What next for Putin?
 

Finland? :o

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9224273.html

One thing I have noticed is the BBC newsreaders' pronunciation of Putin - before the Ukraine thing it was Pew-tin, now they all say Poo-tin. :hmm2:

Let's hope it's just some wild speculation from a not-very-important 'advisor'!

You keep hearing how Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. Taking Finland is rebuilding the Russian Empire. Considering the hell Ivan went through in just reacquiring parts of Finland in the 1940s, I wouldn't think interest would be strong on that front again.

A Crimean vacation.:shifty:

Andrej Illarionov, if you google the name, you find some interesting detail about him, he certainly is no lunatic , but also, he obviously has a strong personal issue with Putin. Listen to him, he does not seem to deserve to be ignored - but take him with a grain of salt.

I see little signs, or none, that the Russians start to retake Finland.

German finance minister Schäuble yesterday compared Putin to Hitler. That was so very clever, since Schäuble is too high in political callibre as if Moscow can just ignore that. This useless comment will backfire against German investors in Russia, bet on it. Hope he enjoyed the seconds-long relief - it will cost others dearly.

I doubt Russia would have as much trouble taking Finland as they did in 39/40.

The burning question must be...if Russia does invade, what will the west do about it?

Nothing much the UK could about it as we have only few 1000 regular soldiers thanks to a certain party...............

If he tries to invade anyone going after Eastern Ukraine is still the best bet. Only reason I could see him going after Finland is to make sure that the Karelian Isthmus is better protected.

I doubt it would be a boots on the ground campaign but more of an air and sea strike campaign (UK wise).

Worst case scenario of course.

I read somewhere today that ever-neutral Switzerland has more MBTs than we do.

Do not go crazy! Better look at the neo-Nazis in the Ukraine and in any legalization of homosexuals and pedophiles in Europe. Is this normal? And Europe is afraid of Russian late, had to fear in the Soviet Union.

Its just sabre rattling is all!

Indeed. I heard Obama and Putin had a conversation this weekend, and as always I'm sure it went well. :)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CDCU8UtMjc...e_Beeler_1.jpg

Shake a big stick! :up:

This. :haha::shifty:

He's not doing Finland, unless it's some sort of Red Storm Rising scenario.

Plus, those ferrets are pretty tough, so I wouldn't mess with them. Perkele!

Of course they would, after all "Those who do not want war must have the means to make do so".

Starting to feel like Hitler, the games then invasion. I don't think Putin is dumb, but he knows our will is limited and Obama is weak, so now is the time for him to act. Like Hitler, I think he may create a crisis, have his forces create an attack on himself and with excuse take Ukraine. Still, I think that is unlikely. I think he is saber rattling to keep Crimea without issue.

I dont see him going after the Baltic states, members of Nato and that would have to be war. The scary thing if this area flames up, we could be looking at our next WW...

Just to be safe I'm gonna stockpile coffee, sugar and creamer..

It should be by the spirit of the treaty, yes. But by the letter, it must not be. Read article 5 carefully - it leaves a very wide open backdoor. I don't like that backdoor, but its there, unfortunately. Its a big misperception that any attack on a NATO country automatically would demand all member states to take military measures. Every state wanting to do so can opt out.

But Baltic and Finland currently I waste no concerns on. Turkey will give us problems sooner later, I think. The recent election shows that the Turks want to have a religious police state, and even massive corruption and nepotism does not scare them, it seems. Decades ago, they had a secular police state, and I think that was much less dangerous.

Let'S face it, NATO is not in shape to wage ground campaigns in defense of distant states like Finland or the far end of the Balkan, or the Crimea. Not against an enemy who is "slightly" stronger and potent than just Iraq. And whether Finland could be held - if one would come to its rescue - by mere air power alone, remains to be seen.

One thing I have noticed is that the Baltic states all have tiny militaries and only spend a small portion of their GDP on their military budgets. They probably are not going to be able to do much to defend themselves, although since they are small (and flat) countries it would be difficult for them to defend themselves against Russia alone, even if they had large militaries and spent more money on them. Basically, they are relying on the rest of NATO to defend them if it comes to that.

Latvia spends $75 per capita on its military, Lithuania $76, and Estonia a whopping $195. For comparison, Russia spends $629 and the US spends $2060 per capita on their respective militaries.

I don't seriously think Putin has any designs on them, but if I feel if the Baltic states are relying on NATO to deter Russian aggression they're dreaming. They'd be overrun before we could lift a finger. Even if they had the means to blunt a Russian offensive, the cost would be crushing and heartbreaking.

We only got two ships and one of those is searching for that crashed plane. :har:

We could always borrow that carrier off the French...provided they also supply it with aircraft :)