Russia Warns Finland over NATO excercise

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Didn't Finland lose half their armed forces in the Winter War? I can't remember whether that statistic I read was half their army or half of their men in total. What a bloody affair.

One thing that definitely helped the Finns was Stalin's purge of the Red Army. With Red leadership in shamble the Finns were able to resist the Russian steamroller effectively.




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mkgandhas
 

That depends on our THEL deployment doesn't it? The old Nuclear game is being replaced with an orbital armament game. If ,in secret, we haven't already. What do you bet questionable launches where ever they are from will mysteriously fail as well as North Korea's has? Even MIRV warheads have been around long enough to be countered.
Next Tier tech is OUR bread and butter,Russia is close but they don't have the money to push it.Nukes are old news....so long as we stop them from being made everywhere.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas

Originally posted by Bearack
reply to post by mkgandhas
 


My apologies. I thought you were referring to Russian armaments.


95% of the official nuclear missiles are in excellent condition.plus there is yamantau.


Maybe of their new reconstructed armory, but the Soviet made armaments, there has been major ridicule of how improper the decayed components have been dealt with. There are several claims that Russian officials cannot account for all their nuclear devices. Again, they have ALLOT more controls in place today, but you must admit that when the Soviet Union collapsed, the entire nations was in major disarray.

They are on a massive rebuild to get their arsenal out of a vintage state. Much of their new equipment is in line with the US, it's just not widely distributed among their entire military foot print.

I'm also not saying they wouldn't be a formidable foe today, but I am saying they have a slight disadvantage to a nation that has been developing and building at war time levels every since the end of the cold war while Russia was still getting their proverbial marbles back.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by michael1983l
 


russian debt is far lower compared to western debt.Russia has a very balanced budget.

As for kicking the rear be not surprised if USA/NATO ceases to exist after a war with Russia.


Really?
It would be MAD! Mutual Assured Destruction!
Nothing would exist!



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


Russia is far from a Superpower, they have a tin pot Conscription army, they have mass financial hardship amongst their citizens and they have no money. The only reason Russia gets away with its posturing is at the minute it is not worth the human cost in kicking their arses.


and all this time I thought it was because they nested atop 5,000 ICBM's (give or take a few)!
2nd



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bearack
 


Maybe you should refer to Pavel Podvig's work where he has stated that 90% of the russian nuclear missiles are in good operational conditions.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


The mass plutonium fallout of Fukushima is evidence that humanity can survive and win a massive nuclear war.A nuclear bomb fallout is much cleaner than Fukushima,Chernobyl and Three mile island.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Nothing new. Russia wouldn't want their neighbour in an unfriendly alliance. Finland would be prime realestate for nukes etc. for NATO. They've always been vocal about their opposition.
What I worry about is that the current president is one of the monkies who promised secretly to US that Finland will join NATO if they win the elections. They didn't win luckily but now the idiot is a president. It's not necessarily bad for our eastern relationships. Problem that I see is the fact that we've always been a great neutral country. We've had great negotiators. We've had excellent peace keepers. If we throw away that neutrality then no conflict zone will trust us to be impartial and we wont have the same effect in bringing peace to the world.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AFewGoodWomen
 


en.wikipedia.org... well this man made sure a good deal of russians never came back to their family's last time they tangled....

Simo Häyhä (Finnish pronunciation: [ˈsimɔ ˈhæy̯hæ]; December 17, 1905 – April 1, 2002), nicknamed "White Death" (Russian: Белая смерть, Belaya Smert; Finnish: valkoinen kuolema; Swedish: den vita döden) by the Red Army, was a Finnish sniper. Using a modified Mosin–Nagant in the Winter War, he has the highest recorded number of confirmed sniper kills – 505 – in any major war.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...

The Soviet forces had more than three times as many soldiers as the Finns, thirty times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. The Red Army, however, had been crippled by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's Great Purge of 1937, reducing the army's morale and efficiency shortly before the outbreak of the fighting.[27] With more than 30,000 of its army officers executed or imprisoned, including most of those of the highest ranks, the Red Army in 1939 had many inexperienced senior officers.[28][29] Because of these factors, and high commitment and morale in the Finnish forces, Finland was able to resist the Soviet invasion for far longer than the Soviets expected.[30]


never underestimate your opponent as that is fatal in war and while its a different time and different type of war waged now as opposed to then the Finns held their ground for far longer against a country vastly larger and more industrialized then they were who knows how many Simo Häyhä's there are in finland today trying to live up to the reputation of their national hero



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Zippidee
 


eh to be fair your both right as just as a ground invasion of the usa is suicide its COLD suicide to invade russia soviet or otherwise and history proves that in spades for them.while i like my country the usa i know that as powerful as we are we cant just march into Moscow and tell the Russians what to do as it would be as bloody and impossible a feat as marching on dc (unless your Canada as they did it once to us)

its not just mad that keeps the peace its the fact that if Russia and America ever went into a conventional war the toll would be something our respective countries have not seen since ww2 least in my opinion at least for what its worth not to mention what it would do to each of our countries economicly



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Zippidee
 


eh to be fair your both right as just as a ground invasion of the usa is suicide its COLD suicide to invade russia soviet or otherwise and history proves that in spades for them.while i like my country the usa i know that as powerful as we are we cant just march into Moscow and tell the Russians what to do as it would be as bloody and impossible a feat as marching on dc (unless your Canada as they did it once to us)

its not just mad that keeps the peace its the fact that if Russia and America ever went into a conventional war the toll would be something our respective countries have not seen since ww2 least in my opinion at least for what its worth not to mention what it would do to each of our countries economicly


As the Brits marched into Washington, Napoleon also marched into Moscow. Difference being, The Brits burnt down the whitehouse while the Russian burnt down Moscow.

But, not to digress and to your point, we are in agreement.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vozda
Could only find this onthe Swedish news paper
www.aftonbladet.se... 8.ab

Russia is furious about Finland coperation with NATO and training excercise ...

Well I'm a Finn and in Finland, and I've read the whole speech of general Makarov, and many newspaper articles about it, so maybe I could help you out.

First of all, the people of Finland have always voted against joining to NATO. The people have very high will of national defence, and desire to do that independently. Despite of this, the political leaders of Finland, especially the conservatives, have gradually merged Finland as a partner to some NATO co-operation. The relationships with Finland and Russia are very friendly. Finnish and Russian heads of state visit each others quite often.

About the speech of the commander of the Russian military, general Makarov.

Russia or Makarov weren't furious at anything. That's a wild exaggeration. Quite the contrary, he emphasized the friendly relationships between the countries and thanked the non-alliance politics of Finland. But there was concern. He did rise the issue of Finland's recent co-operation with NATO, and NATO military exercises Finland has participated, as well as the military exercises near the Finnish-Russian border. He did say at certain conditions that could be a threat to Russia.

I'll translate some key points (as Finnish does not translate well with translation machines). Even though I use quotation marks for clarity's sake, the translation is mine.

You can find the speech in this URL, it's in Finnish, but use a translator: yle.fi...

This about the relationship of the countries:

"The historical closeness of our countries helps to strengthen the diverse relationships between our ccountries. The military co-operation is delelopping actively. The staff of the head quaters negotiate regularly. Different level military delegations meet regularly each others. I'm hoping also this visit helps to advance the friendship between Finland and Russia.

In International relationships Russia aims to continue developping friendly relationships and expand co-operation with countriess... As an example of of this political course could be the acts of Russia developing trust and friendly relationships with Finland. During the last 15 years we have considerably reduced our military units against the Finnish border. By January 1st 2008 Russia had reduced her Leningrad region military forces over 70%.

Our own measures confirm the friendly course with the Finnish relationships, which is reflected with the political, economic, cultural and other agreements.

Russia views positively the Finnish foreign politics line of non-alliance, and the regional co-operation developping which benefits both countries.

I want to emphatize once more, that the Russian measures to renew our armed forces are not aimed against friendly countries. What comes to Finland, we believe that Finland remains non-allied and will not join NATO, and that the military co-operation between our countries continues to increase."

Here is the part that caused the big news headers in the newspapers:

"But it disturbs remarkably the development of relationships between Russia and Finland, that Finland aids the influence of NATO in the arctic regions without Russia.

According to our specialists the practical participation of Finland with NATO's ”Nordefco” co-operation and military exercises with NATO proves, that Finland is gradually joining with the NATO action circles. In some conditions this can even cause a threat to Russia's security

It also rises questions that Finnish defence forces have increased their activity near our area. The military planes of Finland regularly fly 10km away from our border. Everybody knows that the military forces of the eastern province helds annually military exercises that are named "East". It rises a question against whom and why the military exercises are held.

We are also worried the military co-operation of Finland and Georgia."

Well I can answer to that question about military exercises in the eastern Finland. Yes, they are aimed mainly against Russia. Yet, this shouldn't concern Russia. It's natural, comparing the military foces between the nations. Finland needs to stay sharp. It also helps Finland to remain non-allied!

General Makarov also expressed the hopes of Russia that the Arctic Sea region would not see growth of militarization, and that they would reach an agreement with NATO of co-operation in the missile defence systems rather than opposing each others.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
Didn't Finland lose half their armed forces in the Winter War? I can't remember whether that statistic I read was half their army or half of their men in total. What a bloody affair.

One thing that definitely helped the Finns was Stalin's purge of the Red Army. With Red leadership in shamble the Finns were able to resist the Russian steamroller effectively.

Not quite that bloody, luckily.

Background:

In Winter War (Talvisota in Finnish) 1939-40 Finland fought against Soviet Union alone (Germany was secret ally of Soviet Union with Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's Secret Protocoll).

In the Continuation War (Jatkosota in Finnish) 1941-1944 Finland was a co-belligerent with Germany.

The population of Finland was 3.7 million in 1940. The army was ill-equipped: Finland had practically no armored vechiles and tanks nor anti-tanks weapons and only a rudimentary air force. What Finland had was skies, good horses (the strongest work horse in the world, even though relatively small, and peaceful by nature) and people accustomed to forests and cold winter.

In the Winter War,
Finland had 340 000 men in the military, 32 tanks and 114 aeroplanes.
The Soviet Union had 1 000 000 men, 3 000 tanks and 3 800 aeroplanes.
fi.wikipedia.org...

In the Continuation War,
Finland had 530 000 men in the military, tanks were mainly spoil of war, captured Soviet tanks. About 100 combat fighters until 1943. Later about 200 combat fighters and 40 bombers (and in addition some aeroplanes as spoil of war).
The Soviet Union had 1 500 000 men, 5 000 tanks and 5 000 aeroplanes.
fi.wikipedia.org...

Finland lost killed and missing 89 108 men. So that's about 1/6 of the troops got killed.

In both wars, Finnish troops managed to defeat the Soviet attacking force. Had the Soviets crushed the defence, Finland would have been occupied.

The 1944 Soviet summer assault was one of the biggest operations in the World War II. Actually Stalin diverted the reserve forces from the German front to the Finnish front, to crush the Finnish resistance first. Finland had to withdrew in several successive battles until the decisive victory in Tali-Ihantala battle was achieved. After the assault lost its momentum and was stopped, the Soviets started to divert their efforts to the German front and made peace with Finland.

Yes, Stalin's purge had removed experienced officers. Most of all Finland was helped that the Soviets underestimated the resistance. By numbers Finland seemed completely unable to resist a modern army. That surprise helped in the Winter War, but no more in the Continuation War. Also Finns were helped by the rough terrain and harsh weather. Arms aid from Germany during Continuation War played a role. Finns also think, maybe the national concept of "sisu," a spirit of never giving up, had something to do with it.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hurja
 

skis, that is, not "skies".

Clarifying: Finland received German antitank weaponry during 1944, that played a role stopping the Soviet tanks.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join