Tensions in the Baltic

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Finns must have mixed feelings. They know all about Russian aggression and how the Western powers ignored this aggression in order not to offend their important ally against Nazi Germany thus leaving Nazi Germany as Finland's only ally against Soviet Russia, clearly a no win situation. The peace terms forced upon Finland were IMO unfair. Neutrality and lots of military kit might be their best option instead of any NATO arrangements.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Finns must have mixed feelings. They know all about Russian aggression and how the Western powers ignored this aggression in order not to offend their important ally against Nazi Germany thus leaving Nazi Germany as Finland's only ally against Soviet Russia, clearly a no win situation. The peace terms forced upon Finland were IMO unfair. Neutrality and lots of military kit might be their best option instead of any NATO arrangements.
From what I recall, Russia was NOT an ally at the time it attacked Finland. It did not become "one of the allies" so to speak until Operation Barbarossa was launched at the end of June, 1941 while the war between Russia and Finland ended in March of 1940.

Also, there had been a plan for British and French troops to be sent in to help the Finns via northern Scandanavian, but Denmark, Norway and Sweden all refused to allow passage IIRC. This I believe is part of why Finland signed the peace treaty, despite surrendering significant land and areas of economic activity.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Estonia's president has again called for a permanent NATO force within his country. Regardless of how ordinary Russians (within Russia) view NATO or the Baltics, it's evident that (1) the leadership in the the Baltic states are uneasy with Russia and (2) Russian leadership has no intention of assuaging those fears. The saber rattling continues.

Estonia President Toomas Ilves seeks permanent Nato force - BBC News
Uneasy? It borders on outright hostility, and it's quite mutual.

Regardless of the presence of ethnic Russians, as I said previously, it is obvious that the Russian leadership is not interested in allaying any fears. It is not interested in harmonious existence. Diplomatic relations aren't even considered. It is an even more heavy handed approach to sabre rattling than what China is currently pursuing.
Diplomatic relations are definitely being considered. However Russia sees this as an inherently unequal relationship, and expects to be treated accordingly. Instead of trying to negotiate rationally, the Balts of course respond arrogantly and provocatively, leading to mutual dislike, and a rise in tensions.

In my opinion, rather like Nazi Germany, it is pursuing its own form of lebensraum. Kaliningrad and a corridor to the sea? Tongue in cheek aside, though, things do eerily resemble the lead up to the Second World War.
Not really. Russia is not pursuing some new "living space". It's merely looking to do what it has always done. This is not new, this is old. This is a pattern of foreign policy that goes back centuries.

unfort the skandinavian sensitivities about russias behaviour haven't been getting much traction outside of their own countries

eg the norwegians, swedes, finns all skipped the russian V-Day celebrations

Nikolay Patrushev, head of the Russian Security Council warned against negative influence from neighboring Finland - and has been "talking up" Finnish negativity towards russia and russian citizens

eg support for Finland joining NATO is far higher among members of the Finnish Reservists’ Association than in the rest of the country - and they were prev agnostic towards russian behaviour

the russians don't like admitting it, but their cross border incursions across skandinavian countries has increased by 600% over the last 3-4 years - and increases numerically every year
Well to be honest, I think Putin chose the wrong foreign policy angle when dealing with the Nordics.

To add. some of the Balkans states are interested in establishing a similar construct to what the skandinavians are doing. Lithuania. Latvia, Estonia, Poland have been actively looking at the option for the last 12 months. 2 of them have said that if "old europe" doesn't want US forces on their soil then they'll accommodate them.
Interesting how we don't seen similar attitudes in Hungary, Czech Republic, or Bulgaria. Let's not forget that historic animosity between Poland and Russia goes back to the days before the Polish-Lithuanian Union. And of course Russian history with the Balts is well known too, all the way to Alexander Nevskiy. None of this happened yesterday and none of this should be looked at outside the historic context.

From what I recall, Russia was NOT an ally at the time it attacked Finland. It did not become "one of the allies" so to speak until Operation Barbarossa was launched at the end of June, 1941 while the war between Russia and Finland ended in March of 1940.
Yep. Russia was an ostracized black sheep before WWII, on account of the communism and all.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
They know all about Russian aggression and how the Western powers ignored this aggression in order not to offend their important ally against Nazi Germany thus leaving Nazi Germany as Finland's only ally against Soviet Russia, clearly a no win situation.
To be fair to Britain and France; what could they have done? Even assuming they had the capability in 1939 to make a difference, would landing troops in Fnland to fight against the Soviets have made any difference? Would Stalin have backed off?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Well to be honest, I think Putin chose the wrong foreign policy angle when dealing with the Nordics.
they unfort appear to have taken a position of not checking themselves and just continuing to move forward

“Security situation in the Nordic countries significantly worsened”

Nordic Defence Ministers say Russian aggression and violations of international law and other international agreements forces a more coordinated Nordic preparedness against possible crises or incidents.
By Thomas Nilsen
April 10, 2015

In an op-ed in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten on Friday, the four Nordic Defence ministers and one Foreign Minister call for an extended military cooperation among them. The text also outlines possibilities for an extended cooperation with Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland plan for more joint exercises like the air-force drill Arctic Challenge to take place in the skies over Norway and Sweden next month.

Also, more industrial cooperation, including in the defence sector, more exchange of intelligence information and joint processing of cyber-material are on the priority list.

The ministers op-ed in Aftenposten triggers massive attention in Russian national media on Friday, being the top morning story on the Kremlin operated newsagency Sputnik, RIA Novosti, Argumenty i Fakti, RBC, Echo Moskva, Interfax, Regnum and others.

The ministers have a very clear message to Russia.

“The Russian aggression against the Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Crimea are violations of international law and other international agreements. Russia’s conduct represents the gravest challenge to European security. As a consequence, the security situation in the Nordic countries’ adjacent areas has become significantly worsened during the past year…. we must be prepared to face possible crises or incidents.”

Nordic defense cooperation has been on the agenda for some years, but this is the first time the ministers so clearly says such cooperation is needed due to Russia’s actions, not only in Ukraine, but also along the Nordic borders.

“The Russian military are acting in a challenging way along our borders, and there have been several infringes on the borders of the Baltic nations,” the ministers write and continues:

“Russia’s propaganda and political manoevering are contributing to sowing discord between the nations, as well as inside organisations like NATO and the EU” …. “The Nordic countries meet this situation with solidarity and a deepened cooperation.”


WRT the czechs they're not suffering incursions - nor are the Bulgarians (who have other concerns on their plates anyway). The Hungarians are already close to NATO and have elected to have discretion stay paramount - and they're also not suffering from any incursions.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Funnily enough, everyone with a border with Russia is worried by Russian behaviour along it, but some countries with no border with Russia don't have any such problems.

I wonder why that is. :D
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Funnily enough, everyone with a border with Russia is worried by Russian behaviour along it, but some countries with no border with Russia don't have any such problems.

I wonder why that is. :D
That's not even close to being true. Central Asia, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, China, and both Koreas have no real problems with Russia. The main problems seem to be with liberal democracies.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
To be fair to Britain and France; what could they have done? Even assuming they had the capability in 1939 to make a difference, would landing troops in Fnland to fight against the Soviets have made any difference? Would Stalin have backed off?

True, not much other than to supply weapons and maybe covert ops. The bigger issue was Finland's war reparation terms.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
That's not even close to being true. Central Asia, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, China, and both Koreas have no real problems with Russia. The main problems seem to be with liberal democracies.
Well, apart from quibbling about "Central Asia" & "both Koreas" (please show on a map Russia's borders with S. Korea, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, & Turkmenistan), that's a reasonable point. If you run an authoritarian state with shared interests with Putin in quashing any democratic nonsense, or have the second biggest (& heading for biggest) economy in the world & spend on your military to suit, or are sandwiched between Russia & the aforesaid superpower with neither wanting to provoke the other - no, you have no problems with Russia being on your borders.

But for anyone else, i.e. any country you might actually want to live in, Russia's a bad neighbour.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, apart from quibbling about "Central Asia" & "both Koreas" (please show on a map Russia's borders with S. Korea, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, & Turkmenistan), that's a reasonable point. If you run an authoritarian state with shared interests with Putin in quashing any democratic nonsense, or have the second biggest (& heading for biggest) economy in the world & spend on your military to suit, or are sandwiched between Russia & the aforesaid superpower with neither wanting to provoke the other - no, you have no problems with Russia being on your borders.

But for anyone else, i.e. any country you might actually want to live in, Russia's a bad neighbour.
Well to be honest, Russia has no land borders with Sweden either, and it's land border with Norway is more symbolic then anything else. So if we're interpreting borders to mean not a literal ability to walk across from one to the other, but the immediate geopolitical vicinity, then South Korea would very much apply.

And in all honesty while the rest of Central Asia doesn't necessarily share a land border with Russia, even if they did the situation would not be very different. Not to mention that they would probably receive much more Russian military aid (especially Tadjikistan and Uzbekistan) if they were on Russia's border, as opposed to an entire Kazakhstan away. They're friendly with Russia in many ways because of the southern threat, and rising Chinese influence, not to mention the traditional historic ties, and the fact that Russia came through for Tadjikistan in a big way in the 90s.

And of course we're missing Belarus. As for places to live, let's not forget that Georgia is a pseudo democratic plutocracy with a fairly low standard of living, and some fairly heinous warcrimes in its recent history. And of course Ukraine.... well enough said. I think the common factor is not a nice place to live but more so post-Soviet nationalism. It's almost the same as it was with western colonies in Africa, where once the locals took over they wanted to erase any presence of the former colonial masters, some going as far as Rhodesia did. And of course once the empires left Africa, things didn't exactly get better. Now because Africa is far away geographically, and because the empires turned into liberal democracies (not overnight but over time), they let it go (for the most part, hint hint France in Mali). Russia is geographically closer, and politically more prone to modern imperialism, so they're less willing to relinquish heavy handed control. I think the correct analogy with Russia and Ukraine is France and Algeria, rather then 1930s Europe. The same way that many Frenchmen regarded Algeria as not a colony, but a piece of France, just overseas, many Russians regard Ukraine as not a country (not really anyway) but just the south-western portion of Russia. These views are not in the majority, but they do have a fairly sound historic basis (if you read literature written in Ukraine during the imperial period, you won't really see Ukraine as much as you will see Novorossiya and Malorossiya). And even in Soviet times Malorossiya was a perfectly acceptable, and not in the slightest derogatory, term for Ukraine.

What stands out from this are the Nordics, and I really have to wonder what Putin's intent with regards to them is. Viktor Rezun (aka Suvorov) mentions in Aquarium that giant no-warning exercises were indistinguishable from war, even for their own participants up to a point, as a way to keep NATO from knowing whether this was the beginning of WWIII or just training. Maybe the current probings into Nordic airspace are meant to set the stage for a potential future move in the arctic, where Russia will grab certain disputed real estate, and it won't be realize that this time is for real until it's too late. But this is just guesswork. Personally I think it's a huge miscalculation. The correct way to go would have been to leave them alone, and cultivate friendly relations as much as possible. It would have gone further towards splitting NATO and the EU on key issues, and overall toned down the western response to something like Ukraine.
 

Rimasta

Member
Putin is a lot of things, but monumentally stupid is not one of them, the Baltic's are NATO members and EU states, which people like to forget, I cannot see Russia making a move against them.
I agree. Changing the borders of Europe especially has proven problematic in a historical context. Two world wars and plenty of little ones. I doubt Putin would be so stupid as to start a third major war in Europe, just for Narva. The pledge of NATO is there, and at the very least it would mean war with the United States, at most it'd mean war with NATO as a whole. I dont think the Baltic's are worth risking Armageddon.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
AFAIK, only Switzerland, & maybe Sweden (the 2A4/Strv 121s it got to fill the gap until the Strv 122/2A5 was delivered) & Spain (2A4 - again, gap filler pending 2A6) have potentially surplus Leopard 2s now.
Both the German Army and German industry retain significant Leopard 2A4 stocks. The Army has about 300 A4 in reserve depots without assigned units; the industry has been actively buying back Sweden's Strv121 and Swiss Pz87.

In this regard it should be noted that industry stocks do not appear in Germany's UN register listings; register holdings of the army are about 620 total as of last year (from which the Polish sale of 120 has to be deducted). Rheinmetall should be holding at least 200, KMW at least 50. Most sales in recent times have not come from industry stocks, but from army depots (with industry upgrade). The 100 Leopard 2A4 to be reactivated for the German Army come from these industry stocks, and are effectively a round-robin affair to keep combined German Army stocks at 600+ Leo 2 (plus 100+ Leo 1).

Switzerland currently retains 96 mothballed A4 in "strategic reserve". Spain has retired half its A4, and is planning to sell them. Might go to Bahrain, they've been looking at them to replace their M60s.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Black Sea is nearly a NOGO zone if it gets kinetic.
I wouldn't say "no-go"

I'd say its a solid contender for being one of the most saturated areas in the world from a geoint and sensor overlap perspective....
 

ATA-Türk

Banned Member
I laugh at the arrogant russians. They have already an hostile Country at their borders with Ukraine and they try to mess with ME countries over syria.

Admin - Text deleted. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this slipped in at the same time I gave my final warning 8 hrs ago

any further slip ups and any one of the Mods in here will be shoving you out the door

Read the rules - civil debate is mandatory - firestarters are not welcome
feel free to contribute - but don't continue to walk into the room throwing verbal grades and insulting people and countries and not expect a reaction

after all - if someone else said similar things about the Turks and Turkey you'd feel more than aggrieved.

You seriously need to lift your game as the toleration meter is exhausted...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Hardly a no-go zone. It will take some effort, but NATO, hell the US alone, can destroy those systems.
I agree, my mistake, I was quoting the article from Janes I added the link for.
Once those RedForce systems light up they are immediately targets of opportunity.

That said, given the tight confines of the Crimean Pennisula and the Black Sea I would imagine it would take several days of prep to degrade opposing systems prior to any regional forces could be inserted
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
I laugh at the arrogant russians. They have already an hostile Country at their borders with Ukraine and they try to mess with ME countries over syria.

Putin is an insane Little prick
See my previous caution for civil discussion to you in the Syria thread. No one cares whether or not you're laughing at the Russians. Add something to the discussion or find the door, before it finds you.
 
Top