But I pointed out the reason why Finland is doing this. It is because the decision makers in Finland see Russia as weak and unable or unwilling to retaliate.
But hang on... Finland attacking Russia because it thinks it is weak and wont defend itself.... isn't that like Russia attacking Ukraine because Ukraine is weak and can't defend itself?
But Russian actions are bad and Finlands actions are normal and acceptable... and of course Russia attacked the Ukraine to defend the Ukrainian people Kiev was designating as being Russian and murdering... they tried everything they could before they started using force.
Finland on the other hand is clearly being used by the other HATO countries to put its hands into the Bears cage to poke it... how did that work out for Georgia in 2008?
And I'm afraid that Finland is correct in it conclusion.
So it is OK to attack the weak... and you respect your country for attacking a country you don't think will fight back now you are in HATO.
That is good to know... maybe they will put that on the plaques and statues they build when they occupy your country again....
Russia's leadership and government are restrained to an extreme. So restrained that it has become a weakness instead of a strength.
So lets say you and the US gets their wish and Putin is overthrown and a new guy gets into power because Putin is so damn weak the Russian public can't take it any more.... are they going to vote in a Navalny type pro US arse hole, or are they going to vote in a hardliner who promises tough responses...
Couple of questions for you. First how is he going to treat Finland when he gets into power knowing what Finland has been doing.
Second why do you think a hardliner that over reacts and perhaps even wants WWIII in power in Russia is better for HATO or Finland or the rest of the world?
Are you fucking stupid?
Clearly no one discusses anything in Finland, you just do as you are told and don't think of questioning your government... so clearly the world wont miss a few sheep if they get sent to the slaughterhouse.
It would be all great if Russia's hostile neighbors would react to Russia's non-retaliation policies in the same manner. But they are not.
But most are, they are funding Ukraine, they are supplying mercenaries, they are condemning Russia internationally and they support the sanctions.
They interpret it as weakness and continue to escalate.
You can cry about Putins weakness all you like but when exactly has he folded and said that the west can do as they please like western politicians do to the US every single day of the week?
Just a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for Finland to carry out military strikes against Russia. But here we are.
When they recover those drones they will be able to analyse the navigation systems and work out where they flew and where they were launched from and that will be used in their mission planning for retaliation.
Currently, right now Finland is already paying with an economic recession for its hostile policy towards Russia. If they want to keep shooting themselves in the dick, well, Finland will probably cease to exist as a state in the coming decades.
Russia is freeing Ukrainians from the Kiev regime, but a war with Finland would be a war of defense for Russia... there is no territory they need to capture, no people to rescue from an evil government gone wrong... US and Finnish military bases can just be hit repeatedly and then population centres and ports can be smashed till the country is no longer a threat.
But I think Finland is safe as long as Putin is in charge in Russia. What comes after him is another thing.
The irony is that he just threatened nuclear war with the west if Kiev starts using long range western weapons against Russia because to use those long range weapons against targets deep inside Russia Kiev would need the assistance and cooperation of HATO advisors who would only help with the express permission of their respective HATO governments... this would change the war to a war against HATO.
If Finland is launching attack and suicide drones against Russian territory including strategic targets like Murmansk ports then that would also be a similar problem for Russia and the solution would be similar... up to and including the use of nuclear weapons on Finland.
2. Your underestimation of Putin makes you almost indistinguishable from your government. You are literally trying to blame Putin for not starting a nuclear war.
Fortunately the rest of the west are fucking stupid too and to this day think Putin is an idiot that is just getting lucky and every time he rips them a new one...
It is funny how stupid the west are in regard to Putin and they still don't get it.... starting WWIII is not in Russian interests, but handing him an excuse to escalate any way he likes by getting involved in this conflict is not handing a child a loaded gun... it is handing a trained sniper a rifle and ammo and telling him his mother is a whore.
If you take all the delivries and divide by 30 months you end with something like 10 tanks, 10 SPG, 50 IFV, 1 fighter jet, 1 AD system, 500k shells on average per month. You don't win a war with such low figures.
If you took the real value of weapons sent to Kiev it would likely be four or five times more than what the Soviets spent on weapons to the Vietnamese... 30 Abrams tanks that cost more than 2,000 T-54s... an F-16 that costs more than all the SA-2 batteries they sent in 10 years... and then there is all the cash that seems to have been used up already.... more than was spent on the Marshall plan after WWII to fix all of Europe... and the Ukraine is still broken.
Russia can just finish off the electrical grid of the Ukraine and the flood of 5-10 million people into Europe is going to be a real problem for Europe...
Winter is coming.
The average delivries are pathetic compare to what soviet and chinese sent to Vietnames (more Mig were sent than nato sent tanks to Ukraine...).
In numbers, yes... in value... no.
That's why in my opinion NATO's goal is only to keep the war going but they have no real intentions behind other than burn their cash in their defence companies to flood pockets of their richest people.
And destroy industry in Europe by making energy costs higher, and of course to get all those pesky former Warsaw Pact countries to get rid of their enormous stocks of cheap Soviet era stuff and replace it with modern HATO kit that is vastly more expensive and often no more effective in real combat.
Warehouse stocks depleted and needing to be restocked with new build stuff from the only left factories working.... American ones.
Putin is seen in the West as weak and someone who can be pushed further. Whether he actually he is weak or isn't. You don't like that fact, but it is what it is.
The fact that the west is stupid and has underestimated him since he took office 24 years ago, there is still no respect for what he has achieved and the future path he has put his country on is astounding. Even super optimistic me would never have guessed this sort of result.
In the early 2000s I was chatting online with American teenagers about how the Russian weapon makers will all collapse and die and that by 2015 Russia will be operating third hand F-16s while Europe will be flying F-35 super fighters...
So you recon Putin would be considered A REAL MAN if he unleashes nuclear annihilation because a couple of drones were launched from Finland with zero impact? Laughing
The line is drawn in the sand and the west took notice. Lets see if they change their minds and call Putin's bluff.
Even if they do call his bluff.... and it isn't a bluff... there wont be nukes, but there will be actions that seriously damage the west... I suspect finishing off Ukraines electrical grid and their fresh water supply and heating infrastucture that keeps their population alive during Winter to force a mass exodus of civilians rushing to Europe to survive this winter... and probably cut off gas and oil supplies to Europe at the same time... there are no long term contracts any more so that should be easy...
If they did fly over Finland and Finland had allowed it then Russia should strike at Finland for sure. Not nuclear but destroy Finland airports and airforce bases. If they claim they didn't, then Russia should give final warning to force Finland hands to act against Ukraine or face punishment.
The remains of the drones will contain parts of the navigation systems which will tell them where they flew and where they were launched from...
Nothing was launched from Finland. End off with this whole non-story
There will be American bases there by now.... who knows what they might have launched.... told the locals they are weather balloons...
An attack by a drone on an SSBN base is not yet a nuclear first strike, which is carried out by ballistic missiles, or possibly cruise missiles, but it is risky. So Russia's reaction to this would not be too big.
Any attack on SSBNs would be potentially an attempted decapitation strike that would precede a nuclear strike... the response should be a full nuclear strike against the perpetrators.
Drones that were downed around Murmansk are the Лютый type. Ukrainians claim 1000km range, while closest possible distance to Murmansk from Ukr border is around 1900km. There were speculations before that some were launched from Estonia and that they fly over Finland in order not to get discovered by Russian PVO.
A German investigation is centering about a couple of Ukrainians who hired a Yacht and were sailing in the arctic ocean that might have launched the drones while doing a bit of diving at the time...
Such attacks will not cause war with NATO, even Storm Shadow or JASSM fire, therefore the West will scale it if it wants and Russia will not respond. Only an ICBM and SLBM attack on Russian territory will cause war.
A conventional missile strike that destroys aircraft and infrastructure in Finland in response might be cause for war from their perspective...
Just because Ukrainian drones are pin prick attacks does not mean Russia should respond with useless attacks.
That would be weak and Russia should not be weak towards HATO...
I am all for showing NATO that they can't be taking pot shots at Russia from the territories of their own countries without fear of reprisals, but I am also against the idea of global nuclear incineration. Surely Russia has the ability for a creative a measured response against Norway and Finland.
Fully agree and I would say hitting government buildings in Finland and killing these idiot politicians who gave up Finlands neutrality and put their entire population at risk would be a good response... not weak at all... but also no WWIII yet.
A few drone dropping thermite on their forests would be a good alternative too of course... they are so proud of their 1.350km long border with Russia.... how are they are protecting it...
If not a demonstrative nuke on TV , then a non- lethal strike in international waters or empty space on enemy soil .
Which will prove to the neocon hawks in the west that Putin really is weak... he is afraid to kill people like we do...