Putin 'wants to regain Finland' for Russia

[klr]

As April Fool's jokes go ... not bad.

Although the Finns might not appreciate it.

[FBM]

HuffPo and other reputable sources have picked up on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03 ... reloaded=1

Huffington Post UK | Posted: 30/03/2014 14:15 BST | Updated: 30/03/2014 22:59 BST

[SteveB]

Good, I want more worldwide instability! I'm heavily invested in gold.

[mistermack]

It never goes well when Russia goes on a Finland expedition without nukes.

The Finnish resistance is overrated. That war happened shortly after comrade Stalin had tens of thousands of the top officers purged from the red army, the morale and organisation at the time were zero.

Why would you want to fight the Finns, when you could get executed for no reason at any moment? It's not nice being an unwelcome invader anyway, I would just want to keep my head down, and survive till it was over.

The Russians fought very well, when they were defending their own country.

[Tero]

Wars in the Russian territory were simpler. Lots of it was treeless farmland, tanks could move freely, finland was bad for tanks. Trees and rocks.

[mistermack]

Wars in the Russian territory were simpler. Lots of it was treeless farmland, tanks could move freely, Finland was bad for tanks. Trees and rocks.

Stalingrad was similar, with rubble instead of trees and rocks, but the Russkis fought really well there.
It's just a question of organisation and motivation.

[Babel]

Wars in the Russian territory were simpler. Lots of it was treeless farmland, tanks could move freely, finland was bad for tanks. Trees and rocks.

and a lake here and there.

[MiM]

It would be interesting to hear MiM's views on this...

Oh, missed this thread completely...

No, that is not an April fools joke, and nothing anybody would make such of over here right now. That piece of news is true, and is cited also in reputable press over here. On the other hand, this Illarionov isn't among Putins best buddies anymore (far from, asfaik), so what he says should maybe not be taken too seriously.

There are even more haywire writings in some Russian papers, even making claims that there is serious discussion in Finland about voluntarily joining Russia. There has also been a long smearing campaign in the Russian press, claiming things like "Russian parents are specifically targeted by child protection in Finland, and their kids are taken away from them for almost no reason at all". This campaign has been fueled by one Finnish citizen Johan Bäckman, and whatever groups in Russia that he works with. The situation has become quite ugly at times, with high level Russian political attempts to interfere in Finnish sovereignty (not that we aren't used to that), e.g. by demanding things like "joint Russian/Finnish cooperation boards on child protection issues".

And yes, Russia has built up its troops against the Finnish border for some time already, as it has everywhere. And yes, there is a very serious discussion in Finland about joining Nato or not. Simplifying, there are two main views:

- Finland has a long history of being a "good neighbor" with Russia, which has benefited both countries, especially economically, through good trade relationships. Russia does not have anything to benefit from invading Finland, or harming this relationship in any way. Finland can only loose from changing this status quo, and should not take steps that would irritate Russia (so no Nato for us).

- Russia can never be completely trusted, and the only way for Finland to get security against a possibly expansive Russia is through joining Nato, which anyway is a natural part of the western world we belong to.

One interesting question (that I have not seen raised) is: If Russia would try to expand in Northern Europe, would it start from the Baltic countries, that were part of the Soviet Union, and has significant Russian minorities - but are NATO members. Or would it start from Finland, that has a longer history of independence, and only a few tens of thousand Russian speakers - but is not a part of a military alliance?

And yes, the Finnish efforts in WWII were heroic (as were the Russian in Stalingrad), and we still have a strong will to defend our country, even with weapons, be it so. We still have a conscription army, with every male being drafted for military service (for 1/2 to 1 year, and subsequent training). Also women can join (completely voluntary), and there is also a possibility for men to do a 1 year civil service instead.

[Svartalf]

Finland is not a NATO member? wow... I had assumed it was a part of it, precisely because it's too close to a guy that still holds half of what should be Finnish national territory (Karelia) to feel safe without the US nuclear shield...

[MiM]

Oh, and viewed from a Finnish standpoint (and quite objectively, also), Finland has never been a part of Russia. Finland was a part of Sweden until 1809, and after that a Grand Dutchy under the Russian Zar, with large autonomy, until getting full independence in 1917. Even the Russian ruble was used here for only 25 years (1840-1865), preceded by the Swedish riksdaler and followed by our own currency, the Finnish markka. Swedish, and later Finnish were the languages of governance, and with the Russian overlords French was often used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland

Svarty: Karelia wasn't even close to half the Finnish territory, but yes, that hurt. And when the Soviet Union fell, there was quite strong voices here demanding "Karelia back from the Russians". That was obviously never realistic. I actually have some understanding for Russia not wanting a border to the west, 20 km from St:Petersbug.