Rajajääkäri
Ylipäällikkö
Ruotsalaiset ovat pelimiehiä. Yrittävät huonoilla korteillansa bluffata niin kauan, kuin mahdollista.
PSJ-Ukko
Kersantti
Tunnetusti mitä kauempana vaarasta on niin sitä sumuisemmalta se näyttää. Vertauskuvauksellisesti, kauempaa katsoen näkee aivan järkyttävän ison savupilven, mutta ku menee vähäse lähemmäs niin näkeeki että siellä on vaa monta grillinuotiota pystyssä. Toisaalta me sitten ollaan tarpeeksi lähellä nähkääksemme, että niillä grillaajilla onkin Kalashnikovit kainalossa...
Paska metafoora.
Voidaan ottaa myös esille se, että meillä ollaan luultavasti huomattavasti totuttautuneempia uutisointiin Venäjästä. Ruåtsissa ei näin välttis ole, ja siksi äkkinäinen, monta kuukautta putkeen jatkuva uutisvyyhti voi tuntua melko pelottavalta.
Nato-hakemusta seuraisi kriisi Venäjän kanssa
http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1428727352483?ref=hs-art-top-3
http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1428727352483?ref=hs-art-top-3
AKE-ukki
Respected Leader
Se on se perinteinen Venäläinen tapa antaa "kultainen kädenpuristus"..
Tietääkö Ilves jotain, mitä me emme tiedä, aavisteleeko, arvaileeko, vai ainoastaan panikoi?
http://www.uusisuomi.fi/ulkomaat/80...ilta-jos-venaja-hyokkaa-kaikki-ohi-4-tunnissa
Hätähuuto Viron presidentiltä: ”Jos Venäjä hyökkää, kaikki on ohi 4 tunnissa”
http://www.uusisuomi.fi/ulkomaat/80...ilta-jos-venaja-hyokkaa-kaikki-ohi-4-tunnissa
Hätähuuto Viron presidentiltä: ”Jos Venäjä hyökkää, kaikki on ohi 4 tunnissa”
Vonka
Supreme Leader
Niin no. Eikö Suomen pitänyt olla polvillaan 15 minuutissa? Vai miten se oli. Ilves on selvästi optimisti.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ato-to-send-troops-to-defend-his-country.html
Sitting near a nuclear tripwire, Estonia's president urges Nato to send troops to defend his country
Interview: President Toomas Hendrik Ilves tells the Telegraph the time has come for Nato to deter Russia by permanently stationing combat units in the Baltic states
The most sensitive border in Europe lies 130 miles east of Estonia’s elegant presidential palace. Elsewhere, the threat posed by Russia might seem academic or even alarmist, but for President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the possibility of Estonia becoming the epicentre of the world’s next crisis is very real.
As the smallest Baltic state – and the one possessing the longest frontier with Russia – Estonia is arguably the most exposed country in Europe.
But if the Kremlin were to invade this nation of 1.3 million people in the way it has dismembered Ukraine, the consequences would be infinitely more perilous. Estonia joined Nato 11 years ago - as such, every country in the Atlantic Alliance, including America and Britain, would be obliged to go to war in its defence.
The frontier with Russia, only a two-hour drive from Mr Ilves’s office, also amounts to a nuclear tripwire. And yet not a single American or Nato soldier is currently defending that border.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Ilves professes to be at the “calm end of the spectrum”. He then provides a list of reasons to be profoundly concerned about Russian intentions.
“We have observed a dramatic increase in military flights,” he says. “We have seen massive snap exercises at our borders. We have seen a heightened level of antagonistic rhetoric and threatening rhetoric where Estonia is not singled out, but we are part of a group of countries who are mentioned in a threatening way.”
Despite the crisis in Ukraine and the ceaseless belligerence of Vladimir Putin, Nato has not permanently deployed any combat units in Estonia or any other Baltic member.
That is because in 1997, Nato signed a “founding act” with Russia stating that no combat troops would be permanently stationed east of Germany “in the current and foreseeable security environment”. In the face of every Russian provocation and threat, Nato is still observing that self-denying ordinance. One company of US infantry, consisting of 150 soldiers, is the sole contingent of Nato troops currently in Estonia – and they are only here temporarily.
Mr Ilves believes the time has come for Nato to point out that the "security environment" has indeed changed since 1997 and permanently deploy at least a brigade in the Baltic states. “One hundred and fifty soldiers is not a lot, so we do think that further stationing of troops at a higher number is only reasonable,” he says.
“We get exercises that take place behind our borders that have 40,000 to 80,000 soldiers. Yet we are accused of escalating the situation – or the United States is accused because they are the only ones with boots on the ground here – and Russia says that it will have to take counter-measures.”
During the Wales summit last year, Nato leaders offered their most vulnerable allies a series of “assurance measures”. They promised that a “very high readiness” task force, comprised of 5,000 troops, would be able to deploy to the Baltic states in the event of an emergency.
But Mr Ilves is unreassured. “It would get here in, what, a week? Five days?” he says. “But if you look at the exercises that are done by our neighbour, they’re basically instantaneous. They’re here and it’s over in four hours.”
Despite conscription and a defence budget exceeding Nato’s target of two per cent of national income, Estonia’s army has only 5,300 soldiers. Like the other Baltic states, Estonia does not possess any jet fighters, so it relies entirely on Nato to guard its airspace. Last year, the alliance quadrupled the strength of its Baltic Air Policing Mission - but only from four to 16 warplanes. Russia, meanwhile, possesses 230,000 troops and 1,200 combat aircraft.
In the event of an invasion, Mr Ilves believes that Russia would try to seal off the Baltic states before Nato’s “very high readiness” force had a chance to arrive. “It’s a great idea but it probably is, in terms of the realities, just too late,” he says simply.
Hence the importance of Nato stationing at least a brigade now, as well as pre-positioning equipment and headquarters staff. Estonia is spending £30 million on barracks for allied troops, but without knowing whether they will actually show up on a permanent basis.
Mr Ilves, 61, has been Estonia’s president for almost a decade. During the Cold War, he lived in exile in America and worked for Radio Free Europe.
Does the West have the same resolve that it showed during the Cold War? “I’m not convinced,” he replies. “There was a certain moral clarity before that is now, I would say, falling apart.”
Mr Ilves points to the business links between Gerhard Schroeder, the former German Chancellor, and the Russian state energy giant, Gazprom. “This is the sort of thing that, up until 1991, would never have been possible – never,” he says.
Last year, the National Front in France accepted a loan from a Russian bank, apparently in exchange for supporting the Kremlin’s seizure of Crimea. “We have the rise of extreme Right-wing parties that are either funded directly by Russia, or are highly pro-Russia,” adds Mr Ilves. "There is a difference between the moral fibre, backbone, conscience of countries regarding Soviet behaviour in the 1980s that today is missing when it comes to Russian behaviour.”
Europe and America have united over the Ukraine crisis, imposing sanctions that are biting deep into the vitals of Russia’s economy. But Mr Ilves believes they should go further by supplying Ukraine with “defensive” weapons, such as Javelin anti-tank missiles.
“Diplomacy between a powerful, victorious army and a side that’s losing doesn’t really work well,” he says. “You’re being attacked with modern weaponry, you need modern weaponry to defend yourself, otherwise you’re going to be overrun.”
Mr Ilves is equally adamant Britain must keep its nuclear deterrent. “Don’t get rid of it,” he says, adding that Britain should “maintain its nuclear capability in whatever form it wishes to”.
Estonia is a liberal democracy, close to making a net contribution to the EU budget. With its medieval old city and Baltic port, the country’s capital, Tallinn, views itself not as an isolated outpost but as part of the European mainstream.
Does Mr Ilves believe the Atlantic Alliance possesses the resolve to defend Estonia?
“If someone says ‘no’, at that point Nato ceases to exist,” he replies. “The minute a collective alliance fails to live up to its agreement to collective defence, then from that moment on, everybody is on the run. Once something like that happens, it’s over.”
Abandoning Estonia to Russia would mean the death of Nato, so Mr Ilves feels sure it will not be allowed to happen. “As soon as one country is left on its own, no country will feel secure after that,” he says. “This is why I’m confident - because it’s all self-interest.”
Sitting near a nuclear tripwire, Estonia's president urges Nato to send troops to defend his country
Interview: President Toomas Hendrik Ilves tells the Telegraph the time has come for Nato to deter Russia by permanently stationing combat units in the Baltic states
The most sensitive border in Europe lies 130 miles east of Estonia’s elegant presidential palace. Elsewhere, the threat posed by Russia might seem academic or even alarmist, but for President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the possibility of Estonia becoming the epicentre of the world’s next crisis is very real.
As the smallest Baltic state – and the one possessing the longest frontier with Russia – Estonia is arguably the most exposed country in Europe.
But if the Kremlin were to invade this nation of 1.3 million people in the way it has dismembered Ukraine, the consequences would be infinitely more perilous. Estonia joined Nato 11 years ago - as such, every country in the Atlantic Alliance, including America and Britain, would be obliged to go to war in its defence.
The frontier with Russia, only a two-hour drive from Mr Ilves’s office, also amounts to a nuclear tripwire. And yet not a single American or Nato soldier is currently defending that border.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Mr Ilves professes to be at the “calm end of the spectrum”. He then provides a list of reasons to be profoundly concerned about Russian intentions.
“We have observed a dramatic increase in military flights,” he says. “We have seen massive snap exercises at our borders. We have seen a heightened level of antagonistic rhetoric and threatening rhetoric where Estonia is not singled out, but we are part of a group of countries who are mentioned in a threatening way.”
Despite the crisis in Ukraine and the ceaseless belligerence of Vladimir Putin, Nato has not permanently deployed any combat units in Estonia or any other Baltic member.
That is because in 1997, Nato signed a “founding act” with Russia stating that no combat troops would be permanently stationed east of Germany “in the current and foreseeable security environment”. In the face of every Russian provocation and threat, Nato is still observing that self-denying ordinance. One company of US infantry, consisting of 150 soldiers, is the sole contingent of Nato troops currently in Estonia – and they are only here temporarily.
Mr Ilves believes the time has come for Nato to point out that the "security environment" has indeed changed since 1997 and permanently deploy at least a brigade in the Baltic states. “One hundred and fifty soldiers is not a lot, so we do think that further stationing of troops at a higher number is only reasonable,” he says.
“We get exercises that take place behind our borders that have 40,000 to 80,000 soldiers. Yet we are accused of escalating the situation – or the United States is accused because they are the only ones with boots on the ground here – and Russia says that it will have to take counter-measures.”
During the Wales summit last year, Nato leaders offered their most vulnerable allies a series of “assurance measures”. They promised that a “very high readiness” task force, comprised of 5,000 troops, would be able to deploy to the Baltic states in the event of an emergency.
But Mr Ilves is unreassured. “It would get here in, what, a week? Five days?” he says. “But if you look at the exercises that are done by our neighbour, they’re basically instantaneous. They’re here and it’s over in four hours.”
Despite conscription and a defence budget exceeding Nato’s target of two per cent of national income, Estonia’s army has only 5,300 soldiers. Like the other Baltic states, Estonia does not possess any jet fighters, so it relies entirely on Nato to guard its airspace. Last year, the alliance quadrupled the strength of its Baltic Air Policing Mission - but only from four to 16 warplanes. Russia, meanwhile, possesses 230,000 troops and 1,200 combat aircraft.
In the event of an invasion, Mr Ilves believes that Russia would try to seal off the Baltic states before Nato’s “very high readiness” force had a chance to arrive. “It’s a great idea but it probably is, in terms of the realities, just too late,” he says simply.
Hence the importance of Nato stationing at least a brigade now, as well as pre-positioning equipment and headquarters staff. Estonia is spending £30 million on barracks for allied troops, but without knowing whether they will actually show up on a permanent basis.
Mr Ilves, 61, has been Estonia’s president for almost a decade. During the Cold War, he lived in exile in America and worked for Radio Free Europe.
Does the West have the same resolve that it showed during the Cold War? “I’m not convinced,” he replies. “There was a certain moral clarity before that is now, I would say, falling apart.”
Mr Ilves points to the business links between Gerhard Schroeder, the former German Chancellor, and the Russian state energy giant, Gazprom. “This is the sort of thing that, up until 1991, would never have been possible – never,” he says.
Last year, the National Front in France accepted a loan from a Russian bank, apparently in exchange for supporting the Kremlin’s seizure of Crimea. “We have the rise of extreme Right-wing parties that are either funded directly by Russia, or are highly pro-Russia,” adds Mr Ilves. "There is a difference between the moral fibre, backbone, conscience of countries regarding Soviet behaviour in the 1980s that today is missing when it comes to Russian behaviour.”
Europe and America have united over the Ukraine crisis, imposing sanctions that are biting deep into the vitals of Russia’s economy. But Mr Ilves believes they should go further by supplying Ukraine with “defensive” weapons, such as Javelin anti-tank missiles.
“Diplomacy between a powerful, victorious army and a side that’s losing doesn’t really work well,” he says. “You’re being attacked with modern weaponry, you need modern weaponry to defend yourself, otherwise you’re going to be overrun.”
Mr Ilves is equally adamant Britain must keep its nuclear deterrent. “Don’t get rid of it,” he says, adding that Britain should “maintain its nuclear capability in whatever form it wishes to”.
Estonia is a liberal democracy, close to making a net contribution to the EU budget. With its medieval old city and Baltic port, the country’s capital, Tallinn, views itself not as an isolated outpost but as part of the European mainstream.
Does Mr Ilves believe the Atlantic Alliance possesses the resolve to defend Estonia?
“If someone says ‘no’, at that point Nato ceases to exist,” he replies. “The minute a collective alliance fails to live up to its agreement to collective defence, then from that moment on, everybody is on the run. Once something like that happens, it’s over.”
Abandoning Estonia to Russia would mean the death of Nato, so Mr Ilves feels sure it will not be allowed to happen. “As soon as one country is left on its own, no country will feel secure after that,” he says. “This is why I’m confident - because it’s all self-interest.”
StepanRudanskij
Respected Leader
Ei se nyt ole ihan noinkaan. Silloin kaikki vasta alkaa.
Voisivat tehdä itse asialle jotain, vaikkapa yleinen asevelvollisuus ja nostaisivat veroja että olisi varaa rahoittaa puolustusvoimia. Muita huudetaan apuun mutta itse ei mitään. Helvetin pummit.
vlad
Respected Leader
En sanoisi, että eestiläiset ovat maanpuolustustyön lekkeriksi pistäneet - seuraavat tiedot on pikaisella haulla kaivettu netistä:
-puolustusmenot bkt:stä 2,05 % v. 2015 eli täyttää NATO:n tavoitteen 2 % bkt:stä.
-reservi reilut 218 000 miestä.
-aktiivihenkilöstö 17500 sotilasta - sisältää kaitseliitin (huom. eestiläisiä on sen reilut 1 320 000).
-maassa on yleinen asevelvollisuus.
Sanoisin, että perusta on ihan hyvä eli tässä suhteessa en kauheasti ryhtyisi kritisoimaan eestiläisiä, esim. prosentuaalisesti he käyttävät puolustukseen enemmän rahaa bkt:stä mitä Suomi. Toisaalta ilman kaitseliittiä aktiivihenkilöstön määrä on varsin pieni (n. 5000 miestä) ja onhan Eestillä puutteensakin ja tästä johtuen NATO:n rooli tietyissä tehtävissä on varsin suuri Balttiassa - tämä ongelma tosin koskettaa koko Balttiaa. Ilmavoimiin panostaminen on minimaalista, sen sijaan on turvauduttu NATO:n takaamaan ilmavalvontaan.
Olen samoilla linjoilla mitä @Vonka - mukana on huomattavan paljon propagandaa ja sitten ripaus totuutta. Kun vaan todellakin tietäisi, että missä mennään ja mikä kaikki on mitäkin. Ja vaikka eestiläisten taustoja ymmärtääkin niin tietyssä mielessä nämä Ilveksen useat ulostulot tuntuvat hämmentäviltä ja tulee tunne, että kenen pussiin hän nyt pelaa - mitä niiden lopullinen tarkoitus on?
vlad.
taktinen taistelumajava
Kapteeni
No ei ole virolaisten reservi 218 000 miestä tai sitten sillä luvulla tarkoitetaan reservissä olevia miehiä jolloin Suomen reservi on 700 000 ukkoa.
Wikipedia antaa Viron sodan ajan joukkojen vahvuudeksi.
Once fully mobilized the Maavägi can man and arm during the conflict the following wartime structure:
Ei mopolla mahottomia!
Wikipedia antaa Viron sodan ajan joukkojen vahvuudeksi.
Once fully mobilized the Maavägi can man and arm during the conflict the following wartime structure:
- 2 infantry brigades, one of them mechanized.
- 2 air-defence battalions
- 2 engineer battalions
- 2 artillery battalions
- 2 combat support service battalions
- 2 scouts companies
- 2 anti-tank companies
- 2 signal companies
Ei mopolla mahottomia!
Rajajääkäri
Ylipäällikkö
Nii-in ja sitten kyllä kärkkäästi arvostellaan Suomea maltillisemmasta suhtautumisesta, kun ei yhdy räkyttämään samaan kuoroon heidän kanssaan.
Suhtautettuna väestöön ovat tehneet lyhyessä ajassa enemmän kuin Suomi, joten SUU SUPPUUN!
Tämä ketjun avaus on kyllä hyvä kysymys, jota tulee nykyisin jatkuvasti miettineeksi - outoja aikoja elämme... Kaikki järki sanoo (kuten Tannerille kesällä -39), etteivät voi olla niin hulluja, mutta jos eivät ole niin mitä ihmettä tämä viime vuosien elämöinti ja systemaattinen kansalliskiihkon ja revansismin lietsominen sitten on ollut? Anyway, ihan normaali liike-elämästä tuttu riskin vaikutuspotentiaali/todennäköisyys -analyysi saa ajattelemaan, että Suomen on joka tapauksessa reagoitava sillä tasolla, että tämä on ihan reaalinen mahdollisuus. Nyt länsi ja itä eivät enää ole vastakkain Saksan sisäosissa vaan Itämerellä. Olemme siis mahdollisen kriisin polttopisteessä, halusimme tai emme. Meidän on valmistauduttava, harjoiteltava, nostettava puolustusvalmiuttamme. Ihan riippumatta siitä, onko Nato-jäsenyyden kannattaja vai (olettavasti) sinänsä patrioottinen lehtomäkeläinen (Väyrysestä en osaa sanoa, mikä lintu tai kala on).
aj77
Greatest Leader
Samoja kysymyksiä mielessä pyörii. Jos ei mitään suunnittele niin miksi. Tosin vastaus saattaa olla yksinkertainen. Kaikki tämä vain sen vuoksi että saa rohmuta mahdollisimman paljon rahaa ja pysyy silti vallassa. Se vaatii suurvalta aseman osoittamista ennenkaikkea omille kansalaisille. Miksi propaganda on suomessa niin voimakasta tiettyjen toimijoiden joukossa. Milloin Kreml päätti alkaa rahoittamaan suomen ilmapiirin muokkaamista ja mikä siinä on tavoitteena.. Tosin huonosti menee sillä rintamalla. Päinvastoin. Natokannatus on nousussa ja jopa suuret ikäluokat alkavat havahtumaan maailman muutokseen. Se on jo sinällänsä biologinen ihme.
Tuohon lihavoituun laittaisin kuriositeettinä, että vuonna 1979 (kun olin 12 v. koulupoika) ihan vakavissaan aikuiset ihmiset keskustelivat siitä, joutuuko Suomi sotaan mahdollisen Kiinan ja NL:n konfliktin mukana NL:n puolella. Silloin oli se Kiinan hyökkäys Vietnamiin. Ja elettiin lujaa YYA-aikaa.
Niin ne ajat muuttuvat.
Juuri näin, mitä helvettiä odotellaan, tilauksia maailmalle ja kotimaahan menemään kaiken materiaalin suhteen.
Leopardit Suomeen, tykkiä tulemaan, rakettia, kranaattia ja radiota.
Mitä saatanaa tässä höpötetään YYA liturgiaa ei uhkaavasta naapurista, nyt tarvitaan tekoja.
vlad
Respected Leader
Kyseinen tieto perustuu Eestin puolustusvoimien kirjanpitoon, tarkoitetaanko sillä sitten rekisterissä olevaa väkeä, jolloin saadaan reservin kokonaisvahvuudeksi reilut 218 000 miestä (ja naista - joita rekisteri pitäisi kokonaisuudessaan sisällään reilut tuhat). Aiheesta uutisoinut Postimees-lehti (www.postimees.ee huhtikuu 2014). Tämä lukema olisi sitten eri kuin mobilisoitavat joukot ja verrattavissa johonkin hypoteettiseen olettamukseen siitä, että kaikki tietyn ikäluokan miehet saadaan riviin.
Sodanajan mobilisaatiovahvuudeksi arvioidaan eri lähteissä sitten olennaisesti pienempiä joukkoja (armedforces.co.uk antaa lukemaksi 16 000 miestä). Eestin asevoimien informaation mukaan sodanajan suunniteltu operationaalinen vahvuus on 60 000 miestä, joista 21 000 miestä on korkean valmiuden reservissä. EDF:n ilmoituksen mukaan kaitseliitin vahvuus on noin 15 000 miestä. (www.mil.ee).
Eli todellinen reservi saattaisi olla lähellä 60 000 miestä joista 21 000 on sitten korkeanvalmiuden reservissä - toinen asia on sitten se, että mikä on reservin aseistuksen laatu. Mutta tämäkin taso (n. 60 000 miestä) on mielestäni suhteellisen hyvä huomioiden historian ja lähtötason.
vlad.