Incidents in Russia (Natural Disasters, Accidents and Emergencies)

kvs wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Kimppis wrote:

The biggest Finnish military forum has also gotten really Russophobic

Indeed. I registered to maanpuolustus.net and got banned after only a few post, for supporting Novorossiya in the Ukrainian civil war.

It seems your government and various people in higher positions are always pushing the anti Russian sentiment and NATO agenda.  But it seems the Finnish people have a different opinion.  Not everyone of course but seems that not all Finns are brainwashed.

Only a minority, and a small minority that is.

Finland never was and never will be a pro-Russian country. I'd say our government is actually less anti-Russian than the Finnish people. In that regard Finland is the opposite of the Anglo-Saxon countries. I never thought that general American and British people hate the Russians or Russia, but their governments are Russia's mortal enemies. Whereas in Finland our government always tries to keep at least somewhat pragmatic relations with Russia, but the anti-Russian segment among common populace is very deep.

Those Finns who openly support Russia here can be into some trouble here.

Peculiar people you Finns.  You were sodomized nicely by Sweden but you have affection for it.   But I can't find what happened
in the last several centuries that would produce such hate for Russia.   My conclusion is that this is due to the 1930s Nazi alignment of Finland and
its winter war with the USSR.   You have the perverse victimhood complex exhibited by the Baltic chihuahuas.

I stopped reading maanpuolustus.net soon after Ukraine. Haushofer, what exactly did you post there? How easy it is to get banned? Their "Russia news" thread was absolutely hilarious, that was the last I remember reading.

Yeah, Finnish-Russian relations are actually not that bad. But at the same time Finnish politicians are very pro-western. I think that most Anglo-Saxon people don't actually know anything about Russia (Finns are not much better, though), so you can basically tell them anything about Russia and they'll believe it. The Russian soft-power is just too miminal.

Finland wasn't actually "sodomized" by Sweden. That is anachronistic thinking. And yes, many Finns believe that, because of nationalism and because they don't know anything about history. "Finland" didn't exist, so it could not be sodomized either. Nationalism and nation states were invented later. "Finland" was an integral part of Sweden. The affection exists because our countries are in many ways very similar. It's the common history: common religion (even though "Scandinavians" are not religious at all anymore), the nordic welfare state model, similar institutions, similar standard of living and Swedish speaking minority is still quite influencial. It's historical irony that the autonomy under the Russian empire (after 1809) actually created and made a country called "Finland" possible by keeping the Swedish traditions intact, but at the same time separete from Sweden. Otherwise Finland would've likely been "Swedized" during the 1800s.

It's all about history and culture. Finland is more "western" than it's "Eastern European", but it has always been bordering Russia. Finland was under Russian rule before the independence and after that the USSR invaded Finland during WW2. The invasion in 1939 was honestly pretty blatant, but it can be argued that Finland was really inflexible during the negotiations and they didn't take the security of Leningrad in the account, vs. Germany. IMO, those Soviet concerns were legitimate, but it seems they were planning to annex Finland anyway.

The "Nazi alignment" was actually not particularly severe until 1940. Far-right parties were not popular and that didn't even change during the alliance with Germany. Tbh, they didn't have much of a choice in 1940-41, but of course Finland also tried to create "Greater Finland" during the German invasion of the USSR. Regarding the alliance with Germany, the "Finland and Germany were not allied, they were 'co-belligerents'" narrative is actually widely believed amongst Finns, which of course is total BS, even though Finland didn't do everything Germany asked. Not to mention that German troops and supplies were absolutely necessary.

So, it only remains for an official announcment by Putin, but the obvious bomb was obvious, and the obvious perpetrator is Washington. Cui bono, $ etc etc....

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

I have never seen that as a "joke", but as what Reagan really wanted and what Washington still wants.

I am not sure what we are arguing here. British Intelligence placed the bomb in A321.

There is a very simple albeit sinister reason behind this - to influence public opinion in Russia.

The US & UK wants Russia out of Syria so that ISIS can take over that country. By killing 200+ Russians they are letting the Russian public know that they will have to keep on paying a heavy price because of the fault of their government.

Sputnik too has something on similar lines.

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151106/1029694767/sinai-isil-russia-a321-crash.html

Kimppis wrote:IMO, those Soviet concerns were legitimate, but it seems they were planning to annex Finland anyway.

Is there something more to this than an article of faith among Finns? It is oft-stated, but no one I have ever asked has been able to produce a reference to witnessed statements from the leadership of the USSR regarding an intent to annex Finland, planning documents relating to such, or anything else. The Soviet GPW archives had been open to investigation by researchers of history for many years, maybe they still are. So, one could reasonably expect that there would be relevant documents to substantiate this belief.

jhelb wrote:I am not sure what we are arguing here. British Intelligence placed the bomb in A321.

There is a very simple albeit sinister reason behind this - to influence public opinion in Russia.

The US & UK wants Russia out of Syria so that ISIS can take over that country. By killing 200+ Russians they are letting the Russian public know that they will have to keep on paying a heavy price because of the fault of their government.

Sputnik too has something on similar lines.

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151106/1029694767/sinai-isil-russia-a321-crash.html

Then Russia would go to war with England as it would be an act of war if there is sufficient evidence. Or reciprocate by using terrorism in England as there are plenty Russians there to cause havok.

sepheronx wrote:Then Russia would go to war with England as it would be an act of war if there is sufficient evidence.  Or reciprocate by using terrorism in England as there are plenty Russians there to cause havok.

Nope. The Soviet Union would have done that, Russia wouldn't. Western Intelligence have a habit of bombing non Western civilian airlines. Check the records.

So you have evidence that this was definately a bomb and it was planted by Mi6?

Better go tell the investigators of your evidence to save money and time.

sepheronx wrote:Better go tell the investigators of your evidence to save money and time.

And why would you think that the investigators don't know that already? Also who are the investigators - US & UK officials.

sepheronx wrote:So you have evidence that this was definately a bomb and it was planted by Mi6?

Better go tell the investigators of your evidence to save money and time.

Dont go there, i have already had this argument, its a waste of time. If you arent ready to accept that the west (cia/mi6) did it without a shred of evidence then you are a brainwashed troll apparently.

BKP wrote:

Kimppis wrote:IMO, those Soviet concerns were legitimate, but it seems they were planning to annex Finland anyway.

Is there something more to this than an article of faith among Finns? It is oft-stated, but no one I have ever asked has been able to produce a reference to witnessed statements from the leadership of the USSR regarding an intent to annex Finland, planning documents relating to such, or anything else. The Soviet GPW archives had been open to investigation by researchers of history for many years, maybe they still are. So, one could reasonably expect that there would be relevant documents to substantiate this belief.  

There are probably many things, but one that comes to mind right now is the so-called "Terijoki government" (surprisingly there's no English wiki article), which was a communist puppet regime that was created after the war started and it was supposed to lead communist Finland after the war. The Soviet annexed the Baltic states, so I see no reason why Finland would've been different. Atleast they planned to turn Finland into a communist puppet state and their casus belli was to help "oppressed Finnish workers against the evil government". Also, it seems pretty clear that their military plan was to occupy the whole of Finland and they expected that happen quickly.

jhelb wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Better go tell the investigators of your evidence to save money and time.

And why would you think that the investigators don't know that already? Also who are the investigators - US & UK officials.

The investigators are Russian and are in Egypt.

And? What would be the next logical step for Russia if a bomb was planted by Western Intelligence? As someone pointed out in the Sputnik comments, we know that ISIS is an American creation (or simply the next evolutionary step in Mid-East controlled extremism), so if ISIS planted a bomb on the airliner does that mean by extension America did? How much is Russia willing to read into this, and where does it end?

Retaliatory terrorist attacks would be completely and utterly out of the question, don't talk such loony nonsense. Fighting terror with terror is about as stupid as it gets.

sepheronx wrote:

jhelb wrote:I am not sure what we are arguing here. British Intelligence placed the bomb in A321.

There is a very simple albeit sinister reason behind this - to influence public opinion in Russia.

The US & UK wants Russia out of Syria so that ISIS can take over that country. By killing 200+ Russians they are letting the Russian public know that they will have to keep on paying a heavy price because of the fault of their government.

Sputnik too has something on similar lines.

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20151106/1029694767/sinai-isil-russia-a321-crash.html

Then Russia would go to war with England as it would be an act of war if there is sufficient evidence.  Or reciprocate by using terrorism in England as there are plenty Russians there to cause havok.

if MI6 was involved in anyway it done so under American orders as Westminster and GCHQ answers to Washington.... you can do what you want with England but leave us (Scotland) out of it .. the downing of the Metro Jet (be it by bomb) was dis honourable and cowardly ... the guilty deserve to be punished

Karl Haushofer wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:And? What would be the next logical step for Russia if a bomb was planted by Western Intelligence? As someone pointed out in the Sputnik comments, we know that ISIS is an American creation (or simply the next evolutionary step in Mid-East controlled extremism), so if ISIS planted a bomb on the airliner does that mean by extension America did? How much is Russia willing to read into this, and where does it end?

Retaliatory terrorist attacks would be completely and utterly out of the question, don't talk such loony nonsense. Fighting terror with terror is about as stupid as it gets.

1. Get back at the West and drop one of their airliners, whether with a missile or by planting a bomb. Russia is in my opinion way too soft and does not revenge the killings of Russian people, especially if the perpetrator is a western country. Russia should not hesitate to kill Western civilians if the West kills Russian civilians.
2. Ban Russian civilian flights in Egypt, Turkey and other potentially dangerous countries until the war in Syria is over.

Most idiotic thing I've ever seen here. You just uncrowned Vann and Victor

London: Only Egypt and Russia will be able to respond if there was a terrorist attack on the A321 РИА Новости http://ria.ru/world/20151110/1317650205.html#ixzz3r3uAJjLT

BTW, apparently london provided data to Russia of their "findings".  

I cant believe some of you guys.  Some of you guys are worst than the Inquirer or Globe and mail.  Go use your awesome investigative skills on finding Bat Boy and let the Russian and Egyptian investigators actually do their job.  And stop flooding the thread with all the conspiracy theories please, as it just muddles (and also intensifies the idiotic western press and politicians to do more of it) the real investigation news.

From the Communists. A proposal to blacklist all the member of Charlie because of their cartoons about the Sinai crash.

https://www.rt.com/politics/321298-russian-lawmakers-want-to-blacklist/

A Communist Party MP has addressed the Russian Foreign Ministry with a request to blacklist all staff of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which published cartoons making fun of the A321 airliner crash in Egypt that killed 224 people.

“This was sacrilege and an immoral act on the part of the people who work for the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Such behavior can only be expected from people who have nothing sacred and who attempt to get dividends from bloodshed,” Vadim Solovyov said in comments with Izvestia daily.

The lawmaker urged the harshest possible reply to the magazine’s actions and said that including all Charlie Hebdo staff into the Russian sanctions list could be one such step.

Look at how Charlie responds. Probably this is a perfect definition of Western "democracy".

However, Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Gerard Briard has remained defiant amid the wave of criticism. In an interview with RFI radio the journalist said that the concept of blasphemy did not exist for the magazine, because it is “a secular, democratic and atheistic publication.”

“We comment on the news, just like all other publications do... There are no caricature characters in these drawings. We are just commenting on the event and showing our own view,” he added.

Ultimately it was the alignment of Finland with Nazi Germany that created all of its problems. The Finns love to forget this point as
they wallow in their sanctimonious victimhood. In case it is not clear, Nazi Germany had an explicit genocide policy vis a vis Slavs, including
Russians. So the USSR, composed of mostly Slavs, had a legitimate reason to do everything in its power to counteract the Nazi German
agenda. If Finland had stayed neutral it would not have experienced the Winter War. The USSR wasn't exactly overflowing with military
resources to throw around on pointless wars when it was faced with a genocidal threat. In the end the Nazis did succeed in exterminating
18 million Soviet civilians, and causing the deaths of 9 million soldiers, including 3 million in captivity (e.g. in Auschwitz).

^^Well, I was being a stickler about annexation. Like I said, there's no hard evidence of Soviet planning for it that I've ever seen. You could say well, as a patriot, the thought of foreigners aiding to push a compliant/puppet government into power in my own country is not very much different to me than annexation. And, I can understand that.

But, anyhow, the events of those years in the first decades of the 20th century came fast, and were complicated and tumultuous. I do feel I have sympathy toward Finland and it's situation in those times. It wanted independence, but was like a pebble contending with rolling boulders. I have caveats as well, to be sure, but it's an endless discussion. Fug it.

BKP wrote:^Well, I was being a stickler about annexation. Like I said, there's no hard evidence of Soviet planning for it that I've ever seen. You could say well, as a patriot, the thought of foreigners aiding to push a compliant/puppet government into power in my own country is not very much different to me than annexation. And, I can understand that.

But, anyhow, the events of those years in the first decades of the 20th century came fast, and were complicated and tumultuous. I do feel I have sympathy toward Finland and it's situation in those times. It wanted independence, but was like a pebble contending with rolling boulders. I have caveats as well, to be sure, but it's an endless discussion. Fug it.

It had full independence after the Revolution of 1917.   It chose to crawl up Hitler's ass and the USSR was not forcing it.   The land concession
around Leningrad had historical legitimacy.   The Finns claim the whole of the Karelian isthmus (between Lake Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland in the
Baltic Sea) but this is self-serving BS.   About half of the isthmus, including the lands around Leningrad were part of Novgorod.  

kvs wrote:

BKP wrote:^Well, I was being a stickler about annexation. Like I said, there's no hard evidence of Soviet planning for it that I've ever seen. You could say well, as a patriot, the thought of foreigners aiding to push a compliant/puppet government into power in my own country is not very much different to me than annexation. And, I can understand that.

But, anyhow, the events of those years in the first decades of the 20th century came fast, and were complicated and tumultuous. I do feel I have sympathy toward Finland and it's situation in those times. It wanted independence, but was like a pebble contending with rolling boulders. I have caveats as well, to be sure, but it's an endless discussion. Fug it.

It had full independence after the Revolution of 1917.   It chose to crawl up Hitler's ass and the USSR was not forcing it.   The land concession
around Leningrad had historical legitimacy.   The Finns claim the whole of the Karelian isthmus (between Lake Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland in the
Baltic Sea) but this is self-serving BS.   About half of the isthmus, including the lands around Leningrad were part of Novgorod.  

Yeah, did I mention I had caveats regarding Finland? Partnering up, whole or in part, with NG would be the biggest among those. And, what, you're saying they were claiming the entire green area on that map? Well, that wasn't about to happen, if they were indeed about that.

But, anyhow, it goes on and on, doesn't it? For every grievance each side has a justification and counter-grievance. Sometimes there's merit and sometimes not, but it starts getting difficult to fully disentangle the further back it goes until it becomes like a Ph.d research project.

Believe me, I have argued about this stuff with Finns again and again, and many of them are just fanatical about it. At some point I started throwing up my hands and saying "fuck all of this shit." I mean, this is one of the biggest problems with Europeans, to me. They nurse on butthurt like a starving infant on a candy-coated milk tit. And in some cases the ultimate origins of their conflicts disappear back beyond the dimmest mists of recorded history.

Honestly, if I can find anyone, Finn or otherwise, that will be even halfway reasonable on this stuff, I am more than willing to bury the hatchet and move on at this point.

flamming_python wrote:

Kimppis wrote:

BKP wrote:

Kimppis wrote:IMO, those Soviet concerns were legitimate, but it seems they were planning to annex Finland anyway.

Is there something more to this than an article of faith among Finns? It is oft-stated, but no one I have ever asked has been able to produce a reference to witnessed statements from the leadership of the USSR regarding an intent to annex Finland, planning documents relating to such, or anything else. The Soviet GPW archives had been open to investigation by researchers of history for many years, maybe they still are. So, one could reasonably expect that there would be relevant documents to substantiate this belief.  

There are probably many things, but one that comes to mind right now is the so-called "Terijoki government" (surprisingly there's no English wiki article), which was a communist puppet regime that was created after the war started and it was supposed to lead communist Finland after the war. The Soviet annexed the Baltic states, so I see no reason why Finland would've been different. Atleast they planned to turn Finland into a communist puppet state and their casus belli was to help "oppressed Finnish workers against the evil government". Also, it seems pretty clear that their military plan was to occupy the whole of Finland and they expected that happen quickly.  

There were 6 months of negotiations before the Winter War, Stalin & Molotov were pressuring the Finns for a territory exchange; basically to give up some territory near Leningrad in exchange for some territory up in Karelia.
Finland wasn't interested and prolonged the negotiations without committing to anything; when Stalin & Molotov realized this they decided on war.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Not that I think there was anything wrong with Finland's decision to decline. It was Finnish territory and they were the only ones to get to decide whether to exchange it for something, not the Soviet Union. But I don't believe that annexation or war for the sake of war was the Soviet goal originally; they were quite clear about what they wanted and were willing to fight for it.
About the puppet government and so on - I think that was more of an opportunistic move that Stalin decided upon as he was waging war with Finland anyway; he must have figured that Finland would be a pushover and that he could take the opportunity to gain a socialist puppet ally or 16th Soviet republic by the end of it all, and not just what he originally came for.

I agree. I think they didn't plan to attack back in '39 before the negotiations, as they expected Finland to accept those demands. But it's certain Stalin wanted to 'deal with' Finland, sooner or later, like what happened to the Baltics. And it's true that if you look at a map, those demands actually don't even look that bad, but the major problem was that the Soviets also demanded that all defensive installations should be destroyed near the new border. That would've meant the destruction of the 'Mannerheim line'.

kvs wrote:Ultimately it was the alignment of Finland with Nazi Germany that created all of its problems. The Finns love to forget this point as
they wallow in their sanctimonious victimhood. In case it is not clear, Nazi Germany had an explicit genocide policy vis a vis Slavs, including
Russians. So the USSR, composed of mostly Slavs, had a legitimate reason to do everything in its power to counteract the Nazi German
agenda. If Finland had stayed neutral it would not have experienced the Winter War. The USSR wasn't exactly overflowing with military
resources to throw around on pointless wars when it was faced with a genocidal threat. In the end the Nazis did succeed in exterminating
18 million Soviet civilians, and causing the deaths of 9 million soldiers, including 3 million in captivity (e.g. in Auschwitz).

Ever heard of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its spheres of influence? There was no nazi alignment before the Winter War! It happened after the war. And tbh, Finland had no choice. They had to choose between Germany and the USSR. Hitler and Stalin were basically allies between 1939 and 1941! Although I think that the west and russophobes/anti-Soviets like to exaggerate the whole thing a little too much. It's actually understandable why Stalin did it (to have a buffer against Germany and more time to prepare), but it of course benefitted Germany too.

I do agree that there were certain things that Finland whitewashed, like downplaying the alliance with Germany after the war was lost, downplaying the invasion of Eastern Karelia, and so on, but at the same time, today's Finnish historians and historiography is actually pretty open about those things. The general public is naturally less enlightened.

Cairo Approves Participation of US Specialists in A321 Crash Investigation Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151111/1029902593/a321-crash-investigation-egypt.html#ixzz3rA8SKbQ2

If I was Russian leader, I would tell them they do not have permission to touch the aircraft or go near it, as it isn't their property, under the pretext of their botched operations on Mh-17.

sepheronx wrote:Cairo Approves Participation of US Specialists in A321 Crash Investigation Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151111/1029902593/a321-crash-investigation-egypt.html#ixzz3rA8SKbQ2

If I was Russian leader, I would tell them they do not have permission to touch the aircraft or go near it, as it isn't their property, under the pretext of their botched operations on Mh-17.

Yeah but the US is clearly desperate to get involved for some reason and pays a lot of bills in Eqypt.