Ukraine Redux

[213374U]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26729273

 

Well, can't say I see this as all that bad.

 

Yeah, apparently homeboy had declared that he was afraid of being killed by police. Also the Defense Minister just resigned. Housecleaning?

 

 

 

If posters are too dense to understand why darling, boo, sweet pea or love would be considered insulting/trolling then I again advise everyone to follow the golden rule: Address the post and not the poster.

 

OK. Am I the only one who finds it a bit surreal that the only time a mod steps in on this is to suggest that people refrain from calling others darling/sweet pea?  

[Tigranes]

What? Sweet pea is incredibly offensive!

[213374U]

What? Sweet pea is incredibly offensive!

 

I'll be sure to slap my grandma across the face next time, thanks for the heads up!

[Gfted1]

OK. Am I the only one who finds it a bit surreal that the only time a mod steps in on this is to suggest that people refrain from calling others darling/sweet pea?  

We do not moderate every slapfight but when the thread is threatening to completely collapse due to petty personal insults Ill occasionally try to salvage it. I was actually impressed you didn't take his bait.

[Zoraptor]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26729273

 

Well, can't say I see this as all that bad.

Yeah, not exactly a nice guy.

 

Reckon the most significant thing in that article was confirmation that a significant majority of the Ukrainian troops in Crimea simply defected, first time I've seen that admitted anywhere even if it is buried on paragraph 4 of an article mainly about something else. From actually watching the news you got the impression that it was all heroic passive resistance against overwhelming odds- unless you actually looked at the people singing the Ukrainian national anthem and noticed only around a fifth of the people were actually singing.

[Sarex]

Yeah, not exactly a nice guy.

 

Reckon the most significant thing in that article was confirmation that a significant majority of the Ukrainian troops in Crimea simply defected, first time I've seen that admitted anywhere even if it is buried on paragraph 4 of an article mainly about something else. From actually watching the news you got the impression that it was all heroic passive resistance against overwhelming odds- unless you actually looked at the people singing the Ukrainian national anthem and noticed only around a fifth of the people were actually singing.

 

It is becoming apparent that this whole revolution lacked the support of the people.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What? Sweet pea is incredibly offensive!

Not as vile as "bossy" though.

[BruceVC]

 

OK. Am I the only one who finds it a bit surreal that the only time a mod steps in on this is to suggest that people refrain from calling others darling/sweet pea?  

We do not moderate every slapfight but when the thread is threatening to completely collapse due to petty personal insults Ill occasionally try to salvage it. I was actually impressed you didn't take his bait.

 

 

To be honest I had no idea who you were talking about or what you actually meant, but now I understand.

 

I don't mean to be rude but sometimes you make these one line comments that might as well be in Mandarin ...because I just don't get what you are saying

 

But saying all that  I think you Mods all do an excellent job at allowing us to have our  debates which I imagine must seem a little pointless and repetative at times

Edited March 26, 2014 by BruceVC

[Mor]

 

I was referring to several news items that followed on the heels of Russian action in Ukraine, claiming that Sweden considered to revise its previous position on Nato membership. As for Finland, I am not familiar with situation there, but I suspect that it might be more complicated case like with any other state in Russia sphere of influence and further NATO enlargement.

 

I doubt this action will have a significant direct effect on the current trend of Russian power in Central Asia one way or another. ( unlike the adverse effect on relations with Europe, or intervention in Syria effect on middle eastern countries). Btw this arena is one of the concerns of "westren" policy makers, that to harsh sanctions might disturb the balance of powers, leading Russia toward China.

 

In Finland NATO membership has been on table from founding days of NATO, as then USSR and now Russia had/have quite aggressive foreign politic and Russians have long history to invade to lands of Finland, which is why many people see that membership in NATO would give Finland extra protection against possible future aggression or at least make invading Finland less sensible thing to do. But on other hand Russia is Finland neighbour which Finland also has as long history of trade and cooperation as it has history of aggression from Russia, and Finland don't have best history with NATO countries either, as we have been in war with several of them, although only UK has ever attacked us (during Crimean war), I think. And in second world war, USA and UK (and some other NATO countries) gave their support for USSR and put heavy sanctions for Finland. Which why Finland is quite reluctant to join any military alliances. Of course there is also discussion how NATO membership will effect Finland's military spending and do Finland need to take part in NATO operations when it's a member. 

 

Although now it looks like that Russian's actions in Crimean may have given enough support for NATO membership that first time of history constitutional majority of Finland's parliament could support joining in NATO. On the other hand Cabinet of Finland is currently very indecisive (in all subjects, not only this), which probably means that current Crimean crisis will be over and new parliament have elected before there is even first version of bill written about subject.

 

Unlike Sweden, I haven't seen any mention of Finland in this regard. Like I noted before, any NATO expansion into Russian perceived sphere of influence would require more than just couple of papers signed. As Russian actions in Ukraine (and Georgia) showed, with recent annexation being just the most recent action in a long campaign.

 

Another alternative is just sit and wait. Like with Soviet expansion ~during Brezhnev time, which was fueled by soaring prices in the global energy sector and fell from grace as they fell, helped by looming costs of Afghan war. Same here Putin rise was fueled by energy sector (and leveling Chechnya), has been in a decline for a while(with new "friends" outside from Asia to Europe). IMO the best thing that can happen is that Russia make good on its promises and invest in that region, like Sochi Olympics monster expenditure which was a pretext to improve infrastructure and situation in the region, a strategic investment into the region situated between volatile North Caucasus(where Chechnya war took place), break away regions such as abkhazia(Georgia invasion) and now Crimea(Ukraine invasion). Which is great, except just like before such Nationalistic projects tend to divert money from the "mainland" draining the public pigy bank, which usually comes back to bite you in the ass when the economy wheel turns. As it happened before several times, with Russian western region which generally has higher life standards and education trying to break away from the Eastren part third world country conditions, which are far more amendable to old school Soviet style rule.

 

 

It is becoming apparent that this whole revolution lacked the support of the people.

Your cognitive dissonance continues to amaze me. First you dismiss Euromaiden issues -- a movement which followed the failure of 2004 orange revolution goals -- by ignoring it and after the brutal dispersal came by focusing on the trouble makers. Same with interim government --which was an Ukrainian compromise to resolve the crisis with great support on both sides-- by focusing on possible radical influences and what they might do (which came as nothing) and now that the authorities work against radical trouble maker elements that gained power during the turmoil, what you take from this is that :/

 

Btw for what it worth I actually thought that Yanukovych did a nice thing securing Russian loans by playing on 'joining the EU campaign' (as much as you can go right with a loanshark). Nevertheless he never solved the standing issues from 2004, making necessary unpopular reforms to deal with a stagnate economy, and instead of dealing with corruption, he appointed cronies from his close circle to those business groups that enjoyed special privileges (much like Putin in Russia), shooting on opposition activists was just the final act of his government delegitimization.

[Elerond]

 Like I noted before, any NATO expansion into Russian perceived sphere of influence would require more than just couple of papers signed. As Russian actions in Ukraine (and Georgia) showed, with recent annexation being just the most recent action in a long campaign.

 

2004 lot of countries that one could say are in Russian perceived sphere of influence more than Finland joined in NATO, like for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

 

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed. 

 

Of course joining in NATO could rise political tensions with Russia, which of course could impact our trade and agreements with them, but as Finland is already member of EU and does military cooperation with NATO countries predicted impacts caused by joining in NATO are seen minor. And as by joining in NATO Finland also has high probability that its weapon trade in NATO countries rise, as currently Finnish military contractors can't make offers on most valuable contracts, as they are mostly only for member states and of course as members state Finland would get cheaper contracts on some of its equipment and get some equipment possibly to acquire some equipment that Finland is currently prohibited to buy, which would probably mean that military pending would drop from it current level. 

 

So joining to any multinational organization that has some actual economical, political or/and military power is of course more complicate than signing couple papers, especially when joining said organization is against current constitution, which currently state that Finland is nonallied country, but it's not Russia's influence that keeps Finland out of NATO.

[BruceVC]

 

 Like I noted before, any NATO expansion into Russian perceived sphere of influence would require more than just couple of papers signed. As Russian actions in Ukraine (and Georgia) showed, with recent annexation being just the most recent action in a long campaign.

 

2004 lot of countries that one could say are in Russian perceived sphere of influence more than Finland joined in NATO, like for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

 

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed. 

 

Of course joining in NATO could rise political tensions with Russia, which of course could impact our trade and agreements with them, but as Finland is already member of EU and does military cooperation with NATO countries predicted impacts caused by joining in NATO are seen minor. And as by joining in NATO Finland also has high probability that its weapon trade in NATO countries rise, as currently Finnish military contractors can't make offers on most valuable contracts, as they are mostly only for member states and of course as members state Finland would get cheaper contracts on some of its equipment and get some equipment possibly to acquire some equipment that Finland is currently prohibited to buy, which would probably mean that military pending would drop from it current level. 

 

So joining to any multinational organization that has some actual economical, political or/and military power is of course more complicate than signing couple papers, especially when joining said organization is against current constitution, which currently state that Finland is nonallied country, but it's not Russia's influence that keeps Finland out of NATO.

 

 

Elerond I heard that the Finnish army uses reindeers to transport its soldiers and military hardware and this is the main reason you guys can't join NATO as NATO doesn't allow animals to be used in times of war, is this true?

[Elerond]

 

 

 Like I noted before, any NATO expansion into Russian perceived sphere of influence would require more than just couple of papers signed. As Russian actions in Ukraine (and Georgia) showed, with recent annexation being just the most recent action in a long campaign.

 

2004 lot of countries that one could say are in Russian perceived sphere of influence more than Finland joined in NATO, like for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

 

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed. 

 

Of course joining in NATO could rise political tensions with Russia, which of course could impact our trade and agreements with them, but as Finland is already member of EU and does military cooperation with NATO countries predicted impacts caused by joining in NATO are seen minor. And as by joining in NATO Finland also has high probability that its weapon trade in NATO countries rise, as currently Finnish military contractors can't make offers on most valuable contracts, as they are mostly only for member states and of course as members state Finland would get cheaper contracts on some of its equipment and get some equipment possibly to acquire some equipment that Finland is currently prohibited to buy, which would probably mean that military pending would drop from it current level. 

 

So joining to any multinational organization that has some actual economical, political or/and military power is of course more complicate than signing couple papers, especially when joining said organization is against current constitution, which currently state that Finland is nonallied country, but it's not Russia's influence that keeps Finland out of NATO.

 

 

Elerond I heard that the Finnish army uses reindeers to transport its soldiers and military hardware and this is the main reason you guys can't join NATO as NATO doesn't allow animals to be used in times of war, is this true?

 

 

Yeah they are part of our polar bear infantry platoon.

 

 

Not really

EDIT: Most that military has do with reindeer is that sometimes accidentally or on purpose herd of reindeer wander in artillery target areas and become annihilated and military compensates such lost for owners of said herd

EDIT2: Reason why Finnish military isn't compatible with NATO is that we have still quite lot weaponry from USSR and our infantry weapons have higher caliber than what NATO uses, as they are designed to be used mainly in forests instead of cities or open areas.  

 

 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Elerond

[Valsuelm]

Don't do it Finland! NATO is a Tarp!

[Elerond]

Don't do it Finland! NATO is a Tarp!

 

As current cabinet has lot of heat from their welfare reform and nuclear plant deal with Rosatom, one can be quite sure that there will not be bill for joining in NATO before next year's parliament elections, which means that, if Russia don't escalate crisis in Ukraine anymore, Finland will not even begin to join in NATO at least before 2020, as constitutional change needs blessing from two parliaments if there isn't 5/6 majority in parliament, that will vote issue to be urgent. 

[BruceVC]

Don't do it Finland! NATO is a Tarp!

 

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around  geographical hegemony

[Agiel]

 

 

Not really

EDIT: Most that military has do with reindeer is that sometimes accidentally or on purpose herd of reindeer wander in artillery target areas and become annihilated and military compensates such lost for owners of said herd

EDIT2: Reason why Finnish military isn't compatible with NATO is that we have still quite lot weaponry from USSR and our infantry weapons have higher caliber than what NATO uses, as they are designed to be used mainly in forests instead of cities or open areas.  

 

 

 

 

Well the primary air defense fighter of the Finnish Air Force now is the F-18. The "/A" was omitted for the Finnish designation apparently to underline the fact that it was for defensive operations only, though modernisation packages included the LITENING II targeting pod for target acquisition and prosecution with precision guided munitions. They have also acquired the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which their theoretical opponent has no real answer to (or at least one that is deployed widely) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has HOBS capabilities though I do not know if helmet-mounted cueing systems were included in the deal (in any case, even without it the Bug still has its automatic acquisition modes of the  AN/APG-73 to take some advantage of the missile's capabilities).

 

As for armour the Finnish military has pushed the T-72 out of service, fully replacing them with variations of the Leopard 2. Procurement of German Leopard 2A4s began following the end of the Cold War and recently they have purchased the last remaining Dutch Leopard 2A6es (which improve on the -A4 with advanced optics for the tank commander, inter-vehicular information systems, monolithic armour inserts, a turret wedge that improves protection against KE penetrators, strengthened roof armour against DPICMs, and most prominently, a lengthened L/55 gun over the L/44 of the -A4, which gives it a relatively spectacular improvement in muzzle velocity and long-range armour penetration over the already impressive L/44. As the L/55 gun is a 120mm smoothbore it is fully compatible with almost all NATO tank munitions save for those from the UK. It is theoretically possible to upgrade their existing Leo 2A4s to the KWS I (upgrade to the gun, the IVIS) Leopard 2A6 standard, though if this proves restrictively costly in money and time they can be upgraded to the KWS II (improved optics, add-on armour) Leo 2A5 standard (the KWS II upgrade package was implemented sooner for the German and Dutch Armies than the KWS I).

 

The Finnish military has also purchased Swedish CV-90 IFVs to complement their fleet of Soviet-made BMP-2s, the former of which for my money I feel to be far better suited for the Finnish military's needs (the BMP-2 was built to roll through the Fulda Gap and the North German Plains, not the rolling, probably snow-covered hills of Scandinavia). 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Agiel

[Elerond]

 

Don't do it Finland! NATO is a Tarp!

 

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around  geographical hegemony

 

 

There would be military consequences even if Finland don't join in NATO, as Finish Defense Forces are well equipped and it has quite large number soldiers to put front of hostile forces and some question if those military consequences would be any higher even if Finland joins in NATO, as NATO has been quite unwilling to do any military actions against Russia whole time that NATO has existed, especially when it comes towards places like Finland that has little strategic value for NATO and has only little amount natural resources that interest NATO countries. And last time Russia (USSR) attacked and tried annex Finland with false pretense end result was that international community put Finland compensate its losses.

[obyknven]

 

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around  geographical hegemony

 

You so evil one! Finland can become victim of Russian agression only in case of joining NATO. While Finland stay neutral nobody in Russia don't harm to them (common business, common interests).

[BruceVC]

 

 

Don't do it Finland! NATO is a Tarp!

 

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around  geographical hegemony

 

 

There would be military consequences even if Finland don't join in NATO, as Finish Defense Forces are well equipped and it has quite large number soldiers to put front of hostile forces and some question if those military consequences would be any higher even if Finland joins in NATO, as NATO has been quite unwilling to do any military actions against Russia whole time that NATO has existed, especially when it comes towards places like Finland that has little strategic value for NATO and has only little amount natural resources that interest NATO countries. And last time Russia (USSR) attacked and tried annex Finland with false pretense end result was that international community put Finland compensate its losses.

 

 

Thats true and in the past understandably NATO has been reluctant to go to war with Russia and the USSR. But since Crimea things have changed, John Kerry has been assuring countries like the Baltic states that they won't allow another Crimea annexation of NATO members. But I am not suggesting Putin or NATO needs to go to war or will ever go to war. Its just less likely that Russia will consider annexing any part of Finland if they are part of NATO. After Crimea it is should be obvious to Russia that illegally annexing of parts of a country will not be acceptable and there will be economic consequences, because  we are talking about powers that have nuclear technology and thats the best way to get countries like Russia to change there direction. I don't predict an actual war just economic isolation

[obyknven]

Meanwhile new leaked conversation of best EU and US friends from Ukraine.

http://youtu.be/WvpDHwbvDY8

 

They just want solving Russian question and kill 8 000 000 Ukrainian citiezens.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Not really

EDIT: Most that military has do with reindeer is that sometimes accidentally or on purpose herd of reindeer wander in artillery target areas and become annihilated and military compensates such lost for owners of said herd

EDIT2: Reason why Finnish military isn't compatible with NATO is that we have still quite lot weaponry from USSR and our infantry weapons have higher caliber than what NATO uses, as they are designed to be used mainly in forests instead of cities or open areas.  

 

 

 

 

Well the primary air defense fighter of the Finnish Air Force now is the F-18. The "/A" was omitted for the Finnish designation apparently to underline the fact that it was for defensive operations only, though modernisation packages included the LITENING II targeting pod for target acquisition and prosecution with precision guided munitions. They have also acquired the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which their theoretical opponent has no real answer to (or at least one that is deployed widely) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has HOBS capabilities though I do not know if helmet-mounted cueing systems were included in the deal (in any case, even without it the Bug still has its automatic acquisition modes of the  AN/APG-73 to take some advantage of the missile's capabilities).

 

AIM-120 AMRAAM acquisition was put on hold as in tests revealed that their motors had problems to work in cold (-54 degrees of Celsius, which is typical high altitude temperature, especially in winter), I am not sure if they have fixed problem and delivered missiles already or is they still on hold. 

[obyknven]

New mod for Civ V - Natalia Poklonskaya's Empire of Crimea (Cauton! Mad Ukrainians in comments)

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=240108029

 

Adds the overpowered Empire of Crimeaand its supreme ruler Serene Empress Natalia I. Poklonskaya the Beautiful to the game.

TRAIT
Increased rate of Great People, especially Great Generals, since people from all over the world fall in love with Natalia and join her cause! Population causes less unhappiness.

UNIQUE UNIT
Defender of Natalia, a slightly improved Great General. As a special little feature, these Defenders are members of the Facebook fan group of Natalia!

UNIQUE BUILDING
Natalia Statue. Instead of building a courthouse, Natalia just builds a statue of herself in occupied cites. Everyone immediately falls in love with her! This statue adds some culture and tourism output, gives units in this city more experience and adds a little defensive power (People fight with more motivation to defend the city if they see a great golden statue of their Supreme Empress).

 

 

[kgambit]

 

 

 

 

Not really

EDIT: Most that military has do with reindeer is that sometimes accidentally or on purpose herd of reindeer wander in artillery target areas and become annihilated and military compensates such lost for owners of said herd

EDIT2: Reason why Finnish military isn't compatible with NATO is that we have still quite lot weaponry from USSR and our infantry weapons have higher caliber than what NATO uses, as they are designed to be used mainly in forests instead of cities or open areas.  

 

 

 

 

Well the primary air defense fighter of the Finnish Air Force now is the F-18. The "/A" was omitted for the Finnish designation apparently to underline the fact that it was for defensive operations only, though modernisation packages included the LITENING II targeting pod for target acquisition and prosecution with precision guided munitions. They have also acquired the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which their theoretical opponent has no real answer to (or at least one that is deployed widely) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has HOBS capabilities though I do not know if helmet-mounted cueing systems were included in the deal (in any case, even without it the Bug still has its automatic acquisition modes of the  AN/APG-73 to take some advantage of the missile's capabilities).

 

AIM-120 AMRAAM acquisition was put on hold as in tests revealed that their motors had problems to work in cold (-54 degrees of Celsius, which is typical high altitude temperature, especially in winter), I am not sure if they have fixed problem and delivered missiles already or is they still on hold. 

 

 

The problem has been fixed.  It turned out it was the result of changing the formula for the rocket propellant several times to comply with environmental regulations. This led to the rocket motors becoming unreliable. 

 

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Norwegian-Rocket-Makers-Save-AMRAAM-12-22-2012.asp

[Rostere]

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed.

 

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa.

[BruceVC]

 

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed.

 

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa.

 

 

Why would Norway have joined NATO and not Sweden?