Russia Warns Sweden and Finland Against NATO Membership
 

Russia Warns Sweden and Finland Against NATO Membership

HELSINKI — Finland and Sweden have both rejected claims, made by a senior Russian adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, that “Russophobia” is pushing the two non-aligned Nordic states “dangerously closer” to NATO. Finnish officials described the “Russophobia” claim, made by Putin’s senior political adviser, Sergei Markov, as “unfounded” and “alarmist,” while Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said the embedded meaning in Markov’s remarks smacked of a return by Russia to old school “Cold War intimidation.”

“Finland should think of the consequences, if it ponders joining NATO. It must ask could joining start World War III? Anti-Semitism started World War II. Russophobia can start a third world war. Finland is one of the most Russophobic countries in Europe, after Sweden, Poland and the Baltic countries,” said Markov in interviews with Swedish and Finnish media. NATO, said Markov, had no positive role to play in European defense as it is, according to the political adviser, “an organization virtually controlled by the United States.” Similarly, Markov described the European Union, and its 28 member states, as “colonies of the US” with no truly independent security or political policies...............

Standard divide and conquer rules, intimidation and fear by a has been country trying to revive old glory because it hasn't got what it takes to evolve.

If Sweden and Finland stayed out of NATO 1948-1990 why would they want to join now?

things were a hell of a lot worse 25+ years ago

And if Finland really is 'Russophobic', I wonder just why that might be?

Ooh, let me see now...

At least the discussion was dead in Sweden in the former Days. Now politicians talk about it quite often. I think there is a misunderstanding about making the costs going down if joining NATO.
...And that there has been so much cutdowns that there really isnt that much left and ppl starting to feel unsafe.

"And if Finland really is 'Russophobic', I wonder just why that might be?

Ooh, let me see now..."

Actually during and after the Cold War Finland did pretty well out of the USSR & Russia - they played the Hong Kong role - amazing how much western goods were "sold" in Finland...

And an awful lot of Finns speak Russian

Maybe we ought to start calling Putin and his advisors "The Borg"...

Given Russia's history with regards to their neighbours is it any wonder that folks with such a country on their doorstep are a little Russophobic?

Perhaps (a perceived) reduced risk of nuclear war leads to enhanced risk of conventional war?

I always imagined that they were already members! Anyway as for the reason for the start of WWII not my understanding of history. I think we are long way off from World War III even with events in Ukraine. But if we do, God forbid, even move close to aggression between Russia and the West then Russia herself must surely been seen as the aggressor. What is it with that country, the rest of the world has moved, even China is looking forward not back.

Tom

Nervous? Lots of porous space, megalomaniacs trying to capture Moscow. Most of the western world invaded in 1919. Surrounded in the cold war. Huge loss of traditional territories post-cold war. Add in economy and you can understand them a bit more.

The words "blow me" come to mind, but that I suppose is not really a diplomatic response to send to Putin

Recollect, on first visit to Helsinki in about 1963, noting that people who spoke an arcane language like Finnish, also spoke Swedish and English. Respect! :ok:

Actually there the kind of words he understands, diplomatic responses are a laugh to Putin.

As someone said, even China is looking forward, and frankly it looks like their even more evolved as a country than Russia. Though I'm not convinced that they have gone past the economic expansion by force method yet. I think it really depends on how long the Yanks can keep it together.

The fact that Russia is warning people of dire consequence if joining, is pure and simple stand over tactics, terror and fear, some thing the Russians are a natural at.

Putin is not an idiot, neither are the other senior Russian advisors, they know all well NATO is just a defense pact, the only threat from the west is countries that join, prosper. (well sort of prosper, a bit like three steps forward, two back)

Living in Finland and being married to a Finn, perhaps I can give my opinion.

The matter of NATO membership is discussed continuously here.

In the last few years Finland has been moving to the right.

At the moment, the President and the strongest party (Kokoomus - similar to the UK Conservatives) lean toward joining NATO.

Historically the SDP has run the government and held the presidency.

They traditionally played both sides and recently it has been suggested that, at least one, ex President was too close to the Russians.

Together with the centre and left parties they are against joining NATO.

The other main party is the True Finns (akin to UKIP), they are rising in popularity because of their charismatic (for want of a better word) leader Timo Soini.

Like many of their policies I am not sure whether they are for or against NATO membership - they seem to be hedging their bets.

Unless things change they and the right will be the main, governing, parties after the next election (2015?) - the Socialist parties are waning in popularity.

People are getting fed up with more taxes to fund social handouts and Southern Europeans (it's all south of Finland!!).

Will Finland join NATO - probably not unless Sweden decides to join (my view).

The Finns I know do not trust the Russians, both collectively and individually.

They see them as bullies in the world.

Burglaries, car stealing etc - it must have been a Russian!!

Finns perceive them as buying up all the summer cottages.

Likewise, most Finns I know cannot understand why the US, and to a lesser extent the EU countries, seem to insist on getting involved in "other peoples wars".

Basil

In my view not many Finns speak Russian.

Swedish (Finland's second official language - about 6% speak Swedish as their mother language and go to Swedish speaking schools) is (was until last year?) compulsory in all Finnish schools.

Most people speak English, having learnt it at school, and a few of the older generation can speak German (hang over from WW2).

Very interesting post finncapt.


I would think the best outcome for both Finland and Sweden would be not to join NATO as this will wreck their relationship with Russia. But to in effect stay neutral and work with both sides. They did this so well in the cold war and faced down the mighty USSR. One would think in this modern age that reaching an understanding with modern Russia would be far easier.
I am really not a fan of NATO and its member states often pointless wars.

Probably not as much as being invaded by Russia though, and there is a precedent in history for Russia annexing part of Finland, and in more recent history of Putin doing everything he can to recreate the Russian/Soviet empire. It is hardly surprising that the Finns (and Russia's other neighbours) do not trust the Russians with Putin in charge.

He is a danger to world peace and although I too am opposed in principle to blocs such as NATO, if I lived in Finland I would be very concerned about security.

Capetonian, I would say the greatest threat to world peace would be the US government blundering around the world from one disaster to another. (Just look at Iraq and Libya right now)
I think in this day and age the idea of Russia invading Finland or Sweden is very unlikely. If they are worried simply keep and maintain a strong independent military of their own. Putin really is not so bad, he was forced into the actions he took in Ukraine by the western back coup. What exactly did western leaders expect him to do. He also managed to prevent a western backed war in Syria that would have helped Isis and other terrorists.

Ronald Reagan : I completely agree with you, Obama is the greatest danger by far to world peace but Putin's meddling is likely to provoke US intervention, which is why he is a danger, even if only as a catalyst.

Agree too that that Russian invasion of Finland is unlikely, although it does have territorial claims, and Sweden even less likely, but there a risk of them invading ex USSR territories who don't toe their line.

I'm interested to know what territorial claims Russia would have on Finland.

As far as I am aware, it is the other way round and Finland could arguably have territorial claims against Russia.

Several parts of Finland were ceded to the Russians at the Moscow peace treaty in 1940 (which ended the Winter War 1939 - 40) and Finns would argue that they wanted those parts back.

I think after WW2 there may have been more territory ceded to Russia but am not certain.

From time to time various groups call for the parts of Karelia which were ceded to be returned.

The general consensus, and the government line, is that this is not going to happen.

One of the things which always amuses me, is that Russians who want to travel from, say, St. Petersburg to Murmansk find it easier to use Finnish roads - roads in Finland go south to north whereas in Russia they radiate from Moscow - making that journey difficult within Russia.

Its so much easier that their own language! :*

It is the only place where I have been handed a menu that was utterly meaningless.

Fortunately I had an English speaking Finnish companion to translate it.

Vladimir Putin ‘wants to regain Finland’ for Russia, adviser says

After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has “conquered” Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.

According to Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin. Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests”.

“Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” Mr Illarionov said.........

finncapt : I don't know ...... but some years ago I was sailing on the Saimaa Lakes and somewhere near Imatra, which is right on the border (I know you know that but others may not!), got chatting to some Finnish people and they told us that the Russians claimed that part of Finland (is that Karelia?) as theirs.

Finland's past has given rise to some rousing patriotic music by Jean Sibelius, one of my favourite composers.

Ironically, conducted by a Russky.

Yes, that area is part of Karelia.

You could be right that the Russians want the Finnish bit but the Finns talk, probably many years ago, of the Russians trying to do a deal with the Finns whereby they would sell back the bits they already had - when they needed hard currency?

Sadly? for the Finns the price was too high.

If the Russian intention is to go back to the Tsarist borders then you are right and I think that would cause, certainly a cold war type standoff and possibly a confontation - smacks of Germany invading Czechoslovakia.

In simple terms, at the time of the Russian revolution, the whites won in Finland (it was an autonomous part of the Russian empire) and declared independence.

What scares me is that, although Hitler and Czechoslovakia is used to explain Crimea, when Hitler made his move, the world didn't have nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction worked during the Cold War, when the threat was USSR against the West, but this is a new scenario. We are unlikely to use conventional force against Russia (could we?), to defend sections of a country, and our only other option is nuclear. So, Putin "liberates" countries a bit at a time. What then?

Herod, if they are places like Crimea or Eastern Ukraine which are historically part of Russia then let him have them. Most of the lines on a map do not mean all that much. As long as they do not get designs on all of western Europe ie anymore territory than they had in the Cold War I won't worry to much. Right now they don't seem bothered about former Warsaw Pact nations but more former Soviet Republics. I would turn a blind eye to that. None of our business and not worth all nuclear war and thus destroying all life on Earth. Maybe if NATO had not been pushed right up to their borders they would not have been so keen to push back! I would like to see a reverse in direction to all of our defence cuts in recent years though. Right now we in Britain must be more weak than we have ever been before. I would rather deal from a position of strength ie peace through strength. Just base the military here at home and not close to Russia!

I must say I am of a similar opinion to RR, inasmuch as I agree that Putin seems more interested in the ex Soviet Republics.

These are also the areas where significant numbers of people are ethnic (if that's the right word) Russians.

It may be that all this "sabre rattling" is to provide a diversion from any problems he may have with the his domestic political situation.

Interestingly, Finland has a new Prime Minister from today (Kokoomus - Right party) and he, I understand, is a NATO leaner (my wife is away, visiting her grandchildren, so I may have got the translation wrong).

No nation is "all nice" but I met a lot of very very decent Finns when I worked for Nokia. They make the world better and the corporate culture at Nokia was extremely positive, natural, friendly and responsible. It had other problems but it was infinitely less rapacious than what I was used to before and have experienced since. So bugger Putain and up with the Finns.

We ought to care about every bit of land he sucks in - how else did Russia become so large but by sucking in more and more? Are we to wait till he's at our doorstep?

First they came for the Gypsies, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Gypsy.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the disabled, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not disabled.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

As true now as it ever was.

Herod - should be on a notice in every parliament world wide

Sweden
 

Sweden has a very good working relationship with NATO - it has been a troop contributing nation for a numbe rof operationsand took a very active part in the Libyan Air Campaign. It is, in fact, a member in all but name, but of course, does not have the collective defence that is afforded by Washington Treaty Art. 5. Arguably, Russia's belligerancy has increased domestic calls for applying for NATO membership.

75% of the population in Eastern Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia or some other 'independent' state.

The 'pro-Russia rebels' are mainly Russian citizens, as the body count of Russian dead at the airport attack attests.

The leader of the Russian insurgents has admitted they are mostly Russia fighters, he justifies by saying that part of Russia has always been Russian, not Ukraine.

There is no sign of American involvement, weapons or dead. If they were involved you'd expect a lot more success...

Peter, the Russians are there to protect the people of East Ukraine from the maniacs who rose up in Kiev. They are liberators. The people of the east will likely have a far better future as part of Russia anyhow.
My friends in the east of Ukraine are very angry about the actions of Kiev and want nothing more to do with them.


If American troops were involved Peter maybe Kiev would have been liberated by the Russians already ;)

Could you be so kind an provide a (at least ever so slightly trust worthy) source for that claim. It seems so counter- intuitive (also looking at the fact that the pro Russian Yanukovich had been elected my a majority back in the last elections).
I'm starting to wonder how that happened with a clearly anti- Russian Western Ukraine.
Now that we learned from you that Eastern Ukraine (and crimea?) are also majority anti- Russian I'm scratching my head a bit.

While Putin clearly got carried away in this case (Why does he motivate Sweden and Finland even more to join NATO by making such implicit threats? Sometimes I'm really wondering if he started drinking or is it desperation?).

That said I have the impression some here also got carried away a bit.
Putins tactics used so far are only suitable in countries/regions with major/majority Russian population. In a completely foreign Country this wouldn't work. He would have to use massive regular Military and heavy equipment and invade directly/openly and Keep a massive Invasion force continuously in place. That is something completely different from what he did so far and it is questionable if the Russian Military is capable of doing that on a sustainable basis. Russia's conventional Military is a tiny fraction of that of the former SU. (Unlike the nuclear Arsenal. That is still massive)
What he has been doing so far was more of arsonist nature. Not so much conquerer.

Actually in most of the troubles it seems like its the pro Ukrainians who get beaten a soon as they come out of hiding. As reported numerous times by independent reporters.

Actually its regarded as common knowledge, even in the Crimea it wasn't regarded as a slam dunk for all sorts of reasons.


Most polls (credible ones), have shown the east do not want to be part of Russia. The bloke running Crimea and his party only got a couple of percent at the last credible election.

As for why they got a pro Russian president, there's no mystery in that, its the same as why some other country's can get governments they don't want. As with whats common when you have a sh!t load of contenders, the one who can muster the biggest block wins.

So in this case, the pro western ones couldn't put their differences aside and go for a single candidate. You get the same in Egypt, and some European countrys. Sometimes theres a huge veiw on the public side towards one way, but their cannidates just squabble against one another and hence loose.

RR,
I have a number of Russian-Ukrainian friends (their families are in Ukraine) and, in discussions with them, they are saying pretty much what rh200 has just posted.


Believe nothing you read/hear in the media and only half of what you actually see.

My Ukrainian friends tell me different, well the ones in the east. The one in Kiev thinks much more differently. It almost feels like its two nations in one.


I have no doubt the vast majority of people in places like Crimea want to be with Russia. The place was part of Russia until the 1950s. Older people are going to remember those times and are angry they were given away by the Soviet leadership to Ukraine. My friends in Kharkiv and Donetsk are very envious of the people of Crimea now and wish they and their regions could join them. They tolerated Kiev while they had an eastern/Russian leaning President but now they are very unhappy about the situation and the coup in Kiev which they think Yanokovych should have done more to put down.
My Kiev friend again thinks differently.
But imagine how you/I would feel if a democratically elected leader that we supported along with most of the people in our region only to find he gets ousted in a coup backed by other nations and mainly involving people from other regions. Its no wonder separatism has taken hold in these parts of the country. It would likely be even more widespread if not so harshly put down by the military and regime security forces.

Really? Three independent polls by 3 different polling organisations would tend to indicate otherwise....

Pew Research Global: Despite Concerns about Governance, Ukrainians Want to Remain One Country

Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization: Public Opinion Survey Residents of Ukraine

Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation: How relations between Ukraine and Russia should look like? Public opinion polls’ results

https://sp1.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607...36685&pid=15.1

Forget about it, RR's on a roll...

Those figures in no way compare with what my eastern Ukrainian friends have told me about their views and those of their family and friends.


I guess many of you guys are cold war warriors. The trouble is guys the cold war is over. Its no good pretending the big bad Soviet Union/sorry Russian Federation is going to come and get us. There always has to be an enemy, something to keep the sheep scared. In reality they should be far more scared of the terrorists that our own actions have unleashed upon the middle east and likely in future coming to a country near you! So arguably the greatest threat we all face in the west is one caused by the incompetent actions of our own leaders!