and to have places where they can do business other than the major powers.

MD11Engineer · Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:10 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
Of course Finland is in the EU so Putin wouldn't attempt anything anyway.

As for Putin, the EU is similarly a leftover from cold war, which should be disbanded. Of course, it would be much easier for Russia to deal with a lot of small countries, which Putin could bully into submission, than with a cohesive alliance.

Jan

romeobravo · Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:23 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
As for Putin, the EU is similarly a leftover from cold war, which should be disbanded.

I agree with him

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
Of course, it would be much easier for Russia to deal with a lot of small countries, which Putin could bully into submission, than with a cohesive alliance.

And i agree with you about the benefits of Nato.

einsteinboricua · Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:34 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 24):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 21):
If Putin really wants to test how far he can go, Finland is in perfect scope. Whether he'll do it is a different story, and my guess is that he won't. That will certainly cripple the Russian economy.

Actually Ukraine is already that battleground, Finland would be the start of a war for sure.

There's a difference: Ukraine belonged to the Soviet Union and right now has no membership in either NATO or the EU.

If Russia were to invade Finland, the EU would get involved and certainly would ask NATO for assistance (where the US and Canada would jump into the fray). However, if Russia were to invade Ukraine and annex it completely, Ukrainians would be left stranded. The EU has no official obligation towards it and won't risk escalating tensions beyond what they would be.

Revelation · Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:56 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
Of course Finland is in the EU so Putin wouldn't attempt anything anyway.

I don't think economic considerations matter much to Vladi, and as above, there are no military considerations. The EU has shown they value warm homes over most everything else so I wouldn't be counting on them to come to the rescue.

If I were a Finn, I'd be damn nice to all the Russiophiles in town, because if they tell Uncle Vladi they are being oppressed, it could get ugly very quicky.

MD11Engineer · Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:21 am

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
As for Putin, the EU is similarly a leftover from cold war, which should be disbanded.

I agree with him

I know that you don't like the EU, but you do so for different reasons than Putin. First, Putin belives in an almighty state. He seems to get his ideas from a guy called Alexandr Dugin(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin). this guy takes ideological elements from both communism (Soviet style) and fascism and mixes them with elements of 19th century pan-Slavism. The idea is to create an area under Russian leadership, baed on traditional social values (religion, in this case the Russian Orthodox church), with a "natural hierarchy", where everybody knows his place and a strong authoritarian leadership.
Quote:" In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution. ... The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union. ”

—The Basics of Geopolitics (1997)"

He rejects social liberalism and capitalism as decadent and dreams of an empire from Vladivostok to Lisbon.

A lot of his ideology reminds me of Salazar's Estado Novo or Schuschnigg's Austrofascism, only that those did not have expansionist tendencies.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 30):
If Russia were to invade Finland, the EU would get involved and certainly would ask NATO for assistance (where the US and Canada would jump into the fray). However, if Russia were to invade Ukraine and annex it completely, Ukrainians would be left stranded. The EU has no official obligation towards it and won't risk escalating tensions beyond what they would be.

Finland used to be a part of Russia not so long ago as well. It got it's independence after WW1, the same time when the Baltic states became independent for the first time. The only reason why Finland wasn't taken back into the USSR by Stalin was that the Finns fought a sucessful war against the Red Army invaders in 1940 (at least they bloodied the Red Army so much that they agreed on an armistice).

Jan

romeobravo · Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:35 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 31):
I don't think economic considerations matter much to Vladi, and as above, there are no military considerations. The EU has shown they value warm homes over most everything else so I wouldn't be counting on them to come to the rescue.

If I were a Finn, I'd be damn nice to all the Russiophiles in town, because if they tell Uncle Vladi they are being oppressed, it could get ugly very quicky.

Don't be ridiculous. All hell would break loose if they attempted anything with Finland.

If we're still running with the Hitler analogy then Finland is most definitely Poland.

[Edited 2014-06-08 17:36:40]

luckyone · Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:00 am

All politics is local. Something is going on within the Russian political structure that is making all of this bluster and bravado necessary -- think Mao's Cultural Revolution, which had nothing to do with culture, but rather an internal power struggle. Something is going on, or is perceived by Putin to be going on, within the upper echelons of Russian politics, and Putin is doing his damnedest to stay in front of it. He knows he's likely to be in serious trouble unless he leaves power on his own terms.

RyanairGuru · Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:25 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
I assure you that if Russian troops so much as set one toe on Finnish soil without a formal invitation NATO will be there

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 12):
Finland is about as economically important as Greece.

Doesn't matter. It's the EU, it will be a tipping point. Even if the USA doesn't get involved, citing the fact they're not NATO and because Obama is spineless when it comes to committing troops abroad, Germany, France, even the UK can't stand by and watch Russian tanks role into an EU capital, whether that be Helsinki, Tallin, Riga or Vilnius. Those states might not be essential to the Union, but if Putin so much as sniffs weakness in the EU's resolve then Poland will be next.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
the EU is similarly a leftover from cold war

Bollocks.

MD11Engineer · Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:34 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 35):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
the EU is similarly a leftover from cold war

Bollocks.

Not my opinon (I'm in favour of the EU, albeit with massive reforms to improve democratic accountability), but Putins.

Jan

mandala499 · Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:08 am

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 14):
A country that has a GDP greater than that of the UK and France, and is only slightly below Germany is as economically important as the Europe's no 1 economic basket case?????

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 15):
I think you need to run a sanity check on that post.

Maybe he meant GDP per capita...

Germany: $47,893
Finland: $46,098
France: $44,730
Britain: $43,829
Greece: $21,617 (Just had to put this in...

)

Looks like the new cold war is a muted USA and muted Russia, and an edgy Europe.. but everything is still the same... (eg: NATO).

AirPacific747 · Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:46 am

Quoting SAS A340 (Thread starter):
– Do you want to be with and start a third world war? Anti-Semitism started the second world war, russofobin can start a third.

As if Russia is trying to promote peace.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david...ted-a-massive-aerial-attack-2013-4

Strange way to make friends.

MD11Engineer · Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:16 am

I understand that the Russian newspaper, Express Gazeta, this article refers to is the Russian equivalent of the Daily Mail, but according to it Russian planners think that Europe will break down into regional small countries into a 19th century patchwork and that Russia sees itself as the stabilising force to bring order into it.
The UK breaks apart into Scotland, England (plus Wales) and Northern Ireland will be absorbed by the Republic of Ireland. Spain will lose Catalonia and the Basque Country, which will also take a slice of France. France will lose also an area at the Mediterranean, which will become a Muslim country with the capital Marseille. Belgium will split along linguistic lines, with Flanders joining the Netherlands and Luxembourg being absorbed by the Wallonie. Germany will take the Alsace and the former German (now Polish) provinces of Pommerania, Silesia and East Prussia (

&nbsp

. Similarly Russia will take eastern Poland plus everything which used to be part of the Russian empire. Bosnia will be divided between Serbia and Croatia, the Kosovo will go back to Serbia, and Turkey will get Albania. Hungary will get the parts back they lost in the treaty of Trianon.
The whole map is a fascist's wet dream:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._gets_his_wish_ukraine_irredentism
Jan

Aesma · Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:23 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 30):
If Russia were to invade Finland, the EU would get involved and certainly would ask NATO for assistance (where the US and Canada would jump into the fray). However, if Russia were to invade Ukraine and annex it completely, Ukrainians would be left stranded. The EU has no official obligation towards it and won't risk escalating tensions beyond what they would be.

I didn't say the EU would fight for Ukraine, I was saying that invading Ukraine (other than Crimea) would be the last straw, think Iran style sanctions on Russia if it were to happen.

pvjin · Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:09 pm

Now in a meeting our foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja and Russia's Sergei Lavrov the tone was quite different and constructive, although Lavrov criticized the EU he also said they see Finland as a good and close neighbour.

solarflyer22 · Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:33 pm

Yeah, I've always felt those countries are in a tough position. Small population, tough area to defend with the sea behind you and Russia east of you, limited desire for defense funding and kind of a pacifist population. There might be NATO to aid but I don't think those areas could hold out long enough for help to arrive. Just as in WWII. I would definitely spend more on defense if I were those countries but I'd also play nice with Russia and try to remove any suspicion they have. If you are on the border with a vastly superior power it has to change you're thinking to large extent.

bhill · Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:39 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 35):
Doesn't matter. It's the EU, it will be a tipping point. Even if the USA doesn't get involved, citing the fact they're not NATO and because Obama is spineless when it comes to committing troops abroad,

Tough shit....Don't blame the Obama Administration while you Europeans are asleep on duty...I, like many Americans are tired of a whole damn DECADE of war...I don't want my blood and treasure drawn into ANOTHER European war...YOU folks have your EU...USE it..or sign the damn NATO treaty...Just like Chamberlain, if YOU folks don't nip Colonel Oligarch in the bud now, you only have yourselves to blame...btw, are the Russian Armed forces being paid yet?

pvjin · Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:02 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 42):
I would definitely spend more on defense if I were those countries but I'd also play nice with Russia and try to remove any suspicion they have. If you are on the border with a vastly superior power it has to change you're thinking to large extent.

Increasing military budget would be waste of money if you ask me, Russians would steamroll us even if we had 2x our current defense budget. Russia wouldn't dare to attack a NATO country in any realistic scenario. If that happened it would be WW3 already and in that case everything would go to hell anyway. That's why we should join NATO, it would have a precautionary effect.

Personally I would love the idea of joining the NATO and then cutting our defense budget even further, I can think of tons of better uses for that money.

RyanairGuru · Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:53 am

Quoting pvjin (Reply 44):
Russia wouldn't dare to attack a NATO country in any realistic scenario. If that happened it would be WW3 already and in that case everything would go to hell anyway. That's why we should join NATO, it would have a precautionary effect.

While I see your point regarding deterrence, do you not perceive a logical inconsistency in your position? If I was being less polite I could call it hypocrisy. You lambast US military intervention around the world, and then express a desire for Finland to join NATO ... so that the US can underwrite your national security.

Quoting bhill (Reply 43):
you Europeans are asleep on duty

I'm from Australia, not Austria

Quoting bhill (Reply 43):
sign the damn NATO treaty

You realise, don't you, that an attack on a NATO state automatically invokes a US military response?

Quoting bhill (Reply 43):
if YOU folks don't nip Colonel Oligarch in the bud now, you only have yourselves to blame

Yes and no. The EU needs to grow a pair and say boo to Putin, but the US is the only state with the gravitas to actually be taken seriously. Putin perceives the EU as a weak and divided body where the vested interests of Germany, France, UK etc mean that portraying a strong, united front is difficult. Moreover, Russian expansionism in Eastern Europe can not be good for US national interests. I'm not advocating military action at this stage, but a united front against Putin wouldn't go amiss.

For the record, I am dismayed at the actions of my own government, although Australia is all but irrelevant on the world stage and Putin would just laugh at us anyway if we did something. Even so, announcing at the very same time that the G8-1 was meeting that Russia is more than welcome to attend the G20 in Brisbane this year, and then holding a press conference in "Canadia" to justify not taking a stance is just unacceptable IMHO, and at best shows a distinct lack of diplomatic tact. I just hope that Obama gives Abbott a good dressing down and tells him to get back in his box when they meet in Washington.

Pyrex · Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:58 am

Quoting pvjin (Reply 41):
he also said they see Finland as a good and close neighbour.

Whenever a Russian calls you a "close neighbour" it is fair to assume that is a threat. That ususally only means there is less ground for the tanks to cover before they get to your doorstep.

AyostoLeon · Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:13 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 45):
that an attack on a NATO state automatically invokes a US military response?

When the British Falkland Islands were invaded, the US did not automatically respond in support of the UK.
A) It wasn't necessary, and
B) the US was trying to get Argentina to lead a pan-American force to invade Nicaragua. The fact that Argentina was now engaged elsewhere, and strong protest by Thatcher, brought the US to supporting the UK diplomatically. So we can not assume that the US would automatically commit troops, even if we think it likely.

As to Abbott, I am the last person who would defend him but his role is to represent Australia and not simply to follow orders from Washington and "get back into the box". Besides, Australia has announced sanctions with Julie Bishop stating:

Quote:
“Australia stands with the international community in taking action. We have remained in close contact with friends and allies, including through our membership of the United Nations Security Council, where we have delivered strong protests to Russia about its conduct in relation to Ukraine.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...risis/story-fn59nm2j-1226859235201

That Abbott believes Putin should attend the G20 is because of the different emphasis.

Quote:
He said the G20's focus was economics, in contrast to the G7's emphasis on security.

"I can understand why the G7 leaders were reluctant to sit down with president Putin at this time," he said.

"But when it comes to the prosperity of the world, when it comes to the management of international finances, when it comes to harmonisation of taxation rules, when it comes to trying to promote global growth, I think it is best if we can include Russia."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-0...a-to-stop-bullying-ukraine/5510280

Clausewitz's famous aphorism stated that war is just the continuation of politics by other means. Lenin went one further and quipped that politics is the most concentrated expression of economics and war is concentrated economics. Abbott seems to be sensible enough to see that, despite his occasional faux pas.

Kiwirob · Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:40 am

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
Lack of NATO membership is one of the many reasons why I'm not going for military service but rather the civil version, in case of a war I don't feel like getting slaughtered by a totally superior enemy.

So if push does come to shove and everyone is called up, you'll be in training anyway, better to have twice the amount than half as much. If Finland is anything like Norway those who opt for civilian service are generally disliked and seen as somewhat lesser men.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
I assure you that if Russian troops so much as set one toe on Finnish soil without a formal invitation NATO will be there.

So Doc you have a hotline to the NATO Secretary Gerneral or Obama? You have no way of knowing what NATO's response will be.

pvjin · Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:38 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 48):
So if push does come to shove and everyone is called up, you'll be in training anyway, better to have twice the amount than half as much. If Finland is anything like Norway those who opt for civilian service are generally disliked and seen as somewhat lesser men.

According to the law those who have gone through civil service wouldn't need to fight in case of a war, they would rather assists in hospitals and other organizations like that. Even if the government decided to break the law without NATO Russia would destroy us way before I could even complete a basic military training, so I'm not really worried.

Sure, some Finnish people, generally of lower education level, think civil service is pathetic. The thing is I have never wanted to have any contact with that kind of people anyway, 3 years in high school with some of that type was enough. I don't need respect from immature trash that is incapable of critical thinking and tolerating differences.
I think generally speaking attitudes towards civil service have been changing quite steadily, most young people don't see it as a big deal anymore.

Also the army camp where people go from here is like 5 hour driving time away so practically I would be stuck there even during the weekends, just not worth it when you can have a comfortable, useful option like civil service near your home. (which by the way is located in one of the most conservative parts of this country.)

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net