[…] Finland has a 1,200-kilometer border with Russia and coastlines on or near three seas: the Baltic, Barents and Norwegian. Moving U.S. and NATO military forces into place along the land border and in the above seas would, in addition to analogous plans for Ukraine and Georgia, in effect consolidate the Western military blockade of the entire western frontier of Russia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea and the Caucasus.[…]
[…]Toward the end of last month Finland’s Haglund revealed that his nation had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with NATO allowing the latter to station military aircraft and vessels in the country and to supply troops and equipment to “assist” Finland if the latter – presumably – requests it. In other words, Finland will enter into an Article 5-style partnership with NATO that obligates the entire 28-nation Alliance to enter the fray if Finland is under threat or claims that it is.[…]
vara bungas: Somu memorands ar NATO, tas ir signāls/indikātors, ka FI valdība ņem nopietni draudus no Austrumiem, neskatoties uz “russlandversteher” viedokli un pacifistisko uzskatu nospiedošo pārsvaru sabiedrībā. Vienlaikus NATO gatavība sniegt palīdzību FI, ja šāda nepieciešamība radīsies, nozīmē, ka vajadzības gadījumā FI būs “iekš NATO” vienas dienas laikā. Tas vieš cerības, ka arī EE netiks aizmirsta (flangus jāsargā). RU tagad būtu “jāparāda zobus“(c) un kur tas notiks varat minēt.
vara bungas 
Nebūt ne pirmais brīdinājums pēdējās dienās, ka Putina pozīcijas vairs nav stabilas.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/can-putin-survive?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20140721&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore#axzz38HfMmksl
.. the current situation cannot sustain itself. The wild card in this situation is that if Putin finds himself in serious political trouble, he might become more rather than less aggressive. Whether Putin is in real trouble is not something I can be certain of, but too many things have gone wrong for him lately for me not to consider the possibility. And as in any political crisis, more and more extreme options are contemplated if the situation deteriorates.
Those who think that Putin is both the most repressive and aggressive Russian leader imaginable should bear in mind that this is far from the case. Lenin, for example, was fearsome. But Stalin was much worse. There may similarly come a time when the world looks at the Putin era as a time of liberality. For if the struggle by Putin to survive, and by his challengers to displace him, becomes more intense, the willingness of all to become more brutal might well increase.
neviens nav mūžīgs, svarīgāk sapast kāds būs nākamais. Es saku, ka vēl nepieņemamāks par esošo.
Pareizi. Jo sliktāks un slimāks viņš būs, jo ātrāk Krievija sabruks kas arī vajadzīgs.
Nu ja, jo slimāks un sliktāks..vai mēs sagaidīsim to sabrukumu 🙂
Labi varētu būt tikai tajā gadījumā, ja pirms tās sabrukšanas nenotiks kāds lielāks vai mazāks kariņš un, ja sabrukšanas procesā atlūzas nesāks krist mums uz galvas. Padomājiet!
Nato paziņo, ka varētu veidot lielu bāzi Ščecinā: http://www.tvnet.lv/zinas/arvalstis/519323-laikraksts_nato_varetu_izveidot_lielu_bazi_scecina
“Brīdlovs uzsvēris, ka aliansei vairāk jāgādā par sabiedroto drošību Austrumeiropā, īpaši Baltijas valstīs.”
Cerams, ka arī pie mums vismaz kādu noliktavu ierīkos…