How should the West contain Russia?

Calm down, NATO will not attack Russia first, but it may push back invading Russian forces.

the russians always seem to think the point of nato is to attack them and it isnt, the nato alliance is defensive we wont attack russia unless they attack us first

You promise? Thank you, now I can sleep well ;)

Obviously not. Finland didn't join in 1980 because they simply couldn't join in 1980. That part was stipulated in the deal Stalin cut with the western powers after WWII. Finland to stay neutral but with a "special" relationship with the USSR, which meant hands off for the NATO and anyone else, or the Soviet Union would move in on Finland. That was the cornerstone of the situation, which got its own name, "Finlandization". Finland was in the Soviet "sphere of influence" and an no-go zone for the NATO.

No amount of military preparedness would be sufficient for a small state against the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Nevertheless, Finland built as big an invasion defence they could already then, to deter the USSR if possible. The Winter War of 1939-40, when Finland was attacked by the Soviet Union and had to fight it all by its lonesome, is still defining the Finnish view of what it takes to safeguard national independence, and who is the biggest potential threat.

The Finns obviously differ from you in their assesment of present day Russia. They're the ones still with the intact full-scale invasion defence directed exclusively at it after all.

They didn't join NATO after 1991 as well, and we appreciate it. They want to have normal relations with us and they have it. Despite some problems, our relations are much better than with Poland.
They are much less than Poland, why they are not crying to West "Russia forces us to do something" and to East "We are not your sphere of influence anymore"? Be polite and you'll get the same attitude.
 
SS-men? You must know something I do not...

He probably meant guys who wear Swaztika. But yes, former SS men are already dead or too old that they do not even realize is there moon or Jupiter :D
 
He probably meant guys who wear Swaztika. But yes, former SS men are already dead or too old that they do not even realize is there moon or Jupiter :D

Well, have you seen anyone actually wearing swastika? AFAIK it is banned.
 
Well, have you seen anyone actually wearing swastika? AFAIK it is banned.

I don't remember as it is banned or not but I've not seen that in streets, it is only myth from Russian media. We are Fascists for them but they do not know what fascism means, they think that they destroyed fascism and if someone is against them then they are fascists.
 
Well this really kicked off. So the argument has basically turned into the Estonian defending his right to be a xenophobe and Winner backing him up with anti-Russian walls of text. I mean you're using examples from 60 years ago to compare Russia to Nazi Germany and Estonia to Czechoslovakia? This is the 21st century people. I guess it's always inevitable that the Hitler comparisons would crop up.

*sigh*

I just don't get why the Estonians and other Baltic states are happy to have this xenophobic attitude against Russians. They're in an EU country, democratic, free market economy and all the rest- what have they to really fear from the Russians now? They're even in NATO! Nothing. But yet they've still got this immature inferiority complex where they've got to be paranoid of and hate the Russians. Why not put the past behind you?

Funny. I explained it. The others have explained it. Everything has been made clear, but you still repeat this bullcrap about "xenophobic attitude" and "immature inferiority complex".

Pity it's not possible to move Ireland in the place of the Baltic states, let it be occupied for 70 years by the Russians and then watch how its citizens praise Russia on internet forums. That would be really great...

Sure it's easy to babble nonsense about multiculturalism and new, different when you don't have the same experience and an aggressive neigbour in your backyard. It's easy to be such an ignorant when you're living in a safe little place, free of any threats...

The Ireland example is pretty valid I believe. You've got two sides who were ''fighting like dogs'' twenty five years ago but now they're sharing power in the same government. And all you've got to do is live with a few Russians and you're crying about the ''cultural differences'' and other nationalist bs.

Nice strawman. I've explained why is your situation uncoparable with the Baltics. Is Britain an authoritarian state, verbally and economically threatening Ireland for decades? No. Does Ireland have a very strong minority of people who refuse to integrate into the society? No.

So again, why should your example be valid? :crazyeye:

They're not going to create plantation style settlements and reintegrate you into Russia for God's sake you're in NATO and the EU what more protection do you need?!

How sure can they be that the EU and NATO will help them when the push comes to shove? Again, having a large and un-integrated minority is a risk to their security and they're using democratic means how to minimalize it.

They hysterical attempts by some members here to portray the Baltic states as some sort of a lair of xenophoby and oppression are extremelly far fetched. It's the same old idiotic attitude which led to the appeasement: victim is being blamed for defending itself, why the aggressor receives support of the useful idiots.
 
the Jews are right tbh - they killed them pointlessly; russia protesting on the other hand makes no sense(at least from someone who's country was in the same situation).

You occupy someone's country/part of someone's country - big surprise, they fight back. But then, no surprise I guess since you appear to have the dilemma of why a country which you invaded doesn't want statues reminding them of the army who preformed the invasion... or how was it? You "liberated" them :rolleyes:
 
the Jews are right tbh - they killed them pointlessly; russia protesting on the other hand makes no sense

Russians are not right, Nazi killed them rationally?

You occupy someone's country/part of someone's country - big surprise, they fight back. But then, no surprise I guess since you appear to have the dilemma of why a country which you invaded doesn't want statues reminding them of the army who preformed the invasion... or how was it? You "liberated" them :rolleyes:

They are right? Is it ok to allow parades of SS-men in modern European country?
 
nazis might not have reasons, but estonians sure had every right to try and kill you. Invading and then complain is a hypocrisy. Much like your post.

And yes, it's ok to allow parade of troops who fought of your country's freedom; if you had to ally with an idiot, that's to bad, but that's how wars go, it's not like there was any alternative ally. And every country that didn't have national army got to fight under German uniforms...
 
nazis might not have reasons, but estonians sure had every right to try and kill you. Invading and then complain is a hypocrisy. Much like your post.

And yes, it's ok to allow parade of troops who fought of your country's freedom; if you had to ally with an idiot, that's to bad, but that's how wars go, it's not like there was any alternative ally. And every country that didn't have national army got to fight under German uniforms...

So, when Estonian SS-man was killing Jew civilian - it was a crime,
when he was killing Russian civilian - it wasn't.
Right?
 
yep; want more land... fight for it and don't complain when you get a bloody nose.

on the other hand, don't see what they had with the Jews; or I see, but it was dumb.
 
Well, after the meeting yesterday, I think its pretty clear the EU at least has no intention of doing anything to Russia. I think the blance of power has just been very publicly altered in Europe, the EU of course is still dominant, but its no longer the only power on the continent worth taking seriously. I just hope co operation rather than confrontation takes over now.
 

Indeed. I did not realize that Baltic Legion was formally part of SS. That, however, misrepresents their historic role.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS says
In an April 13, 1950 message from the U.S. High Commission in Germany (HICOG), signed by General Frank McCloy to the Secretary of State, clarified the US position on the "Baltic Legions": they were not to be seen as "movements", "volunteer", or "SS". In short, they were not given the training, indoctrination, and induction normally given to SS members. Subsequently the US Displaced Persons Commission in September 1950 declared that

The Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS

These men mostly joined the German Army in 1944, when Germany had nearly lost the war, to protect Estonia against return of Soviet terror. The Battle of Синимяэ (Sinimäed, Blue Hills), commemoration of which is criticized, was defensive battle (and heroic one at that). And over my dead body is anybody going to call the men who fought there Nazis.

Anybody who is indeed interested in understanding our viewpoint - I don't say it must be agreed with - might want to spend half an hour and read an article titled "Why did Estonians fight together with the Germans"
over here: http://www.hot.ee/evlliit/inglis_1.html
I'd certainly ask that you do it.

NB! I just love the picture lenta.ru picked to illustrate their article :D
 
Back
Top Bottom