Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday March 31 2022, @12:32PM   Printer-friendly

Finland's Spy Service Warns of Russian Interference, Attacks:

Finland must brace for Russian interference and hybrid attacks as it weighs whether to join the NATO military alliance, the security services warned on Tuesday.

The Nordic nation shares a 1,340-kilometre (830-mile) border with Russia and has remained militarily non-aligned since the end of World War II to avoid provoking its eastern neighbour.

[...] "The whole of Finnish society must be vigilant towards Russian attempts to influence Finnish decision-making regarding the NATO question," Antti Pelttari, head of the Finnish security services Supo, said.

Releasing its updated terrorism threat report, Supo on Tuesday highlighted the danger of "widespread Russian interference and illegal surveillance," but kept the national terror threat at level two, or "elevated", on a scale of four.

[...] Finland has previously been subject to so-called hybrid tactics from Moscow, such as repeated airspace incursions, or the release in 2016 of 1,700 migrants across the Finnish border.

Earlier this month the transport authority Traficom said it had received "numerous" reports from aircraft of GPS interference in eastern Finland, but was unable to identify the source of the interference.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @12:51PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @12:51PM (#1233712)

    NATO, that promoter of peace...

    P.S. f*ck the Russia invasion (yes, you can criticize NATO and be against the invasion)

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=3, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday March 31 2022, @03:38PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @03:38PM (#1233737) Journal
    I don't know why you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, promoters of peace is pretty accurate. Try this simple exercise, look up how many wars NATO has fought (clue: nothing since the civil war in former Yugoslavia) versus how many Russia has fought in.

    And the bear in this room is that NATO probably prevented more wars by Russia/USSR, than wars NATO was ever in. This is the pathology of ignoring NATO's history.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:04PM (6 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:04PM (#1233766) Journal

      (clue: nothing since the civil war in former Yugoslavia)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations [wikipedia.org]

      Serbia
      Bosnia
      Adriatic blockade
      Yugoslavia
      Kosovo and Serbia
      Albania
      Afghanistan
      Turkey
      Red sea, Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean, Somalia and Yemen
      Libya

      That doesn't take into account that the US, a primary member of NATO, has it's own little wars ongoing around the world. You might make a case that the majority of NATO aren't aggressors, but they will mostly tag along with the US when pressured to do so.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:30PM (#1233776)

        More and more komrade you are turnink to dark side da?

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:33PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @05:33PM (#1233777) Journal
        You just proved my point. Only one set of those operations was involvement in a war, the civil war in former Yugoslavia. And of course, your admission that the US and other NATO members don't involve NATO in their personal wars.
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @06:28PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @06:28PM (#1233793)

          The US invoked NATO article 5 for Afghanistan and Iraq, and that's why they got so pissy about the French calling Nazi States of America out on the bullshit reason for Iraq. But you are a known Heil America propagandaist, Khallow, so noone expects anything better from you, just like we don't expect anything better from Putinjugends.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday March 31 2022, @06:54PM (2 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @06:54PM (#1233795) Journal

            Are you sure? I don't recall article 5 being invoked for Iraq.

            https://www.history.com/news/nato-article-5-meaning-history-world-war-2 [history.com]

            https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm [nato.int]

            Article 5 is the cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and states that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of its members. Despite its importance, NATO has only invoked Article 5 once in its history—in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

            And it wasn't invoked for Afghanistan - it was for the attack on the USA. It turned out subsequently that Afghanistan is where the terrorists were. Afghanistan as a country was never a threat to NATO.

            You can continue your insults of other community members when you can get your facts right.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @08:38PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2022, @08:38PM (#1233816)

              You can continue your insults of other community members when you can get your facts right.

              Strange, coming from an editor that banned aristarchus on the basis of lies and rumors. Jus' saying . . .

              • (Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday March 31 2022, @10:42PM

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 31 2022, @10:42PM (#1233857) Journal

                The ban for doxxing was not "on the basis of lies and rumors". Many other people saw the evidence - and some of it is still there to be seen if you know where to look. Jus' sayin...

                And no I am not going to show you where - because then we would be guilty of exactly the same thing. If you had a ounce of intelligence you would see that. Furthermore, he wasn't banned by a single editor, but by 6 members of the staff and in consultation with a member of the board. Why don't you read the ban for yourself and look who issued it.