Jump to content

The Karelian question


Jopo1980

  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Karelia be returned to Finland?

    • Yes, historically it belongs to Finland.
      3
    • No, it is Russian territory now, paid for in blood.
      8
    • I refuse to answer this question. (Out of fear?)
      1
  2. 2. Is Karelia worth fighting for?

    • Yes, it is historical Finnish territory
      3
    • No, no piece of land is worth a war.
      9
  3. 3. If Karelia is returned, what should be done to the Russians living there?

    • Grant them Finnish citizenship
      12
    • Deport them.
      0
    • Encourage them to leave (financially etc.)
      0


Recommended Posts

So in fact Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria etc. All the Eastern European members of NATO are being duped, cheated by the US, as it has no intention to go to war to defend them in case of a conflict with Russia? It is true that Europe cannot trust the US in security matters on the long term and the EU should develop its own security organizations, but for the moment it seems that since the majority of EU members are part of NATO, there is little willingness to develop a parallel independent security structure. So we are left counting on NATO and the NATO treaty obligates all of its members to consider an attack on one of them an attack on them all, so NATO is bound to defend Eastern Europe. The fact that NATO has no permanent bases in Eastern Europe is due to the fact that they promised so to the Russians and even then I believe there were some NATO bases In Romania, used for extraordinary rendition and other black ops purposes.

 

Despite the current amicable relations between Russia and Finland, Russia remains the geopolitical threat that Finland prepares to fight. During the Cold War we were obligated to defend our neutrality against either the Soviets or NATO. If for example NATO forces tried to advance through Finnish territory from northern Norway to try and flank the Russians around Murmansk, the primary Russian northern naval base and hence a strategic goal even today, we would have been obligated to defend our territory according to the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation (YYA) between the SU and Finland, with Soviet help if necessary.

The treaties with the soviets became null and void when it dissolved and today Finland is a member of the EU and looks to west for allies and Russia remains the geopolitical threat in the eyes of the army. Finnish army does not train to fight the Swedes or Norwegians, but Russians and the Russians still consider Finland a potential enemy, partly because of the dispute over Karelia.

 

If Finland cannot trust the rest of Europe or the US for security guarantees, then perhaps we should indeed develop our own technology to defend ourselves. We have the necessary technology and knowhow to build nuclear weapons, so maybe we should start a weapons program to guarantee a retaliatory capacity in case of a war with Russia. Simple, if Finland gets invaded and is about to lose, we nuke Moscow and St. Petersburg and all other major Russian cities. That would make the price of conquering Finland unacceptable to any Russian leadership.

Some say that nuclear weapons don´t bring security and that the inevitable retaliatory attack would wipe any nation off the face of the Earth, but that´s just the reality of war and what would be the alternative, trust in the goodwill of the Russians? I think we have seen several times in history that the Russians cannot be trusted, that is why we have our armed forces, which considering the population of Finland are fairly strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If Finland cannot trust the rest of Europe or the US for security guarantees, then perhaps we should indeed develop our own technology to defend ourselves. We have the necessary technology and knowhow to build nuclear weapons, so maybe we should start a weapons program to guarantee a retaliatory capacity in case of a war with Russia.

 

Thats what i would do if i was leader of any country

on country lvl you can never really trust someone, watching history channel clearly shows that eventually even best friends leave you.

However at the moment i dare say nuclear weapons are getting old. To utilize them you would need good way of transportation. Currently russia got one of strongest nuclear weapon arsenals in world, Topol M and Bulava are flagships of said arsenal. There is also super secret mobile complex that is constantly on the move and nuclear trains arsenal.

Most countrys trying to develop nuclear weaponry at the moment are trying to compete whit giants. Russia same as America or China will always have better nuclear strategic reservse they got more money to build them and more expirience since they building them for loong loong time.

I would say that any country at the moment that dosent have 20+ years of nuclear weaponry research behind belt wont even come close to competing whit them.

That however dose not mean that evry small country in the world is bound to be wiped out eventually. Nuclear weapons are 50 years old, time to develop something new. there have been plenty rumors that next (big) weapons will be natural weapons that utilize athmosphere to create storms or earth to create earthguakes. And so oon and so oon. When it comes to weapons choises are endless. Humans always will make new tools to kill others.

 

Here is super weapon that i would like to create: Female super model android that would do evrything that male(owner says) and same version for females. in 50 years humanity will be wiped out of the planet and skynet will take over. and there wont be single shot made to do this :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never say never, remember that only a few years before WW-1 or WW-2, nobody would have thought that the world would explode. Maybe WW-3 is only a decade away and we don´t yet see any warning signs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWII was preceded by the rise of fascism, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and years of appeasement. It surprised approximately nobody.

 

If Russia turns evil, there will probably be a war in Estonia, a war in Belarus, five more wars in the Caucasus, and – why not? – a war in Mongolia before guns turn toward Finland.

Edited by Marxist ßastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I rarely agree with Marxist this time I do, on the 'to do' list of Russian post Soviet imperialism Finland is at the end of the list. They (the Russians) have much more pressing issues than Finland to concern themselves with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can say 99% sure that in next 20 year minimum Russia will not go into any wars unprovoked just due to situation inside country, besides whit afganistan and caucaz situations there is no need to search for new enemies.

Besides who starts wars, ppl who lead and are in hight posts, this ppl most likely have property on Fins territory, said property could get damaged in armed conflict maby even destroyed, and it costs ton of theyr own money, whyy would they start war that can turn bad for themselfs ?

Maby if situation gets a lot beter in sayd 20 years Russia may go to war, but again not whit Finland, it will be afcanistan or chechnya or something on that border.

Under provoked situation i would asume that russia will make preamptive strike to provoker and any allies of the provoker that are in close proximity of surgical strike. how ever even said event is unlikly whit nuclear weapons. most likely they will shoot few shots whit cannons and make some arial strikes on border of some country no more than that.

to much time passed for world to start major armed conflicts, after 70-80 years of peace (relative) ppl forgot how to war, and even small cassualties(1-2% of country population) lead to change in leadership, said leadership dosent want to be changed so, no war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that the Russians don´t have the financial means to support a large scale war effort and won´t have it for a long time. Besides, Russians are cutting down on their armed forces because of financial concerns. I greet Russias weakness with unrestrained joy. A weak Russia is good for Finland as Russia is our only projected enemy and will be so in the future. There are no other external threats to Finland than Russia. Russia is seeking to strengthen her position by allying herself more closely with China, but in a war in Europe, China can do little, so in the European theater it will be the entire of EU and possibly the US against Russia alone, so I have high confidence that the western forces would prevail, although the risk of the conflict going nuclear increases with the impending defeat of Russian conventional forces.

 

The world has been anything but peaceful after WW-2, there have been numerous conflicts, but none on the scale of being a World War. This is because the major powers fear that such a war might bring about a massive nuclear holocaust. However, as the horrors of WW-2 fade into history, we may be more likely to have such a major conflict as none of our current or future leaders remember that war. The saying that no democratic nation has ever gone to war against another democracy, may someday be unproven as all it takes is a die hard nationalist leader to hijack power in some major country and as a result we will have war. The US is a good example of a democracy always in war. It seems that every US president must prove his/her worth by going to war somewhere. Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, what war will Obama have or will he be deterred from invading Iran for example by the fact that he is a Nobel peace prize winner and it would look very bad if he suddenly decided to start a major conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all Finns think like you, it seems more likely that Finland would be the aggressor in a war with Russia.

 

Also, nuclear war has clearly become less likely since WWII. In the Korean War, Gen. MacArthur and the Joint Chiefs all thought that a massive nuclear bombing campaign in China was the smart option. And China under Mao spent a lot of time trying to instigate a full-scale nuclear war between the US and the USSR. The situation has settled down a bit since then, wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all Finns think like you, it seems more likely that Finland would be the aggressor in a war with Russia.

i kinda agree, but i really really hope that there are people that realize that war will never help theyr individual life, war brings only hunger, pain, death, and destruction on so many leverls.

 

As to Russia cutting its military funding it would be silly to belive that. Yes there is less military personal but russia spending more and more on producing new age technologies and i bet among them are new weapons that would rival nuclear arsenal.

 

Im not sure about this info but i think about 4 years ago i heard that there are close to 8000+ Nuclear Rockets whit 50-100 Kiloton nuclear charge that are prepare for war constantly. Even 10% of that would be good to bring europe to stoneage. So even if europe + america + someone else joins in conguest against Russia and would be defeating ground forces there is no way to counter 8000 nukes. Currently on wiki it says 12000 nukes but i think that counts close range ICBM's aswell.

 

Btw we all were close to WWIII and Nuclear was just a while ago whit North / South korea conflict, I still remember that pretty lady on news sayind in korean whit that fighting vigorocy that they are ready for Holy Nuclear War ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...