Your argument for "rightful owners" of a piece of geographical land is just plain stupid. It's an argument that can be stretched to such extreme length that it becomes irrational as any kind of solution for any nation of the world. Just listen to people a bit more intelligent than you who reflect on the Ukraine conflict with the perspective of their own geopolitical perspective:



The world can argue back and forth about where to draw borders, but a peaceful world can be achieved by everyone accepting the status quo of borders as a reset for geographical conflicts and any shift to be through peaceful processes, not force.

Your argument for "rightful owners" is warmongering because it gives the right to anyone to take any point in history and claim their right to invade other nations because of it. It's the same stupidity that we condemn Russia for in view of the current invasion of Ukraine. By your concept, Sweden should invade Finland, the Baltics, Poland, and Russia and take back a large chunk of all of it because we owned it at one point in time. It's a stupid way of trying to justify invasions today and it falls flat.

As I've been saying, a Russian revolution would be better for the world and for Russia itself. — Christoffer

I'm not so sure about that. If the Putinist regime would collapse like the Soviet Union, that would be great. We don't give enough credit how well the last leaders of the Soviet Union did handle the collapse of Union. Then it didn't go the way of Yugoslavia. But with people like Putin, you do have similar types as Milosevic. As one Serb intellectual put it, Milosevic was one of the worst things to happen to Serbia and the Serbians. There are many who believe in Putin in Russia. Those who oppose him flee to countries like Georgia.

It would be great if Russia did come to it's sense, but the real problem is that the Putinists might fight to the bitter end if it would come to it. And that isn't something I hope for.

* * *

Of course these issues should be looked from their positive effects: at least now Putin has a wonderful opportunity to help us to go green and off from (at least Russian) hydrocarbons. (The energy minister has said few days ago that Russia could cut off gas exports to Finland in weeks)

Your argument for "rightful owners" of a piece of geographical land is just plain stupid. — Christoffer

Those that uphold ideas like "rightful ownership" are usually the one's who start wars.

We don't give enough credit how well the last leaders of the Soviet Union did handle the collapse of Union. — ssu

Because they were mostly educated people. Indoctrinated, but educated and intelligent as to how to handle that collapse and they did it in a group, not through a bloated self-absorbed despot. Russian people today seem to have lost a few points of IQ for some reason, maybe due to long-time exposure to the Chornobyl downfall or something.



Russia needs an overhaul, it's rotten to the core with deadly corruption and degeneracy. Since most decent people seek to leave the nation, there will only be these degenerate criminals left.

Russia: We will take retaliatory steps.

Finland: We are safer now!

--

It's funny that one of your favorite phrases is "bootlicker."

:lol:

Russia could cut off gas exports to Finland in weeks — ssu

Oh oh... Stocking up firewood yet?

Because they were mostly educated people. Indoctrinated, but educated and intelligent as to how to handle that collapse and they did it in a group, not through a bloated self-absorbed despot. — Christoffer

Yes.

And of course, and what really broke the back of the Soviet Union was the 1991 putsch attempt, which put the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic directly opposed to the Union.

It's hard to explain how bizarre that situation was. It would be like a US President declaring that he would be taking all the powers from the States and the States then all walking away from the union. That wouldn't leave the Federal Government...with Washington DC?

Why so aggressive all the time? Why can't you just agree to disagree in a cool headed manner? Keep some sense of humour; try and understand others.

Why so pissed?

What is it to you if people talk about NATO a lot? Would it peel some skin off your nose? What do you care for their political opinions?

What I have referred to nonsense is you saying I have said that Russia will invade Finland. — ssu

I didn't.

A hybrid response is far more probable. And a political response is very probable. — ssu

...is a classic example of the falsehood of...

As usual, we do quote or make references to sources. — ssu

We'd be lucky if one claim in twenty is sourced.

Oh oh... Stocking up firewood yet? — Olivier5

Why?

I've already have ample firewood at the countryside place. And trees, if it comes to that. And it starts finally to be warmer here. And anyway, this is the time to keep cool heads.

Russia: We will take retaliatory steps.

Finland: We are safer now! — Streetlight

Yeah. I think many were indeed quite naive about Putin's Russia. 24th of February finally changed that.

I've already have ample firewood at the countryside place. And trees, if it comes to that. — ssu

:up:

The question is whether an expanding NATO will act as deterrent or provocation for the aforementioned autocrat.

That would be to conduct foreign policy by the whim of one’s adversary.

A hybrid response is far more probable. And a political response is very probable.
— ssu

...is a classic example of the falsehood of...

As usual, we do quote or make references to sources.
— ssu — Isaac

Russia has it forces in Ukraine (do you need references for that?). There aren't many forces on the Russian side of the Finnish border. (Here in Finnish, but use google translate).

So why hybrid?

Russia’s resources are currently focused heavily on Ukraine and on its own domestic operations. The situation may nevertheless change very quickly.

“Supo considers it likely that Russia will expand its cyber and information operations from Ukraine to the West. An increase in operations targeting Finland is therefore also considered probable in the coming months,” Pelttari notes.

Most online cyberattacks take the form of denial of service attacks and defacing of websites. Their perpetrators seek to give the impression of paralysing society, when in reality they do not compromise information or critical processes. While denial of service attacks and measures to combat them are commonplace for online businesses, the threat of more serious cyberattacks has nevertheless also increased. Businesses must continually ensure that the control circuitry of critical infrastructure such as energy distribution systems cannot be accessed directly from the public network.

link here

Or then the information front:

Tweeting on Wednesday (16 March), the Russian embassy in Helsinki encouraged Russian citizens in Finland to report by email if they have experienced hate speech, discrimination or human rights abuses. Close to 30,000 Russian citizens live in Finland, and more than 80,000 people speak Russian in the country.

Or in general, just what Russia could do... can be anticipated from what it has done:

Form Hybrid Operations and the Importance of Resilience: Lessons From Recent Finnish History (Carniege endowment for international Peace, author René Nyberg)

Few countries can match Finland’s long experience of dealing with Soviet and Russian hybrid warfare—before, during, and after the Cold War—and few countries have had as much success in standing up to it. The secret of Finland’s success can be found in the resilience of Finnish society, which is derived from its unique history and record of combining firmness with flexibility in dealing with its much larger, difficult, and unpredictable neighbor.

* * *

Another example is more recent. In the fall of 2015, third-country nationals without proper documents started to cross over the border from Russia to Norway. Since pedestrians are not allowed across the border, these people used bicycles. The Russian daily newspaper Kommersant coined the expression velobegstvo (flight by bike). Over 5,000 people crossed into Norway from Murmansk.

Soon after, the same pattern was repeated in northern Finland. Over 1,000 people without proper documents were allowed by Russian border authorities to cross into Finland. Most of these people were Afghans and others who had lived in Russia for years. They were now advised to leave the country and, with the help of criminal schleppers who helped them migrate, systematically directed toward the Norwegian and Finnish border crossings.

Again, the Finnish and Norwegian authorities were stunned. This was a breach of the border regime and, even worse, a breach of the confidence that had been painstakingly built up over decades. In hindsight, the argument that hurt Moscow was the question put to the FSB border guards: How does the FSB allow criminal elements, the schleppers, to operate on the Russian border? These poor souls with small children in arctic conditions were flown to Murmansk and Kandalaksha from Moscow, and then herded into hotels. Provided with rickety second-hand Soviet-era cars—for a hefty price, of course—they were directed during a polar night through uninhabited forests and past multiple Russian border posts toward the lights of the Finnish border crossing. At no point was Finland defenseless. It could have closed the border but did not do so.

What had happened? One interpretation is that the Russians just could not resist exploiting the refugee crisis in Europe that had unsettled all countries on the trail from Turkey into Scandinavia. It was a textbook hybrid operation to create mischief, but also to send a clear message that Moscow can cause trouble.

Hence, when your military is fighting a war in another place, then you obviously have to use different methods. Or is that too daring of a conclusion to make?

You said "Putin's threat". Lavrov is not Putin. And you're not saying which of "Lavrov's comments" you're referring to.

Putin appears to be and wants to depict himself as taking advice on this from Lavrov. Lavrov is using weasel words with veiled threats. There was also a mention of WW3 in another comment.

As I say sufficient cause for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Because this would be part of a defensive strategy and the threats I refer to are real threats which this strategy addresses. Whether, or not they are real threats, is irrelevant now. The threshold of risk has obviously been reached.

One could say that this is Putin’s strategy, to galvanise, expand and strengthen NATO.

That would be to conduct foreign policy by the whim of one’s adversary. — Punshhh

No, it would be to conduct foreign policy taking into account the whim of one's adversary... you know, like strategists actually do in the real world, the one outside of whatever LARPing fantasy you live in.

when your military is fighting a war in another place, then you obviously have to use different methods. Or is that too daring of a conclusion to make? — ssu

Again, your conclusion is not in the least question. Not too daring, well informed, and now fully cited. Well done.

What's in question (and remains uncited) is the notion that the alternative is 'nonsense'.

Yeah imagine taking into account foreign powers when conducting uh, foreign policy.

Yeah imagine taking into account foreign powers when conducting uh, foreign policy. — Streetlight

I blame Top Gun

What's in question (and remains uncited) is the notion that the alternative is 'nonsense'. — Isaac

As I said that (nonsense) referred to this:

SSU said that joining Nato would lead to Russia attacking Finland? Really, ssu? — Christoffer

It's here — Isaac

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — ssu

Yet if you think Russia really will invade Finland, well, this was then a window of opportunity for us as Russia isn't a normal country trying to have normal relations with it's neighbors. If you haven't notice the abnormality from Putin's actions in Ukraine or Russia's actions in general in Ukraine. Or in Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Belarus...

No, it would be to conduct foreign policy taking into account the whim of one's adversary... you know, like strategists actually do in the real world,

Precisely and that is what Finland has done. It was literally on Putin’s whim that Russian troops entered Ukraine. Finland watched this move and then applied to join NATO.

Can’t you see it yet? The location of the new Iron curtain is being decided.

One could say that this is Putin’s strategy, to galvanise, expand and strengthen NATO. — Punshhh

Putin pretty much nailed that.

Getting one country to change it's course in security policy after 200 years of a successful policy that made it to avoid WW1 and WW2, and another one basically the time it has been independent, one surely has had to make some radical decisions. And Putin has made them.

Maybe he just thought taking over Ukraine would be worth it. Who knows. Yet starting a large scale conventional war does change things.

Maybe he just thought taking over Ukraine would be worth it. — ssu

And this is why I think he's a delusional despot with stupid minions under him. To think that the world, with all the alliances it has from WWII and forward would just sit idle while they murder Ukrainians is a delusion that only someone far up their own asses would do. The cost is so high for Russia that it's close to proven that they are stupid regardless of whether they taking over the entire Ukraine or not.

Putin appears to be and wants to depict himself as taking advice on this from Lavrov. — Punshhh

I see what you mean. Still, it wasn't Putin who said it.

Or are you suggesting that every time Putin says something, we should assume it's Lavrov who is saying it, even when Putin isn't saying it?

Plus, NATO's war on Russia had already started by then.

The Finns and Swedes can join NATO or any other organization they like to. I think the real problem, or tragedy, actually, is that so many people (on both sides) are getting killed for the sake of politicians.



It wasn't just me who said that Siberia was mostly uninhabited. (@Count Timothy of Icarus) said it and so would any other educated person.

If Russian presence in Crimea is "imperialism", so is Ukrainian presence.

If countries have "no rightful owners", on what basis are you claiming that a country belongs to a particular nation or state?

By your logic, Finland doesn't belong to the Finns, Sweden doesn't belong to the Swedes, Ukraine doesn't belong to Ukrainians, etc.

So, obviously, the Ukrainians aren't fighting for their country. Perhaps, they're fighting for America, then.

And whom do you think Tibet belongs to? To China who invaded, occupied, and annexed it?

But I must say it's really funny to see NATO trolls trying to "think" .... :grin:

.

Getting one country to change it's course in security policy after 200 years of a successful policy that made it to avoid WW1 and WW2, and another one basically the time it has been independent, one surely has had to make some radical decisions. And Putin has made them. — ssu

Why didn't Finland join earlier? They just didn't think there was any need?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. — Olivier5

That your proposed solution isn't a solution as this has already been rejected by countries asked to give security assurances to Ukraine. So the problem is really complex. How do you provide security to Ukraine in a way that's also acceptable to Russia and that other counties are prepared to give? (e.g. Article 5 like assurances are not going to fly).

I think saying "Ukraine gets to decide the terms of peace" is naive, also coming from Draghi. Their terms were to join NATO. We all know how that went. NATO pretended they could join and then when there was an actual war all of a sudden that door closed. Not the epitome of trustworthiness either. Any peace is going to have to be tripartite, Ukraine, Russia and whatever countries are involved to give Ukraine assurances.

Why didn't Finland join earlier? They just didn't think there was any need? — frank

Because the policy of determined neutrality worked for them. Both policies carry risk. If you're attacked, you're alone when you're neutral. On the other hand, you won't be dragged into wars for expediency and are aren't a target by association.

NATO was necessary during the Cold War. Nowadays I only see trouble ahead. It's just a means for the US to bring the fight to the doorstep of other countries, without risking their own resources. And it does that through various treaties, not just NATO. The US has only known 15 years of peace since its inception and we've already seen NATO involved in conflicts that weren't defensive.

That your proposed solution isn't a solution — Benkei

I haven't proposed anything. You misread the exchange.

How do you provide security to Ukraine in a way that's also acceptable to Russia — Benkei

First thing first, Russia has to be defeated and repelled from Ukraine. Once that is done, and I have no doubt it will be, the situation will be different: Russia will need security guarantees against a victorious Ukraine; and Belarus may become independent.

Why didn't Finland join earlier? They just didn't think there was any need? — frank

The simple answer: The blowback from Russia seemed to be more than the security given by NATO. And earlier, especially during the Cold War and when there was the Soviet Union, we could have been in a similar situation as Ukraine is now. And basically (joining NATO) would have been a breach of the peace arrangement with the Soviet Union.

Because the policy of determined neutrality worked for them. Both policies carry risk. If you're attacked, you're alone when you're neutral. On the other hand, you won't be dragged into wars for expediency and are aren't a target by association. — Benkei

With Finland it was sort of like that as @Benkei said.

Yet this neutrality was forced on to Finland. The country was left to the Soviet sphere and Finland understood it couldn't just waltz into the West. Not to NATO, not to the EEC. As I described earlier, the position after WW2 and when NATO was formed in 1949 was dire and there wasn't any guarantees that Stalin wouldn't do his "unfinished business" with Finland later.

And one should remember that the Finnish Army, the largest political parties of the country and the institutions are the same as before WW2. We have the same army that fought against the Soviets in the Winter War, then fought alongside Hitler's Germany and then finally fought against Germany. The army wasn't disbanded and a new formed as in every other country that fought on the Axis side. This experience had a severe effect on Finnish psyche and thinking. There was no "VE Day" for Finland in WW2. No allies liberated us (thankfully!). And when a Finnish general that had served during the war was once accused by someone in the West that "You fought with Hitler. ", he snapped back "And you with Stalin!". He represented the Finnish attitude quite well.

This had the effect that Finns were highly sceptical about NATO prior, as were the Swedes. In fact the views of Benkei or Isaac were quite typical in Finland when it came to NATO and later people were happy of just having a "NATO option", but being separate from it. No need to anger the bear next door.

But then came 24th of February and broke that glass house we were living in like a 9/11 moment. Russia simply wasn't the reasonable, the normal country that you could have normal friendly relations with. This dawned to everybody. Old policies simply didn't work: no matter if you would be neutral, Russia would continue it's threats and abusive policies and would try to get into the dominating role it enjoyed during the Cold War in Finland. It is abundantly clear now. Above all, Putin is so reckless that it could start a large scale conventional war against a neighboring neutral country that was far larger than Finland.

Yougov did an interesting poll among European countries, which show how Finns compared to others view the war in Ukraine:

People in Finland are widely of the opinion that Russia is entirely or mostly responsible for the war in Ukraine, reveals a 17-country survey conducted by YouGov and the European University Institute.

As many as 85 per cent of respondents in the country estimated that responsibility for the situation is attributable entirely to Russia or more to Russia than Nato.

Only five per cent contrastively viewed that the responsibility should be attributed entirely or mostly to Nato and four per cent that the responsibility should be distributed equally between Russia and Nato.

Russia was regarded as the party mostly to blame by at least 70 per cent of respondents also in Sweden (80%), the UK (79%), Denmark (79%), Poland (73%) and the Netherlands (70%). Most Bulgarians and Greeks, by contrast, did not agree with the view that all or most of the blame should be put on Russia.

In Bulgaria, only 23 per cent of respondents viewed that Russia is entirely or mostly responsible for the situation, whereas 44 per cent viewed that most of the responsibility should be attributed to Nato and 13 per cent that the responsibility should be distributed equally between Russia and Nato. In Greece, 28 per cent of respondents stated that most of the responsibility lies with Nato and 29 per cent that the responsibility should be distributed equally between Russia and Nato.

Russia was nonetheless regarded as the sole or primary responsible party by at least 50 per cent of respondents in 13 of the 17 countries surveyed.