Ukraine War Thread

[madd0ct0r]

reasonably good cause, only a few million? oh for fucks sake comicalstorm. I'm not derailing the thread though, but please look at little more into who Ho Chi Minh tried to ally with.

[K. A. Pital]

Even when America acted it's worst it "only" killed a few million people drawn out over many years and for a reasonably good cause, in Vietnam.

That is supposed to be... a defence? I bet many people in Latin America and the Middle East would seriously disagree about the scale and consequences of the US' (not 'America' - it isn't)... hmm... How did you say that? National psychosis, oh yes.

However, that said, the US has not been behaving like that in Eastern Europe, and perhaps this is why American influence there could be considered more beneficial.

[Lonestar]

(not 'America' - it isn't)

It's commonly referred to as "America" by both it's citizens and foreigners. At this point you're just looking to score pedantic Internet points.

[Dark Hellion]

Jesus fucking christ people. For all the shit that America has done (and we've done a lot) it is utter fucking folly to say we are not the better choice between the brutal repression of the Soviets and the corrupt kleptocracy that is the Russian Federation. I get that is it all the vogue to shit all over the U.S. and I don't disagree with the idea the the U.S. idea of itself needs to be taken down a peg but the practical choice between the two should be fucking clear as day to all but the most hardened ideologue.

(BTW, drunk post).

[Elfdart]

RT is just a constant stream of propaganda throughout this whole thing. It's to be expected of course as they're funded by the Kremlin, but it's just so disappointing to see it being played out day in, day out. I only really watch it for the late night shows anyway tbh, the news quality is a few bars below BBC.

Sounds about 1/100th as bad as US "news" channels.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Jesus fucking christ people. For all the shit that America has done (and we've done a lot) it is utter fucking folly to say we are not the better choice between the brutal repression of the Soviets and the corrupt kleptocracy that is the Russian Federation. I get that is it all the vogue to shit all over the U.S. and I don't disagree with the idea the the U.S. idea of itself needs to be taken down a peg but the practical choice between the two should be fucking clear as day to all but the most hardened ideologue.

(BTW, drunk post).

You guys don't do the oppressing. The thing is you guys back the guys doing the oppressing financially etc. Look at Iran, Phillipines, Egypt etc. Then when it all blows back at you guys, you guys just huff and puff and what not. This is why plenty of people outside of Europe don't like America too much.

And a shining of example of how retarded all that was was when you guys gave Ferdinand Marcos a nice retirement home in Hawaii.

[cosmicalstorm]

The Holodomor alone probably killed as many or more as the entire vietnam war.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Vympel]

Take a good look at the history between my country and Russia. That should explain quite a bit. Anything that lessens Russian power and especially anything that lessens its ability to flex its military muscles in its neighbors' territory means an automatic gain for Finland.

Haven't Russia and Finland had decent relations since WW2? There's no indication that Russia has territorial ambitions against Finland.

The Baltic countries joined NATO as soon as they could for a very good reason. We should have joined at the same time as well. Too bad most of my countrymen are, with respect to security policy, fuckwits who still regard joining NATO as more dangerous than Russia.

To the extent that they fear they'll be drawn into a Europe-wide conflagaration in the event of NATO getting into a war with Russia that would otherwise have nothing to do with them, I'd think its quite a rational fear. How would Finland joining NATO have helped it in the last 70 or so years?

As to reducing Russian influence or whatever - needless to say I don't see that as a worthy goal, precisely because that's the sort of shit that starts wars in the first place.

However, notwithstanding that,it'd obviously be great if we could somehow wave a magic wand and Ukraine could have functioning political institutions, an equitable society, low corruption, and all that other great stuff.

To the extent that closer association with the EU offers that, any reasonable person should embrace that. Its not clear it would do any such thing, though.

However, the EU (and the US) made a massive mistake in dancing on Yanukvoych's political grave and endoursing his overthrow. They repudiated the principles of the Feb 21 agreement which everyone either agreed to or endorsed, and thought they could present it to Russia, as Putin said, as "an accomplished fact".

They were fucking idiots to think that Russia wouldn't respond in a highly aggressive manner, given the clear signals Russia has been sending for years that it wouldn't stand for that sort of bullshit - and worse it was completely fucking unncessary.

Early elections would've seen Yanukovych out in a far more legitimate fashion and the association agreement would likely have been signed anyway. The opposition could not possibly have ignored western pressure to honor the spirit of that agreement. Instead, they feted an illegitimate government as anything other than the illegitimate caretaker government it actually was, thinking they could impose the will of the mob on the Maidan on a divided country.

Politics is the art of the possible - anyone making policy that has no regard for how victims or targets of that policy will react is a fuckhead (especially when the victim/target is Russia, and has a far greater stake in the country in question than you ever will, and a demonstrable will to go further than you in prosecuting that stake), and whining about how the victim/target fucked everything up and started a whole lot of shit doesn't mean you get to dodge your share of the blame, even though it is obviously indirect.

[K. A. Pital]

(not 'America' - it isn't)

It's commonly referred to as "America" by both it's citizens and foreigners. At this point you're just looking to score pedantic Internet points.

Except I was doing just that and then inadvertedly insulted my Latin American friends. So shove your fuck-headed extrapolations about why I say something right where they belong.

[Tiriol]

Take a good look at the history between my country and Russia. That should explain quite a bit. Anything that lessens Russian power and especially anything that lessens its ability to flex its military muscles in its neighbors' territory means an automatic gain for Finland.

Haven't Russia and Finland had decent relations since WW2? There's no indication that Russia has territorial ambitions against Finland.

I'm in a hurry so I'm going to reply only to this part of your post, Vympel (I usually try to reply to the entire post, sorry about it).

After WW2 the Soviet Union did its best to infiltrate Finnish society with pro-Soviet hardline socialists and communists: if it weren't for the Social Democrat Party and its alliance with right wing parties in Finland, Finland would have turned into a nice people's republic in no time flat. Afterwards the Soviets kept meddling in Finnish affairs and made damn sure that Urho Kekkonen was elected President time and time again by applying pressure on Finland at the right time; later on the Soviets helped the hard-line communist youth movement ("taistolaiset", roughly meaning "people of Taisto") to gain foothold in Finnish universities and politics. And they were openly discussing about violent revolution (even though some of their former members now deny everything and blissfully talk about how it was meant as a peace movement). The Soviets mucked about as much as they could - fortunately for Finland Soviet Union was keen on showing that it had splendid relationship with a neighboring country that wasn't part of the Warsaw Pact or a socialist country.

However, it wasn't as bad as it could have been and after Stalin's time Soviets didn't usually do anything forceful. And while Kekkonen was one ambitious bald bastard (Lex Luthor has nothing on Kekkonen), he also knew how to play the Soviet leaders like a fiddle - even Stalin, if the urban stories about their encounters are true. Mostly the era of "Finlandization" was about Finns trying their very best not to make a fuss about Soviets and cultivating good relations with their eastern neighbors (out of fear, mostly, although as I have indicated, there were many who were all gung-ho about Soviets). But there was not much real warmth or love exchanged there and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when the Soviet Union came down. Now those who lived through the Cold War say that it's almost like the Soviet Union would be back and that has sent support for Nato to grow in Finland with the idea of "Never again shall we live under Soviet thumb!".

As for territorial ambition... I don't know. Not in the usual sense ("We'll take that piece of land!"), but several comments from Russian authorities during the last several years indicate that they still consider Finland to be part of their sphere of influence and try to act as if Finland should be their vassal state or something. Of course the Finns' Russophobia goes a long, long way back to history, at least to 18th century or more. It doesn't help that Finnish-Russian relations during early 20th century all the way to WW2 weren't that good, including the time when Finland was a Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire. From that point of view America and Nato are a hell lot better choice (America, after all, hasn't ever annexed Finnish territories).

[Thanas]

They were fucking idiots to think that Russia wouldn't respond in a highly aggressive manner, given the clear signals Russia has been sending for years that it wouldn't stand for that sort of bullshit - and worse it was completely fucking unncessary.

Yes, forgive them for believing Russians aren't 19th century barbarians anymore. Putin sure cured them of that mistaken belief of Russia having joined civilized society which doesn't view warfare as a legitimate tool.

Early elections would've seen Yanukovych out in a far more legitimate fashion and the association agreement would likely have been signed anyway. The opposition could not possibly have ignored western pressure to honor the spirit of that agreement. Instead, they feted an illegitimate government as anything other than the illegitimate caretaker government it actually was, thinking they could impose the will of the mob on the Maidan on a divided country.

Oh please. The riots only started after Russia had already infiltrated the east, they were Russian started, Russian controlled from the start.

and whining about how the victim/target fucked everything up and started a whole lot of shit doesn't mean you get to dodge your share of the blame, even though it is obviously indirect.

Oh, I think I am quite willing to agree that the west deserves the smaller part of the blame. But the biggest part always lays with those who start the shooting and those who actually invade.

[K. A. Pital]

Putin sure cured them of that mistaken belief of Russia having joined civilized society which doesn't view warfare as a legitimate tool.

By that you mean a bunch of nations that invaded Iraq based on a lie and forgery worthy of the Gleiwitz? Because I found more than just one nation pillaging the Middle East, you know, in very, very recent history. Shove that high horse back in the stable, Thanas. Putin is a ruthless imperialist, but he isn't the only one to behave that way.

[Irbis]

Even when America acted it's worst it "only" killed a few million people drawn out over many years and for a reasonably good cause, in Vietnam.

Sure, if you don't count 10 million who died in South East Asian wars alone, and the fact that USA supported Pol Pot regime when Vietnam moved to remove him. The fucking most bloodthirsty dictator in history was cuddled by NATO and had their UN veto used to defend him, not to mention mass arms shipments. Great going there

I get that is it all the vogue to shit all over the U.S. and I don't disagree with the idea the the U.S. idea of itself needs to be taken down a peg but the practical choice between the two should be fucking clear as day to all but the most hardened ideologue.

Gee, if you compare Warsaw Pact countries with South American ones, what with their Uncle Sam capitalist embrace and anti-communist bloodbath every time anything vaguely left tried to govern them... Take a guess, which group has higher standard of living and economy now

Pinochet alone during first 10 years of his regime killed more than communists in Poland in 40, despite Chile having far smaller population.

After WW2 the Soviet Union did its best to infiltrate Finnish society with pro-Soviet hardline socialists and communists

Yeah, compared to death squads in about entire US sphere outside of Europe, and armed bands of right wing thugs suspected to engage in political murder and mass organized crime in Europe proper this sounds really evil

No, really, I bet it wasn't nice, but guys, know proportions, maybe? Saying bullshit USA is somehow better because Soviets tried to promote socialism with their soft power is utter nonsense and incredibly insulting to victims of "superior" US treatment.

Yes, forgive them for believing Russians aren't 19th century barbarians anymore. Putin sure cured them of that mistaken belief of Russia having joined civilized society which doesn't view warfare as a legitimate tool.

Yeah, no, besides of reflexive knee jerk Russophobia and comparing 2014 Russia to Soviet Union without any arguments I didn't saw anything to support that. Civilized? I mean, even without Iraq, NATO has Russia beat both in European illegal border changes (Kosovo) and rigged referendums that barely met the very low requirements NATO itself posted (Montenegro).

Unless you postulate 55% of population is good enough, but doing the same referendum in Ukraine in January 2014 would mean some 60% of it going to Russia. Or would 'civilized' move be first bombing Ukraine to the ground for 2 months, then invade and occupy all of it, then set up however rigged referendum you want, like NATO does?

I guess Serbia should have deleted both Montenegro and Kosovo autonomies, removing any internal borders that might be used against them in the future, forbid any language but Serbian to be spoken, then bomb dissidents with cluster bombs while labelling them as terrorist as it seems to be what it takes to be cool to NATO today.

But the biggest part always lays with those who start the shooting and those who actually invade.

You mean Maidan? Because funny, I seem to recall week of shooting the police with Molotov cocktails, catapults, and pistols the west Ukrainian right wing protesters sported before they tried to disperse the whole thing by force. Or is Eastasia no longer in war with Oceania now?

Or do you perhaps mean initial "anti-terrorist operation" when pretty much the same stuff that happened on Maidan was met with MLRS Grad barrages and mass burning of people in buildings? You know, before even Ukrainians could claim there are any Russians in Ukraine?

Or is internal invasion using west Ukrainian military units and "volunteer battalions" to stomp minority opposition okay? I recall the flimsy justification of Kosovo was it's not, but I might have missed the "Only if NATO does it" part.

[Siege]

I'll just up and admit that I simply don't understand why devolved power for the east wasn't agreed upon months ago, well before airliners got shot down, cities got blown apart, and however many hundreds or thousands of people got killed. It seemed obvious to me from the moment the Maidan protests resolved themselves the way they did that increased eastern autonomy was going to have to be the end result.

I suppose after losing Crimea ceding even more autonomy was unpalatable to the Ukrainian government, but that just means they engaged in prolonged warfare that killed scores of innocents because that was preferable to accepting reality. Suffice it to say that's not a clear-headed, morally superior stance to take.

Well now, assuming the cease-fire holds, they get to deal with exactly that same situation anyway, but now with the added political weight of thousands of dead bodies and the problem of what to do with the armed, fanatical, battle-hardened paramilitaries returning from the front.

Congratulations, guys. You are now Serbia mid-1990s. Well done.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-08/r ... tion=world

Ukraine crisis: Russia to consider restricting airspace as ceasefire holds
Updated 8 Sep 2014, 8:22pm

Russia says it will retaliate against a new round of Western sanctions over Ukraine and may block flights through its airspace.

Prime minister Dmitry Medvedev also suggested sanctions would not make the Kremlin change its course, adding that Russians - like the Chinese - would simply pull together in the face of new punitive measures.

The European Union is expected to consider new sanctions against Russia if a truce agreed between Kremlin-backed rebels and Kiev forces broke down in eastern Ukraine.

It would be a further blow to Russia's ailing economy, already teetering on the brink of recession.

"I was hoping that our partners would be smarter. Alas ..." Mr Medvedev, who served a four-year stint as president before ceding the Kremlin to his mentor Vladimir Putin in 2012, told the liberal business daily Vedomosti.

"If there are sanctions related to energy, further limits for our financial sector, we will have to respond asymmetrically," he said, adding it may target flights over Russia.

"We proceed from the fact that we have friendly relations with our partners and that is why the sky over Russia is open for flights. But if they put limits on us, we will have to respond."

Mr Medvedev said the ban could mean "many airlines" would go bankrupt.

"But that is a bad story. We just want our partners to realise it at some point," he said.

"Sanctions certainly don't help bring peace in Ukraine. They hit wide of the mark and an absolute majority of politicians realise that," he said, blaming forces who he said wanted to "use force" in international relations.

'I hope our Western partners don't want this'

The Russian government first said in August it was considering banning the use of its airspace for European airlines, the so-called over-flight rights needed to take the shortest route between Europe and Asia.

US airlines have not been allowed to use Siberian airspace for years and have been pushing the Russian government to review its policy.

Mr Medvedev said a spiral of sanctions could lead to a breach in international security.

"I hope that our Western partners don't want this and there are no mad people among those who make decisions."

Mr Medvedev also drew parallels between Russia and China, which was targeted by what he said were similar sanctions over the crackdown on student protesters in 1989.

"Now let's take a look. Did the development of the Chinese economy become worse? No," he said.

"Did China feel punished? No. They simply mobilised internal resources. To a certain degree these sanctions were beneficial to China."

Ceasefire holding, despite minor clashes

Meanwhile, the ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia appeared to be holding despite some reports of sporadic fire from pro-Russian separatists overnight.

Both the rebels and the Ukrainian military insist they are strictly observing the ceasefire and blame their opponents for any violations.

The Ukrainian military's press centre listed overnight rebel violations of the ceasefire accord in five sites, while the separatists accused government forces of preparing to storm a town near rebel-held Donetsk, the region's industrial hub.

There were no reports of casualties.

The most serious violation of the ceasefire at the weekend occurred on the eastern edge of government-held Mariupol, where government forces came under artillery attack late on Saturday.

One woman was killed and four people injured in the shelling.

Local officials in Mariupol said Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko was expected on Monday to visit the city of 500,000, a key port for Ukraine's steel exports.

Kiev could not immediately confirm the visit.

Ukrainian media said the rebels had handed over 15 prisoners of war, the first stage of an exchange both sides committed to under the terms of the ceasefire accord.

UN officials say the death toll from fighting in eastern Ukraine is more than 2,700.

I am pretty sure the situation in China in the 1980s is somewhat different from Russia in the present.

For one thing China was still a poor country by World Bank standards, and its easier to generate good growth initially by increasing inputs. Russia is a high income country by these same standards, although nowhere as close as say, my own country.

Another thing is that China was still required to offset Soviet power. Who will Russia be required to offset? Before someone says China (and I know some sinophobic Western sources has said it), keep in mind Putin tried to bring China (and India) into the dispute by praising them for their "understanding." I am not sure what India's response was, but Chinese papers asked WTF.

Oh, and there was also Saddam attacking Kuwait a few years after which helped divert attention away especially when China didn't veto the resolution. Who will divert attention away? ISIL?

In any event I predict despite these differences the Russian economy will slow, however it won't be a death blow by any means. Russia's too big a player in the energy supply field, and there are countries willing to sell stuff to them to replace the European goods, cough latin America, cough China cough cough.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Holodomor alone probably killed as many or more as the entire vietnam war.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

if we consider American's own genocide against the American Indians?

[Vympel]

I'm in a hurry so I'm going to reply only to this part of your post, Vympel (I usually try to reply to the entire post, sorry about it).

After WW2 the Soviet Union did its best to infiltrate Finnish society with pro-Soviet hardline socialists and communists: if it weren't for the Social Democrat Party and its alliance with right wing parties in Finland, Finland would have turned into a nice people's republic in no time flat. Afterwards the Soviets kept meddling in Finnish affairs and made damn sure that Urho Kekkonen was elected President time and time again by applying pressure on Finland at the right time; later on the Soviets helped the hard-line communist youth movement ("taistolaiset", roughly meaning "people of Taisto") to gain foothold in Finnish universities and politics. And they were openly discussing about violent revolution (even though some of their former members now deny everything and blissfully talk about how it was meant as a peace movement). The Soviets mucked about as much as they could - fortunately for Finland Soviet Union was keen on showing that it had splendid relationship with a neighboring country that wasn't part of the Warsaw Pact or a socialist country.

However, it wasn't as bad as it could have been and after Stalin's time Soviets didn't usually do anything forceful. And while Kekkonen was one ambitious bald bastard (Lex Luthor has nothing on Kekkonen), he also knew how to play the Soviet leaders like a fiddle - even Stalin, if the urban stories about their encounters are true. Mostly the era of "Finlandization" was about Finns trying their very best not to make a fuss about Soviets and cultivating good relations with their eastern neighbors (out of fear, mostly, although as I have indicated, there were many who were all gung-ho about Soviets). But there was not much real warmth or love exchanged there and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when the Soviet Union came down. Now those who lived through the Cold War say that it's almost like the Soviet Union would be back and that has sent support for Nato to grow in Finland with the idea of "Never again shall we live under Soviet thumb!".

As for territorial ambition... I don't know. Not in the usual sense ("We'll take that piece of land!"), but several comments from Russian authorities during the last several years indicate that they still consider Finland to be part of their sphere of influence and try to act as if Finland should be their vassal state or something. Of course the Finns' Russophobia goes a long, long way back to history, at least to 18th century or more. It doesn't help that Finnish-Russian relations during early 20th century all the way to WW2 weren't that good, including the time when Finland was a Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire. From that point of view America and Nato are a hell lot better choice (America, after all, hasn't ever annexed Finnish territories).

That was informative, thanks. I think its more accurate to say that notwithstanding the difficulties the relationship has had, Finland spent 70 years right next to the USSR, grew prosperous and remained free despite it. I just can't see how anyone could look at Russia, which is weaker in pretty much every other available metric, and argue that joining NATO now is an urgent priority.

Yes, forgive them for believing Russians aren't 19th century barbarians anymore. Putin sure cured them of that mistaken belief of Russia having joined civilized society which doesn't view warfare as a legitimate tool.

Refer to Stas' comment.

Oh please. The riots only started after Russia had already infiltrated the east, they were Russian started, Russian controlled from the start.

And you have evidence for this, right? No, of course you don't. It suits your purpose to believe that people in the east would've been just fine with being disenfranchised and having their destiny controlled by a government based on everything they depsise, but its hardly credible.

"Infiltrated" the east? The Russians didn't march Yuri from Red Alert 2 into Donetsk and Lugansk and cause a rebellion with a mind control machine.

In indulging this ridiculous, childish fantasy you sound like the mirror image of a paranoid Russian elite, thinking the entire Maidan incident was entirely a product of CIA interference.

[cosmicalstorm]

The Holodomor alone probably killed as many or more as the entire vietnam war.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

if we consider American's own genocide against the American Indians?

If memory serves me right most of them were killed by pox and other fun stuff in the centuries leading up to 1900's. I don't intend to start comparisons further back than the 1900's because that's too messy.

Roughly how many were directly killed by settler-violence?

Mind you I am not a crazy Ameriwanker, I'm open to the idea that the USA killed a boatload of people and propped, still props up, crazy regimes like Saudi Arabia.

All in all I just have the idea that the USA is still the best country so far in terms of how much wealth it has created and how many people proportionally to it's capacity it has actually killed.

[K. A. Pital]

The wealth was mostly created inside the USA or shared with few partners; the dead people who were mercilessly exterminated in the process of wealth- and nationbuilding were mostly in the Third World where few cared. And not many do now. Undeniably the US has been more benigh in Eastern Europe than in other places. Or maybe the 'benigh' part actually comes from war-weary European nations, and it is them that we should thank for having the courage to pour money into Eastern Europe and help them.

[cosmicalstorm]

The wealth created in the USA has made it's way into every corner of the world. Vaccines, agriscience, computer science and so on. It would be an atrociously boaring world without North America. I'm eternally grateful to have grown up in the culture spawned there.

[Simon_Jester]

That was informative, thanks. I think its more accurate to say that notwithstanding the difficulties the relationship has had, Finland spent 70 years right next to the USSR, grew prosperous and remained free despite it. I just can't see how anyone could look at Russia, which is weaker in pretty much every other available metric, and argue that joining NATO now is an urgent priority.

Well, the argument is that joining NATO has always been an urgent priority, that Finland always needed some kind of physical insurance against the threat of a Russian (not Soviet, Russian) attempt to take back control over Finland, as it enjoyed that control during the time of the Czars. Since there has been one Soviet invasion and multiple Soviet/Russian attempts to interfere with Finnish politics since the Czars, this concern isn't entirely unwarranted.

The Finns were desperate enough to ally with the Nazis over this, and by comparison NATO looks pretty good.

[Channel72]

The wealth created in the USA has made it's way into every corner of the world. Vaccines, agriscience, computer science and so on. It would be an atrociously boaring world without North America. I'm eternally grateful to have grown up in the culture spawned there.

No computer science without the USA? Seriously? The UK and Germany mostly pioneered computer science, and the USSR contributed vastly as well.

However, the USA is very good at commercializing applied science.

[Thanas]

Putin sure cured them of that mistaken belief of Russia having joined civilized society which doesn't view warfare as a legitimate tool.

By that you mean a bunch of nations that invaded Iraq based on a lie and forgery worthy of the Gleiwitz? Because I found more than just one nation pillaging the Middle East, you know, in very, very recent history. Shove that high horse back in the stable, Thanas. Putin is a ruthless imperialist, but he isn't the only one to behave that way.

No, he isn't, and I haven't claimed that he is. That being said, the EU did not invade Iraq, so this is a false analogy.

[Channel72]

I think the main difference between the USA and let's say, Russia, in terms of violence and atrocities, is that the USA tries to keep up an image of being "innocent" with it's "hands-off/wink-wink" approach to violence. The USA rarely engages in wholesale massacres directly as a matter of policy - we like to finance others to do it for us. (Perhaps we picked up that strategy from the Italian mafia.) Basically, we don't like to get too dirty, and the USA sort of views the world as a hitman for hire. There's nothing remotely comparable to Stalinist purges, or the mass execution of Poles that the Russians did - (at least in the 20th century). Instead, the USA manages to appear more "guiltless" by just throwing money around at various despots/terrorists/religious fanatics/psychopaths, and then backing off and pretending not to notice when the shit hits the fan (e.g Cambodia).

Really, the policy of extraordinary rendition for the purposes of torture is pretty much a microcosm of US behavior.

[Tiriol]

I'm in a hurry so I'm going to reply only to this part of your post, Vympel (I usually try to reply to the entire post, sorry about it).

After WW2 the Soviet Union did its best to infiltrate Finnish society with pro-Soviet hardline socialists and communists: if it weren't for the Social Democrat Party and its alliance with right wing parties in Finland, Finland would have turned into a nice people's republic in no time flat. Afterwards the Soviets kept meddling in Finnish affairs and made damn sure that Urho Kekkonen was elected President time and time again by applying pressure on Finland at the right time; later on the Soviets helped the hard-line communist youth movement ("taistolaiset", roughly meaning "people of Taisto") to gain foothold in Finnish universities and politics. And they were openly discussing about violent revolution (even though some of their former members now deny everything and blissfully talk about how it was meant as a peace movement). The Soviets mucked about as much as they could - fortunately for Finland Soviet Union was keen on showing that it had splendid relationship with a neighboring country that wasn't part of the Warsaw Pact or a socialist country.

However, it wasn't as bad as it could have been and after Stalin's time Soviets didn't usually do anything forceful. And while Kekkonen was one ambitious bald bastard (Lex Luthor has nothing on Kekkonen), he also knew how to play the Soviet leaders like a fiddle - even Stalin, if the urban stories about their encounters are true. Mostly the era of "Finlandization" was about Finns trying their very best not to make a fuss about Soviets and cultivating good relations with their eastern neighbors (out of fear, mostly, although as I have indicated, there were many who were all gung-ho about Soviets). But there was not much real warmth or love exchanged there and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when the Soviet Union came down. Now those who lived through the Cold War say that it's almost like the Soviet Union would be back and that has sent support for Nato to grow in Finland with the idea of "Never again shall we live under Soviet thumb!".

As for territorial ambition... I don't know. Not in the usual sense ("We'll take that piece of land!"), but several comments from Russian authorities during the last several years indicate that they still consider Finland to be part of their sphere of influence and try to act as if Finland should be their vassal state or something. Of course the Finns' Russophobia goes a long, long way back to history, at least to 18th century or more. It doesn't help that Finnish-Russian relations during early 20th century all the way to WW2 weren't that good, including the time when Finland was a Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire. From that point of view America and Nato are a hell lot better choice (America, after all, hasn't ever annexed Finnish territories).

That was informative, thanks. I think its more accurate to say that notwithstanding the difficulties the relationship has had, Finland spent 70 years right next to the USSR, grew prosperous and remained free despite it. I just can't see how anyone could look at Russia, which is weaker in pretty much every other available metric, and argue that joining NATO now is an urgent priority.

The desire to join NATO is precisely because now Russia is still weaker than USSR and can't invade at moment's notice. After WW2 there was no way Finland's foreign policy was truly "free": sure, the Kremlin didn't dictate it, but it was clear that Finland wasn't really free to move closer to the West. Our politicians were frequent visitors at Tehtaankatu Street where the Soviet embassy was located and several politicians also had "household Ruskies" - Soviets with whom they had close ties and shared information more or less freely. Simply put, the Soviet Union only needed to cough disapprovingly and Finland had to make amends. Even after Kekkonen's reign as President ended (he was half-senile at that point and even the most cynical politicians and bureaucrats understood that he could not remain a President, since Prime Minister Koivisto had also successfully challenged his influence) the very existence of Soviet behemoth kept Finland from making any actual decisions about more West-oriented policies. There still exists much bitterness from that time and it's pretty damn certain that no sane Finnish politician would want to return to that period of time.

So, if Russia is growing in strength and flexes its muscles in a manner even remotely similar to the Soviet Union, many Finns will expect the worst and will try to find more sources of protection and strength. If Finland joins NATO, argument goes, Russia won't be able to boss Finland around since it would risk NATO intervention, not just angry Finns and their angry birds.