Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Plus we'll have Sarkozy's pro-American France, alongside Merkel's neutral Germany. We're already able to count on Denmark, Poland, and the UK; even in Norway the better men are in charge now. We have, admittedly, lost Spain and (to a lesser extent) Italy but they're not north of the Alps.

NATO 2007 should be more cohesive than NATO 2002.

Tangent to the topic, I think that once Finland gets in, it should unite with Estonia. Linguistically, I'm told that they're about as far apart as Scots is from English. Ethnically they're the same. The major difference is in the makeup of their minorities; Swedish in Finland and Russian in Estonia. Diluting the Russian share in the demographics is a feature, not a bug...

Posted by David Ross at May 8, 2007 07:48 PM

Swedish connections to NATO have been non-trivial for some time. Sweden builds very quiet, long-duration-capable, non-nuclear submarines powered by Stirling engines burning stored hydrocabon fuel and liquid oxygen. The U.S. Navy has one of these on a lease deal - crew included - to act as an "opfor" (opposing force) in anti-submarine warfare exercises. The USN is worried about small advanced non-nuclear submarines operating in the littoral regions of the world and arranged to hire one of the best as a realistic training opponent.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at May 8, 2007 08:26 PM

David, with democracies, the leadership comes and goes. There'll be times when countries are more pro-NATO and times when they'll be less so. Keep in mind, that by your standards, there's a good chance that the US will be temporarily "lost" to NATO after the 2008 elections.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 8, 2007 09:11 PM

David Ross said:
"...even in Norway the better men are in charge now."

I'm a norwegian citizen living in Norway and I freely admit that norwegian politics bore me (I know without a shadow of a doubt who to continue voting for) but you startled me there and I begun to wonder if I'd completely missed the government changing hands... ^_^

But no, the "better men" (women actually since both right-wing parties have female leaders/nominees for Prime Minister) aren't in charge yet but hopefully will be in 2009. For anyone who is confused Norway is still ruled by the narrow 2005 election resulting in a socialist coalition.

David might be thinking about the recent swedish election won by "Moderaterna" a conservative party - I won't take offense at anyone mixing up Norway and Sweden in this case hehe.

Anyway with that corrected; Sweden has always been an "unofficial" yet cooperative part of Nato plans but it would be nice if both Sweden and Finland outright joined (not that I expect them to). It would be sweet no matter which bear grumbles in Russia (and I'm not entirely ready to give up on Putin yet no matter how much I dislike the recent developments).

Nice info on the lease Dick Eagleson, I didn't know the US had taken it that seriously but absolutely appropriate. I've got to mention that norwegian subs regularly sunk US aircraft carriers (direct fatal hits while ignoring the rest of the group) in exercises through the 80ies and 90ies but those were just plain diesel/battery - still silent and small/cramped.

I refuse to lose hope regarding the US 08 election, after watching the primary debates (both of them so far) absolutely any of the Republican contenders except the anti-war Ron Paul will do.

Does it help if I say please? ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 8, 2007 09:34 PM

Finnish and estonian are quite a lot further apart than scottish and english dialects. It's practically impossible for a finn to understand spoken estonian, and vice versa, but the learning is of course not so hard as with completely new languages.
An amusing thought, nevertheless.

Finland and Estonia have probably last time been part of the same nation during Sweden's days of greatness in the 1700:s. I don't think anyone would really want it. :)

Since estonia only at the beginning of the nineties got out from behind the iron curtain, there's still some difference in standard of living here in Finland and over there across the gulf. They are getting wealthier at a remarkable rate anyway.

I, as a finn, sure can understand that Estonia joined NATO. As a very small country of less than 2 million inhabitants and flat lands they are very vulnerable. Finland has it a bit better, having 5 million people and lots of forest, rivers, lakes and hills in the east.

What probably is at the bottom of this "change" is the new centre-right government in Finland which wants to take us to NATO pretty fast. The public is sceptical (we are sceptical about almost everything here).

I also think that finland actually can and does talk and work with Russia. Putin visits here often, and our president Halonen there. Of course there are some problems, like lines at toll crossings or pollution of the finnish gulf by st Petersburg (we pollute it plenty ourselves too), but there's nothing major in the horizon.

At least one of Putin's possible replacement candidates has worked in Finland (in intelligence!) and knows the place and can work with us.

There are of course people like Vladimir Zhirinovski, who in the nineties promised to steamroll finland if he's elected. I think now he promises to give us Karelia back if he's elected. Go figure.

I don't know how much you've followed the war statue argument between Russia and Estonia. It has been weird. The memorial is a statue that the soviets put up after the war as a sign of "victory over fascists", while for the estonians it of course symbolizes the ~50 year occupation by soviets. So here's a story about the statue:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Model+for+controversial+Tallinn+memorial+defected+to+Finland+during+war/1135226954902

Posted by mz at May 8, 2007 09:58 PM

So we have two large blocks. The Euros and the Russians. Now all we need is an alliance with the Chinese to hem in the Bear from behind, some kind of arms race, say between nuclear weapon delivery systems and ABM systems, an autocratic warmongering leader and we've got the full WW1 setup. All that's needed is a little disturbance in Serbia.

Posted by K at May 8, 2007 11:01 PM

David: "Plus we'll have Sarkozy's pro-American France alongside Merkel's neutral Germany."

All free countries have always supported America, and we support them.

"We have, admittedly, lost Spain and (to a lesser extent) Italy"

No, we haven't.

"I think that once Finland gets in, it should unite with Estonia."

There doesn't seem to be much interest from the concerned parties.

"Linguistically, I'm told that they're about as far apart as Scots is from English."

Yet the Scots are apparently on track to leave the United Kingdom, for no better reason than accent, football, and a "national" distinction that's been meaningless for centuries.

"Ethnically they're the same."

To a far lesser degree than Australia is related to the United States.

K: "So we have two large blocks. The Euros and the Russians."

The Russians are no danger to Europe, so it's foolish either to believe or encourage their pretenses.

"Now all we need is an alliance with the Chinese to hem in the Bear from behind"

That would be ass-backwards. "The Bear" is a drunken, fat old man taking umbrage at everything and pitching bluster at disrespectful youth, while China is the Lucky Luciano-ish predator, saying "please" and "thank you" and waiting politely for an opportunity to knock the status quo on its ass. I'm not saying this will happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if China somehow managed to annex or purchase Siberia this century.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 9, 2007 05:06 AM

Brian says: Yet the Scots are apparently on track to leave the United Kingdom, for no better reason than accent, football, and a "national" distinction that's been meaningless for centuries.

Meaningless to you maybe. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of Scots out there that feel differently. Just because you're the self-appointed master of all, doesn't give you any right to trivialize national pride. I think I remember you saying something prideful about the US (in the past) but it may be just a distinction that's been meaningless for centuries.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 06:49 AM

Mac: "Meaningless to you maybe."

If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't have said it. Why state the obvious?

"I'm willing to bet there are a lot of Scots out there that feel differently."

If I wasn't aware of that, I wouldn't have noted the growing popularity of Scottish secessionism. Again, why state the obvious?

"Just because you're the self-appointed master of all, doesn't give you any right to trivialize national pride."

National pride usually trivializes itself. To have a specific bloodline, to live in a certain place, to speak a given language or have a particular accent is meaningless except in context. What does it actually mean to be a Scot that's different from being an Englishman? Presbyterian instead of Anglican? Tartan Army instead of United hooligans? The only arguments I've read from Scottish nationalists are that they can provide more efficient services, and profit more from their local resources without the UK. Somehow that doesn't sound like Mel Gibson crying "Freedom!" to me. If anything, all it signifies is an equal absence of meaningful British identity transcending the English.

"I think I remember you saying something prideful about the US (in the past) but it may be just a distinction that's been meaningless for centuries."

My pride is based on specific accomplishments and character, not blood or geography. The American genius is quite distinct from the rest of the Anglophone world, but I've seen nothing to greatly distinguish today's Scots from Northern Englishmen beyond a dash of Irish melancholy. All the great Scots of the modern world have exhibited the same virtues identified with British high culture in general, having inherited them from the English over centuries of Union. They don't want to admit it, and I'd never say this in a Scottish pub, but they are in fact Englishmen--"Scotland" is just a geographic region and a historical nation that no longer exists. Even the kilt was an English invention, given to them for obscure reasons.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 9, 2007 09:38 AM

"All free countries have always supported America, and we support them."

And here, I really thought France counted in the 'free' column.

Posted by Al at May 9, 2007 09:43 AM

"And here, I really thought France counted in the 'free' column."

Obviously they do.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 9, 2007 10:42 AM

The gist...

Mac: "Meaningless to you maybe."

If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't have said it. Why state the obvious?

Hmmm, your original statement said meaningless for centuries.....gosh you're old.

Squiddie: To have a specific bloodline, to live in a certain place, to speak a given language or have a particular accent is meaningless except in context.

Its part of who we are when we grow up in that societal area. National pride is a real thing. Lines drawn on a map they may be, but belonging to a group is preferrable to the human equation than not.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 10:43 AM

"Hmmm, your original statement said meaningless for centuries.....gosh you're old."

No, but I read books.

"Its part of who we are when we grow up in that societal area."

Scotland is the same "societal area" as England, and has been for a very long time. Its perception of difference is an isolated and arbitrary thing unto itself, lingering due to rhetorical expediency and the self-aggrandizing nature of certain personality types.

It never became politically feasible to simply call the whole nation England and its people Englishmen even as the whole island became culturally English, so the name Scotland, and the noun Scot continued in use, and with it the continuing desire to somehow justify the distinction. Scots nationalists crow "What is it to be British, except to be English?" And they have a point, because there really is nothing, but then they retreat from accepting the implications of that fact: They are Englishmen. Rather than viewing themselves as such and taking pride in their true national heritage, England, they view that fact as an insult and try to run from it by manufacturing divergence. They betray who they are for a self-aggrandizing fiction, all because of a schism kept alive only by terminology.

"Lines drawn on a map they may be, but belonging to a group is preferrable to the human equation than not."

Only groups with significant distinctions have the credibility to proclaim themselves individual. The Confederacy, while evil and illegal, had that credibility; Scotland does not. Whether or not they have the right, the movement toward Scottish independence seems glib and almost childish, like a postmodern consumer choice rather than a matter of serious national identity.

About the only thing I'm curious about in the whole affair is whether the UK--which would be reduced to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland--would hang on to the Union Jack incorporating both the Scottish and English flags, create a new flag to better reflect its membership, or revert to the English standard. I suppose it might also be interesting what would happen to the UK's Security Council seat.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 9, 2007 01:01 PM

Brian said: Only groups with significant distinctions have the credibility to proclaim themselves individual.

Correct, and the significant distinction is the line on the map.

Brian said previously: Scotland is the same "societal area" as England, and has been for a very long time.

The societal area is demarcated with a line. That line on a map separates Scotland and England. Scotland therefore is a different societal area.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 01:31 PM

"Correct, and the significant distinction is the line on the map."

Lines on a map are often insignificant.

"That line on a map separates Scotland and England."

A line on a map separates Delaware from Maryland, but no one's going to get in a bar fight over it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 9, 2007 02:46 PM

A line on a map separating Delaware and Maryland is a demarcation within a larger group, Americans. Though there may be associated differences, the national outlook is not affected because both states are in the US as a whole. The boundary separating Scotland and England are country boundaries and carry more weight. Yes, map lines can be insignificant, but they can also be significant as well.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 02:54 PM

A line on a map separates Delaware from Maryland, but no one's going to get in a bar fight over it.

yeah, but a moronic BS "liberal" will debate the nuance of a non-sequitor to death in the comments section of a blog.

There was a discussion about Sweden and Finland joining NATO potentially due to concerns about the Russian bear returning to some soviet ways. A few commenters, some who actually live in the region, made some very good comments on the topic.

Posted by Leland at May 10, 2007 08:33 AM

Perhaps the Eagle and the Lion will need to join forces with the Bear and the Dragon against the rabid wolf in southwest Asia.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 10, 2007 11:45 AM

More likely the Lion will join with the Ostrich (France) and determine subterrainian sand movement.

Posted by Mac at May 10, 2007 02:44 PM

Leland: yeah, but a moronic BS "liberal" will debate the nuance of a non-sequitor to death in the comments section of a blog.

What are you babbling about now?

Leland: There was a discussion about Sweden and Finland joining NATO potentially due to concerns about the Russian bear returning to some soviet ways.

And it led to a tangent about Finland and Estonia, which broadened to the meaning of nation. This is how conversations work, so whether or not you need more structure is your problem.

Perhaps the Eagle and the Lion will need to join forces with the Bear and the Dragon against the rabid wolf in southwest Asia.

There is no wolf, and certainly not rabid, in southwest Asia. Iran is a petty regional influence that gets more attention than it deserves due to the Islamic angle. Moreover, people should stop calling Russia "the Bear"--its ursine attributes are dead, and it can barely keep its impoverished, utterly dependent immediate neighbors in line. The one and only nation-state posing any serious threat to us is China.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 12, 2007 09:40 AM

Post a comment