8 ms·

Didn't Russia (last month) threaten Finland/Sweden with 'consequences' should they decide joining NATO? Wondering what would those be. Putting both countries in

by nymalt 4y ago

Didn't Russia (last month) threaten Finland/Sweden with 'consequences' should they decide joining NATO? Wondering what would those be. Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'?

kreeben 4y ago
Worse! The enemy list. But what are they going to do, is what I want to know. Baltic sea will soon be pretty much closed for them and they sure could start WW3 over that but would they? They don't seem to have that in them.
- rendall 4y ago
  > Baltic sea will soon be pretty much closed for them Why would the Baltic Sea be closed to Russia? How would this be enforced?
  - baq 4y ago
    ...just look at the map?
  - kayodelycaon 4y ago
    Denmark controls access to the Baltic Sea. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@55.685476,11.0498096,7.54z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46f4d7d988201b2b:0xb43097ae8474cb3!8m2!3d58.487952!4d19.863281 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@55.685476,11.0... And Estonia and Finland control access to Russia's only ports in the Baltic Sea. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@60.5931556,25.2688527,6.63z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46f4d7d988201b2b:0xb43097ae8474cb3!8m2!3d58.487952!4d19.863281 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@60.5931556,25....
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      Well, Königsberg.
    - rendall 4y ago
      > "Estonia and Finland control access to Russia's only ports in the Baltic Sea" Not a true statement, your map notwithstanding. Denmark has an ironclad, centuries old agreement with the international community called the Copenhagen Convention never to restrict shipping or charge toll. Did you not know this?
      - kayodelycaon 4y ago
        > Did you not know this? I did not. I don't know exactly what to look for, but all I found was a single paragraph on the Sound Dues article on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues#Copenhagen_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues#Copenhagen_Conventi...
  - rendall 4y ago
    "Just look at the map" and related responses are non-sequiturs. Without a declaration of war, what is the legal mechanism by which Russian ships would be restricted from the Baltic Sea?
noir_lord 4y ago
Double secret probation probably. All Russia can do is bark, continue the "we aren't doing" cyber/disinformation attack or start lobbing nukes. #1 and #2 are business as usual, #3 is the end of civilisation.
qayxc 4y ago
> Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'? My best guess would be exactly that. The last thing Putin wants is a repeat of the Finno-Russian wars of 1917 and 1941, which resulted in catastrophic losses on the Soviet side.
- tovej 4y ago
  You mean the war of the winter 1939-1940 and the 1941-1944 war. 1917-1922 was the Russian civil war and 1918 the Finnish civil war. IIRC, some of the White Finnish raiding parties ventured into Russia, and the Bolsheviks supported the Finnish Reds, but you can't really speak of Soviet losses, the Russian Soviet Republic was founded in 1917 and only gained power due to the civil war.
  - qayxc 4y ago
    During the Finnish Civil war, which ultimately ended in Finish independence, the White Finnish forces ended the Russian presence in Finland and Soviet (yes, Soviet) soldiers who fought on the side of the Finnish Red Guard left the country. If you insist on nit-picking years, I only supplied the years of the start of the conflicts. You can go as far to include every border conflict, but that's completely besides the point. The forces that supported the Red Guard during the 1917-1918 war were all part of the Soviet forces in any case. > the Russian Soviet Republic was founded in 1917 and only gained power due to the civil war. They lost Finland and any influence on the country, which gained independence during that time, seeing that as "only gaining power" is a weird and twisted view on history.
    - tovej 4y ago
      Tsarist Russia/The Russian Soviet lost Finland, and Lenin acknowledged Finland's independence in 1917 before the Finnish civil war (in the hopes that the revolution would spread internationally and bring Finland and others back into the fold). So I take issue with the claim that it was the war that caused Lenin to lose Finland. The Bolsheviks and their Red army (not the Soviets, the Soviet Union itself was not founded until 1922) supported the Reds, but the boots on the ground were Finnish both for the Reds and the Whites, with German boots being decisively added in the landing at Hanko. The war was not a war for independence, but a war born out of the circumstances of the breakdown of Tsarist Russia, a famine, a lack of police force, and a general dissatisfaction among the working class, largely fueled by ideas from the Russian revolution of course. >If you insist on nit-picking years, I only supplied the years of the start of the conflicts. 1941 was not the start of the conflict, it was the second in a series of two wars. The entire interbellum time was used by both sides to prepare for further conflict. It is not a nitpick to say that Finland was involved in the winter war (1939-1940) and the continuation war (1941-1944), these are the two main wars that Finland was involved in during the second world war (the third most important one being the Lapland war against Germany). 1918 was an incredibly short civil war that caused no direct losses to the Bolsheviks, except that a Red government would have been sympathetic to the USSR and possibly joined it. On a more general note, using terms like "twisted view of history" is not a sign of a good-faith discussion, be civil.
vegai_ 4y ago
Year ago, 6 months ago, 3 months ago, started a war, 1 month ago, last week, yesterday. At one very specific point it stopped meaning anything.
- tyleo 4y ago
  Agreed. “You are now on the unfriendly list,” says Russia. Except Ukraine was on the friendly list and look at where that got them.
  - dijit 4y ago
    > Except Ukraine was on the friendly list [..] Once, maybe, but not since the revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
tremon 4y ago
Russia has been threatening Finland/Sweden with consequences for years. As the Finnish PM mentioned in his speech with Boris Johnson a few days ago, Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free.
- jgrahamc 4y ago
  As the Finnish PM mentioned in his speech I am pretty sure Sanna Marin is a woman.
  - ginko 4y ago
    I think GP was talking about the Finnish president's speech, actually. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLNBxpo8zY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLNBxpo8zY
  - tremon 4y ago
    Oh, then the speech I saw wasn't by the PM.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      Prez, probably. Sale is a guy.
- brabel 4y ago
  > Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free. When did Ukraine actually comply with any threat from Russia since at least the Maidan Revolution??
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - agent008t 4y ago
    Crimea was effectively allowed to be annexed by Russia.
dhdjjd 4y ago
Setting them as targets for nukes in the quite likely nuclear war. Russia doesn't have many arguments left.
password54321 4y ago
They have made a threat for just about everything now.
JacobiX 4y ago
Many military analysts predict that Russia will come out of the conflict as a much weaker country especially with the recent flood of heavy weapons that are being sent to Ukraine. In comparison NATO expenses are at least 70% of Russia's GDP and we can see from the past that NATO has already coordinated military operations (in Operation Allied Force, NATO deployed 1031+ aircraft and 30 warships & submarines, and in 2011 it performed an operation that lasted 222 days with virtually no impact on the coalition members). With that said, one can expect that there will be no possible 'consequences' if Finland/Sweden join NATO.
desproges 4y ago

by nymalt 4y ago

kreeben 4y ago

Worse! The enemy list. But what are they going to do, is what I want to know. Baltic sea will soon be pretty much closed for them and they sure could start WW3 over that but would they? They don't seem to have that in them.

rendall 4y ago
> Baltic sea will soon be pretty much closed for them Why would the Baltic Sea be closed to Russia? How would this be enforced?
- baq 4y ago
  ...just look at the map?
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
  Denmark controls access to the Baltic Sea. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@55.685476,11.0498096,7.54z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46f4d7d988201b2b:0xb43097ae8474cb3!8m2!3d58.487952!4d19.863281 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@55.685476,11.0... And Estonia and Finland control access to Russia's only ports in the Baltic Sea. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@60.5931556,25.2688527,6.63z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x46f4d7d988201b2b:0xb43097ae8474cb3!8m2!3d58.487952!4d19.863281 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltic+Sea/@60.5931556,25....
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    Well, Königsberg.
  - rendall 4y ago
    > "Estonia and Finland control access to Russia's only ports in the Baltic Sea" Not a true statement, your map notwithstanding. Denmark has an ironclad, centuries old agreement with the international community called the Copenhagen Convention never to restrict shipping or charge toll. Did you not know this?
    - kayodelycaon 4y ago
      > Did you not know this? I did not. I don't know exactly what to look for, but all I found was a single paragraph on the Sound Dues article on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues#Copenhagen_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Dues#Copenhagen_Conventi...
- rendall 4y ago
  "Just look at the map" and related responses are non-sequiturs. Without a declaration of war, what is the legal mechanism by which Russian ships would be restricted from the Baltic Sea?

noir_lord 4y ago

Double secret probation probably. All Russia can do is bark, continue the "we aren't doing" cyber/disinformation attack or start lobbing nukes. #1 and #2 are business as usual, #3 is the end of civilisation.

qayxc 4y ago

> Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'? My best guess would be exactly that. The last thing Putin wants is a repeat of the Finno-Russian wars of 1917 and 1941, which resulted in catastrophic losses on the Soviet side.

tovej 4y ago
You mean the war of the winter 1939-1940 and the 1941-1944 war. 1917-1922 was the Russian civil war and 1918 the Finnish civil war. IIRC, some of the White Finnish raiding parties ventured into Russia, and the Bolsheviks supported the Finnish Reds, but you can't really speak of Soviet losses, the Russian Soviet Republic was founded in 1917 and only gained power due to the civil war.
- qayxc 4y ago
  During the Finnish Civil war, which ultimately ended in Finish independence, the White Finnish forces ended the Russian presence in Finland and Soviet (yes, Soviet) soldiers who fought on the side of the Finnish Red Guard left the country. If you insist on nit-picking years, I only supplied the years of the start of the conflicts. You can go as far to include every border conflict, but that's completely besides the point. The forces that supported the Red Guard during the 1917-1918 war were all part of the Soviet forces in any case. > the Russian Soviet Republic was founded in 1917 and only gained power due to the civil war. They lost Finland and any influence on the country, which gained independence during that time, seeing that as "only gaining power" is a weird and twisted view on history.
  - tovej 4y ago
    Tsarist Russia/The Russian Soviet lost Finland, and Lenin acknowledged Finland's independence in 1917 before the Finnish civil war (in the hopes that the revolution would spread internationally and bring Finland and others back into the fold). So I take issue with the claim that it was the war that caused Lenin to lose Finland. The Bolsheviks and their Red army (not the Soviets, the Soviet Union itself was not founded until 1922) supported the Reds, but the boots on the ground were Finnish both for the Reds and the Whites, with German boots being decisively added in the landing at Hanko. The war was not a war for independence, but a war born out of the circumstances of the breakdown of Tsarist Russia, a famine, a lack of police force, and a general dissatisfaction among the working class, largely fueled by ideas from the Russian revolution of course. >If you insist on nit-picking years, I only supplied the years of the start of the conflicts. 1941 was not the start of the conflict, it was the second in a series of two wars. The entire interbellum time was used by both sides to prepare for further conflict. It is not a nitpick to say that Finland was involved in the winter war (1939-1940) and the continuation war (1941-1944), these are the two main wars that Finland was involved in during the second world war (the third most important one being the Lapland war against Germany). 1918 was an incredibly short civil war that caused no direct losses to the Bolsheviks, except that a Red government would have been sympathetic to the USSR and possibly joined it. On a more general note, using terms like "twisted view of history" is not a sign of a good-faith discussion, be civil.

vegai_ 4y ago

Year ago, 6 months ago, 3 months ago, started a war, 1 month ago, last week, yesterday. At one very specific point it stopped meaning anything.

tyleo 4y ago
Agreed. “You are now on the unfriendly list,” says Russia. Except Ukraine was on the friendly list and look at where that got them.
- dijit 4y ago
  > Except Ukraine was on the friendly list [..] Once, maybe, but not since the revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

tremon 4y ago

Russia has been threatening Finland/Sweden with consequences for years. As the Finnish PM mentioned in his speech with Boris Johnson a few days ago, Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free.

jgrahamc 4y ago
As the Finnish PM mentioned in his speech I am pretty sure Sanna Marin is a woman.
- ginko 4y ago
  I think GP was talking about the Finnish president's speech, actually. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLNBxpo8zY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLNBxpo8zY
- tremon 4y ago
  Oh, then the speech I saw wasn't by the PM.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    Prez, probably. Sale is a guy.
brabel 4y ago
> Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free. When did Ukraine actually comply with any threat from Russia since at least the Maidan Revolution??
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- agent008t 4y ago
  Crimea was effectively allowed to be annexed by Russia.

dhdjjd 4y ago

Setting them as targets for nukes in the quite likely nuclear war. Russia doesn't have many arguments left.

password54321 4y ago

They have made a threat for just about everything now.

JacobiX 4y ago

Many military analysts predict that Russia will come out of the conflict as a much weaker country especially with the recent flood of heavy weapons that are being sent to Ukraine. In comparison NATO expenses are at least 70% of Russia's GDP and we can see from the past that NATO has already coordinated military operations (in Operation Allied Force, NATO deployed 1031+ aircraft and 30 warships & submarines, and in 2011 it performed an operation that lasted 222 days with virtually no impact on the coalition members). With that said, one can expect that there will be no possible 'consequences' if Finland/Sweden join NATO.

desproges 4y ago