Thomas: I was joking about being a GRU colonel, ofcourse. I am just a young (26 years old) Police Leutenant Senior Grade, with fondness in military history and geopolitics, and with diploma in "history teaching". My most interest during institute years was in Naval Warfare, especially WWII and cold war. So, all my knoledge based on open literature and press analysis. This your last post sounds more reasonable and argumented, I must admit it. May be, I was a little too offensive on you, sorry... Really, our shift to democracy is hampered by communist's legacy (hey, these people on top of government were all loyal party members), and may be we even slowing now. But people now are different, especially young (20-35 years). They were not in Com. party, they were growing during such radical changes which you (I presume) never experienced. Also, from 1980s we dont think about West as our enemy. The truth is, for our military during last 25 years usual enemy is islamic fanatic/freedom fighter with AK and RPG-7. May be, some "hawks" still think about West as of enemy (not may be, but surely). But believe me, our people far better than our leaders, generals and politicians. I dont think that any hostilities between Russia and Europe can lead to anything dark. May be, I am an idealist (as Chamberlain was in 1937 - "I've brought you a peace for a next generation", dont remember correct quote), but thats my opinion based on many factors.

It was nothing personal against You, but Russia as the burden of proof every single time: Maybe it isn't fair, but that is the way it is. Germany understood it after WW2 - I lived in germany and speak fluent german - they have eaten humble pie, letting insult be ignored: Because concentration camps WERE TRUE. They have worked so hard, as just a German can do, eventually even the diehard germanhaters have to admit, that they HAVE made amends; but You do not realise the giant step it was for Germany to form an army corps with Germany. Our reconciliation is THE model for making peace. I tell You something: If You ever come to Copenhagen: Say something nasty about the Swedes - and You are the funniest man in town. The last war with Sweden was 300 years ago. As I said: The mistrust is one of the cost of war (cold or otherwise) that figures nowhere; but they are very real indeed. If You enter Denmark: Believe me: Your passport will be scrutinised.

"There are may people in the world who have respect or love for Russia. Serbs, Bulgarians, Indians, Vietnamese, Norwegians, French, many others" Serbs and Bulgarians are your "relatives" You may say: I'm a good man, my cousin like me! And don't forget: Russia helped them a lot. Indians and Vietnamese are far enough to love you. From that distance easy to love an other nation. Norwegians I think are simply polite. Don't build your house on the French friendship! People mostly like those nations they don't know. The problems used to be with the well known ones. In ex socialist countries we have some negative experiences with SU/Russia. Poland. They simply hate the Russians. (Not only for the last 50 years.) In Hungary most people dislike the Russians. Many people hate them. They can't forget what they did after ww2. Yes you can say that not you started the war, and you are right! But this thread is about emotions and not about logic. A few years ago a Russian gas company wanted to buy a Hungarian chemical company.A quite small one. It became a scandall. The Russians want come back! We have to prevent it! And all stones were moved to stop it. They couldn't buy it even through their branches in Austria and Ireland. The authorities traced back the owners. No Russians can buy it! Whole branches of industry were bought by Germans and French, that wasn't problem, but Russians get out! I have friends who worked in the SU. They feel nor love neither respect to the Russians. With my curiousity about your county I'm a queer fish here. An Ukrainian guy told: If you have a Russian friend, he is a good friend, a good man. Two Russians are not so good. Three Russians are trouble.

I must say after a sixer the vodka may get the best of me. I AM 27 road cop so we missed most of the cold war maybe that is why it is hard to understand the harsh feelings for your country. btw;hook me up with some vodka,women,and let me beat up on you in some pc-games,and i will fly over.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/CapitalistCollapse_Russia.html -Looking at this report can I ask if things have changed in Russia and at that how exactly is Russia going to achieve "Superpower" status as it only ever achived this during the Cold War using the Military Industrial complex that was destroyed during the Perestroika years under Gorbachev. The Russian idea of greatness is nothing more than inertial pride and wishfull thinking in my opinion that was driven by a hollow Communist ideal that has no chance of fermentation in the Capatalist World. Russia will be a noticable player in the World if it can get rid of it's obtuse military that it inherited from the collapce of the Soviet Empire, replace it with one it can afford and nurture foreign investment to improve Industrial output while stamping out the rampant corruption that appears to be rife there, pretty much the same route China seems to be going down and it looks like it may become one of the top tier nations within the century. "Russian scientists were once famous for launching he world's first space satellite. Their counterparts today survive by growing vegetables in their small yards. These are not retirees enjoying some well-deserved leisure time gardening, but prime age workers-miners and teachers as well as scientists-trying to meet basic needs in the face of economic collapse. People go to work every day and do whatever their employer asks, yet weeks and months pass without a single paycheck. They stay on the job because at least it provides some fringe benefits, and no alternative paying job exists. This has been the meaning of Western-inspired "reform" to a majority of public and private sector workers in Russia. But the media began calling it a crisis only in August of this year, when Russia stopped making timely payments to Western bankers and other investors who had taken a chance on Russian bonds. After imposing years of suffering on ordinary Russians, Russia's Western-inspired 'neoliberal" program for rapidly building capitalism appears to have finally collapsed under its own weight. This program was devised seven years ago by top economic advisors to Russian President Boris Yeltsin's government, working closely with specialists from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Any visitor to Russia can see the effects of the IMF program. The nation's economic output has fallen by half and its investment by three-fourths since 1991, with no recovery in sight. Money is so scarce that half of economic transactions are conducted through barter. A small group of influential insiders has been handed ownership of the former Soviet Union's most valuable properties, while the majority has been plunged into poverty and hopelessness. The economic and social collapse has caused more than two million premature deaths since 1991, due to sharp increases in alcoholism, murder and suicide, infectious diseases, and stress-related ailments. Despite the unprecedented economic depression, until recently Russian bankers kept getting richer and the stock market soared, buoyed by the lucrative trade in Russia's valuable oil, gas, and metals. Western banks helped to finance the speculative binge that drove up Russian stock prices, making it one of the world's best-performing stock markets in 1997. Then in the late spring of this year, Russia's stock market began to fall and investors started to pull their money out of the country. The Clinton administration, fearing that Yeltsin's government would not survive a looming financial crisis, pressed a reluctant IMF to approve a $22.6 billion emergency loan on July 13. This bailout proved unsuccessful. Four weeks later the financial crisis resumed as investors fled and Russia's government had to pay as much as 300% interest to attract buyers for its bonds. After Washington rejected Yeltsin's desperate plea for still more money, Russia did the unthinkable: it was forced to suspend payment on its foreign debt for 90 days, restructure its entire debt, and devalue the ruble. Panic followed, as Russia's high-flying banks teetered on the edge of collapse, depositors were unable to withdraw their money, and store shelves were rapidly emptied of goods. The financial collapse produced a political crisis, as President Yeltsin, his domestic support evaporating, had to contend with an emboldened opposition in the parliament. What caused the financial crisis? Two immediate developments turned Russia's euphoria into financial crisis. One was the growing realization that the IMF had failed to resolve the Asian financial crisis, despite huge loans and the imposition of severe economic measures (known as "structural adjustment programs") upon the suffering Asian countries. This created a ripple effect in the late spring of this year, spreading fear of the world's "emerging markets" among international investors. Equally important was the sharp drop in oil and other raw material prices during 1998. This

Just to say that I as a Norwegian, personally, have a very good relationship with Russia and Russians. So do most Norwegians I know. Most Norwegians remember the Russians as the liberators of Northern-Norway during WW2 and as all time good neightboors. Norway is the only country bordering Russia which Russia never ever have had a war with. Most Norwegians understand that the Cold War was a special condition which no longer applies. In effect, the only threat from Russia towards Norway in the post-war years stemmed from Norway's basing of NATO air and surveilance (as well as, though never officially admitted, nuclear weapons) assets close to Russia's most sensitive areas. Now though, the percieved threaths are totally different. I expect Russia and Norway in the future to work closer together on all mayor aspects of security policy in our region as well as globally. Sincerely OplotMira

Ah! Gro Harlem Bruntland isn't dead politically! I'm not advocating a return to the cold war, on the contrary; but we have to be realistic. Russia is the only place in the vicinity with enough weapons of recent date, trained manpower and reasonably intact command structure to make a threat against the existance of the Scandinavian countries. We have to have our defences dimentioned accordingly. By accordingly I also mean take into consideration the very much reduced threat level. This threat-level must be evaluated, not on political programs, but on hard military facts! Politics is fickle. Putin is no dummy, and has acted wisely on most occations and he knows that flexing military muscle might mean Military Muscle might flex HIM. To base relations on love is at best risky - look how often marriages go wrong - in international affairs it is insane! Finally I don't think people are really laughing of Russia, we are to concerned about what happens if the situation gets out of hand. I very much concur with the article Rule Britannia quoted.

Thomas. Before I revert to answering to your assumptions about Scandinavian security, ask yourself this: What precisely would Russia gain from any military action against the Scandinavian countries? First off, being realistically in this sence means being able to acknowledge that the political, and hence also miliary, realities in our region today are fundamentally different today than during the Soviet era. There is no longer a war between two systems as during the Cold War. This means that the main purpose and doctrine on which the Red Army (and hence also it's direct successor the Russian Army) was built upon has become totaly redundant. There is no fight going on for the "world proletariate" any more, so what reason would Russia have to invade the whole of Europe, let alone Scandinavia? Secondly, as social and economic cooperation between Europe and Russia increases, taking a military solution to any issues would only result in serious hurt to the developing Russian economy, something the Russians (and almost everybody else in this world for that matter) really can't afford. Lastly, most serious Russian politicians understand that Russia really would benefit from throwing of that "bad guy" impression it gained during the Cold War. If Russia could manage this it would certainly lead to a much better political and economic relations between Russia and it's neighbours, which will be important if Russia wants to follow Putin's recent assertion that economic power, not military power is the key to powerprojection in the modern world. So, for a more realistic view on the Russian threat to Scandinavia, have a look at the Russian present energy-policy towards Central/Eastern Europe and large parts of the Near East. It seems that Russia's staus in recent years as the single largest natural gas supplier to continental Europe, as well as the most important actor in the oil-pipline and power distribution-business in the Caucasus makes for far better leverage in regional affairs that any number of rusty tanks or leaky subs with malfunctioning missiles can ever achieve. Sincerely OplotMira

The answer is simple: Denmark is the cork in the Baltic bottle, Norway close - as you have pointed out - to "sensitive" areas. Russia has always strived to gain access to the ocean, communists or no communists. While I think we can reach an understanding with the present leadership, we might not with their successor. We cannot have the existence of our states depend on internal political squabbles in Russia - simple as that. By the way: We have been in war with Russia in the medieval times, mainly because Prince Magnus was made governor of Øsel (I think). They wanted the idiot as far away from Denmark as possible - and was he an idiot!

""""I did not realize russia had good relationship with france but is does surprise me.The french cozy up to anyone who they fear.aka for instance there new love for terrorists""" Well that doesn't surprise me at all that russia and France are good fiends. The French idea is, is to make only two best friend, and that's Russia and Germany. I heard some talking that Russia will eventually join the EU,no matter of one of those new EU members would veto it. Those three will create some own union, like France and germany already doing right now. And the French are dreaming of a Paris, Berlin and Moscow axis which will be military ( nuclear )stronger than the so called London - Washington axis as they see it and to contradict the London - Washington axis. Why do you think that Chirac warned the Eastern european countries before the Iraq war that he might veto the EU expansion ??? B/c they were to much on America's hands. What the French and Germans want is a power to contradict mainly America. And the current EU-25 is not capable of that with all those languages and political differences. So he needs Russia, and Russia needs France and Germany. That's what this is all about I think.