Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland

Old 12th May 2022, 19:24
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 2,191
The highly probable accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a very good example of the law of unintended consequences.

In an autocracy they don't dare address worst case scenarios.

That is one huge extra border, with a very good army, added to Putins paranoia.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 12th May 2022, 19:43
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 77
Posts: 6,948
Originally Posted by langleybaston View Post
The highly probable accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a very good example of the law of unintended consequences.
In an autocracy they don't dare address worst case scenarios.
That is one huge extra border, with a very good army, added to Putin’s paranoia.
And that last bit is what worries me the most. Not per se the prolonged War, because I can believe the Western Democracies can support Ukraine materially as Russia’s manpower losses and consumption of high-tech weaponry continue.

But Putin will not, and cannot, back down. So the more pressure applied, the more he is likely to over-react irrationally.

Last edited by MPN11; 13th May 2022 at 07:33. Reason: missing word
MPN11 is online now  
Old 12th May 2022, 20:01
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
My mis-quote of Brize was simply a brain-fart
Wot - and the rest wasn't?
pilotmike is offline  
Old 12th May 2022, 20:31
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
Yes, I meant the Western flank. The one most exposed to NATO aggression
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what it is you're trying to say here

Are you saying that NATO shouldn't allow Finland to join because it would then abut Russia? but if so, what should NATO do once Russia attacks Finland like they did to Ukraine? Should they then remove Sweden [1] from NATO because now they abut Russia? and just keep going like that until we reach the Atlantic coast?

And the reason for this is what again? That we might make Russia angry and they might attack us with what's left of their military? I mean it's not like they're an impressive fighting force, though I suppose they could always attack unarmed civilians. Seriously now, the last 10 weeks have been a constant embarrassment for them.



[1] yes I know they're not part of NATO ... yet
Sue VÍtements is offline  
Old 12th May 2022, 20:37
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
A good point, ORAC.

Nevertheless, Parliament does have to approve War.
That's not true for the UK.
beardy is online now  
Old 12th May 2022, 21:58
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,928
Originally Posted by pasta View Post
To be fair, they must look close from 1600 miles away.
Both not far from Salisbury, with its must-see spire ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 05:41
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Europe
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
Boris needs a war for diversionary political reasons. Tail wagging the dog and all that stuff. He's got the war he craves. For him it's a win-win because this time it won't be Union flag draped coffins being paraded through that town near Brize Norton. For the merchants of Death it's a massive bonanza. All those missiles and other weaponry being poured into Ukraine like petrol onto a forest fire will have to be re-bought by the tax-payer and the National Debt. Money galore.
Boris is clearly a lot smarter than I'd imagined if he somehow persuaded Putin to invade Ukraine. This was his strategy to distract the press from Partygate perhaps?

Nigel Farage here cautions against poking the Russian bear. He seems to share a few more of your ideas.

Could you both be working to the same brief?
Rockie_Rapier is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 06:38
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 2,148
Not so sure I buy the poking the bear argument.
At the risk of exhausting a metaphor, said big-scary bear has actually turned out to be pretty skeletal, flea infested, with a bad case of mange and missing most of it's teeth.
It keeps growling and threatening to pull the house down - but is sounding increasingly lame.
If all you effectively have is a nuclear deterrent to threaten people with - then that leaves a lot of wiggle room for your opponent to ratchet up the pressure in small incremental steps doesn't it?

tartare is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 06:43
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere close to me
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
Pasta,

Which countries has post-Communist Russia bombed and invaded in the past three decades or so? More than one?

How many countries have been bombed and/or invaded by the US since the end of WW2? More than one? More than a dozen? How many dozen?
Why don't you ask the people from East Europe, what they think about the Russians?
I visited East Germany shortly after the Berlin wall fell, what the Russians did there and in other Eastern European countries was no better than the war crimes committed by Germany during WW2.

People were massacred or shipped out to Siberia.
Why don't you ask people from the Baltic countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, your view the Red comrade will be a lot less flattering.
Let's not forget their failed Afghanistan invasion.
Let's not forget Russias total destruction of parts of Georgia, Chechnya, and their support for their puppet in Belarus.

I have Russians friends, I have worked with Russian companies outside Russia on several occasions, wonder why most of them NEVER want to return to live in Russia, when they get the chance to live or escape somewhere else.

Unfortunately the amount of Russian disinformation is still dominating what Russian people get of news, and having local knowledge of how Belarus keep their power, by paying their police officers and army large amounts of cash and giving them privilege's only other people could dream of, the corruption is from within, and will be very hard to break down. These are both corrupt s.. countries who have very little regard for human life.
truckflyer is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 08:41
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by uxb99 View Post
I thought the point in NATO was to stand together.
So why do countries have to make decisions themselves such as UK, Finland?
Shouldn't the UK make the proposal. Have it agreed in NATO and then NATO states "We will protect Finland etc"?
The point being no one country can then be singled out for retaliation.
If we have to make these decisions our selves (on behalf of NATO) because presumably NATO won't what's the point in NATO?
There is no mechanism to propose, or indeed come to an agreement for NATO to protect a third country. NATO is solely there as a defensive mechanism that binds other members to come to
the aid of a meme et who is attacked. If the NATO country was the one who started the attack, NATO protection isnít enacted and the country is on its own.
Flyhighfirst is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 08:43
  #51 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 1,267
Since 907, Russia has been involved in at least 175 wars. Of those, they were the assumed victors in 107 cases, and one of those is illogical but counted. In the rest, they were defeated or fought to a standstill. They are involved in 3 different active wars today, 2 of which are going to be long-term disasters for Russia, but there they are. Over their history of war the most striking observation is that a treaty carries little meaning in the Russian language, they get signed, and then, 1-2 years later the war starts up again. The wins that the Russians have had almost invariably been revisited at a later date. A term that gets used in relation to Russia is the concept of "defensive expansionism". Despite Russia being the aggressor in the majority of wars, the insecurity they feel results in taking action to attack a neighbor to protect their border with that neighbor. They then have a new border to be anxious over, and then attack that country. The term "trust" is not one that describes dealings with Russia over the last 1,000 years.

Finland and Sweden have every reason to be wary of Putin and his horde. The UK's declaration of support for Finland during the NATO membership process is one of the very few things that adds some credibility to the UK as a free state.
fdr is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 08:49
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Beamr View Post
More than one? Even one is too many mate! But apparently you need to be reminded of the likes of Chechnya (twice), Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Syria. Belarus was invaded by Russians without firing a shot.

However, on topic: UK's support in these dangerous times is highly appreciated in Finland. One may think what they will of an individual but what that individual represents is valued greatly.
Donít forget the ever successful invasion of Afghanistan by the soviets as well.
Flyhighfirst is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 09:00
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
Yes, I meant the Western flank. The one most exposed to NATO aggression.

Ukraine is the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia. An immensely rich prize for NATO to pluck. We will be able to put nuclear missiles within two or three hundred miles of Moscow. Russia scared the bejasus out of JFK when short range missiles were being placed in Cuba, thousands of miles beyond range of being able to whack Washington. Imagine the worries the Russian equivalent of The Pentagon have over the prospect of NATO putting missiles so close to their own capital. You can be sure that they recognise the fact that the US, which is NATO, is the only country in the world which has used nuclear weapons and that their use was intended to terrorise Russia, not the already beaten Japanese.
NATO (USA) could destroy Moscow without leaving its own shores. Western technology has moved on (as Russian forces in Ukraine are discovering to their considerable cost) and the only reason that Ukraine may join NATO is because it wants to. That is a concept that may appear difficult to comprehend in your part of the world but it is called freedom of choice, the right to self determination if you like.
BANANASBANANAS is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 09:02
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,336
I caught Beth RIgby's interview with Russia's ambassador to the EU yesterday on Sky. She kind of missed a trick because she didn't ask him about Russia's actions earlier this year, when they were almost daring Sweden and Finland to dispense with their neutrality, with the Russian embassy in Helsinki asking their citizens in Finland to report instances of Russophobia, and sending its aircraft into Swedish airspace. Of course this could have been their response to both of these countries sending military aid to Ukraine.

dead_pan is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 09:07
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Outer ring of HEL
Posts: 942
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst View Post
Donít forget the ever successful invasion of Afghanistan by the soviets as well.
How could we forget, but the question was post-communist Russia era bombings and rapings of innocent civilians by Russian troops and/or mercenaries.
However we could add Central African Republic to the list.
Beamr is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 09:15
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,336
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
Ukraine is the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia.
Then why didn't Russia simply militarize the border (guard posts, minefields, razor wire, layered defences, the whole nine yards), like the USSR did back in the day? FWIW I think the most potent threat to Russia is Russia itself; it really is its own worst enemy.

An immensely rich prize for NATO to pluck.
You do struggle with the concept of sovereignty. Also, given the events of the past three weeks, do you not think Ukraine's fears, hence their desire to join NATO, was justified?

We will be able to put nuclear missiles within two or three hundred miles of Moscow.
We have been able to do that for decades, but haven't - Latvia is just as close. Why is that, do you think?

dead_pan is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 09:53
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Outer ring of HEL
Posts: 942
This pretty much sums it up

Beamr is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 10:36
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Beamr View Post
How could we forget, but the question was post-communist Russia era bombings and rapings of innocent civilians by Russian troops and/or mercenaries.
However we could add Central African Republic to the list.
Sorry. My mistake. Thought we were talking about post WW2.
Flyhighfirst is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 10:59
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 308
Originally Posted by Prunus Dessicata View Post
It's an unfortunate time for NATO to be rattling the bars on Russia's cage by further expanding the relentless Eastward expansion all the way to the very doorstep of what the Russian people regard as their Rodina.

They know what happens when a hostile armed Power does that and they know the consequences to themselves in terms of blood sacrifice. For us, the German and French invasions seem like ancient history. For the Russian people, not so.

Timing this announcement to coincide with Russia's Victory Day was not mere happenstance. It's a deliberate provocation. NATO is like a gangster prodding a victim in the chest and yelling 'Wanna fight?'

Threatening to subsume Ukraine into NATO was bad enough. It provoked Russia into an insane military adventure. Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Eastern flank in Finland cannot possibly have a good outcome. Norway has a tiny border with Russia. Finland's border is huge.
You can not always choose your timing. And events often dictate policy.
While I support the policy, if it is not backed up by military strength, it is meaningless.
If you are going to talk tough, you need to be able to be tough. And given all the other competing needs of the UK, defense has to be given a priority.

I would also hope that the UK will not be an outlier on this.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 13th May 2022, 11:09
  #60 (permalink)  
Deputy Assistant Bottle Washer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: PPRuNe
Posts: 3,991
FYI, Prunus Dessicata has no declared Military service nor association, and is no longer able to Access this Military Forum following his determined trolling of this thread.
Senior Pilot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.