Finland To Fly "Open Skies" Surveillance Flight Over Russia 103
jones_supa writes Inspectors from Finland will conduct an observation flight on March 23-27 over the Russian territory within the framework of the Treaty on Open Skies. During the flight that will be conducted along the mutually agreed route, Russian specialists on board of the aircraft will ensure strict compliance with the agreed flight schedule and monitor the use of the equipment stipulated by the treaty. The flight will be conducted on a Swedish SAAB 340 observation aircraft that is not equipped with any weaponry. Both the plane and the equipment installed in it have been examined by the international inspection, including Russian specialists. The treaty on Open Skies is designed to enhance mutual understanding by allowing unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the territories of its 34 current member states.
Unarmed except... (Score:1)
For thousands of gallons of explosive fuel.
Banzai!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Even worse, it will be exploded for the duration of the flight!
No bringing moose and squirrel! (Score:5, Funny)
Is very important part of treaty!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to overlook it. He knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some younger folks like me know about this, too... and have watched many of the old episodes
I am old enough to remember the originals, but was too young to understand the jokes at the time. When I was a kid, I didn't think the show was funny. When I watch the same episodes today, I think they are hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think this is the case with some of the other cartoons that I watched as a kid - which would have been in the 90s :) - like Bugs Bunny. Both old ones and the newer ones from the 80s/90s.
I do like the humor of Rocky and Bullwinkle though... I think a lot of it would have made no sense to me as a kid, probably just the more slapstick type elements would have been funny at that time. Maybe a couple of the jokes... but not a lot of the stereotyping and cold-war era humor and wordplay and all that.
Re:No bringing moose and squirrel! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No bringing moose and squirrel! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, God no...the original series. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing up the sleeve........*PRESTO*
(lion head roars)
Guess I'm gonna have to get me a new hat....
Re: (Score:2)
And now here's something you will REALLY like...
Re: (Score:2)
A word from our sponsors!
spying for peace. (Score:5, Insightful)
Spying is so useful that sometimes nations agree to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Transparent [s]pying is so useful that sometimes nations agree to it.
FTFY.
It's the secret, plausibly deniable, no-no-we-are-not-spying spying that is causing the present hubbub.
Strictly speaking, this stuff is inspection not "spying"
What good is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Surveillance flights along predetermined routes, with people from the country being surveilled on board the aircraft? Besides wasting fuel, what does this accomplish?
Re: (Score:2)
It gives the observed party enough time to hide their shit.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:What good is this? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is not funny. It is actually quite amazing how carefully you have to read the article to understand that the incident was in international airspace, and how little "nearly collided" means.
It reminds me of the CNN report about the Russian missile inscribed "To be delivered personally in Omaba's hands" . You know, the one that our ex-ambassador twitted about, the one that showed how Putin is threatening the United States, the one pundits were discussing, as in "can it reach the United States."
CNN even went as far as to intersperse pictures of the missile into footage from the main Feb 23rd parade on the Red Square. The catch? It was a papier-mache prop carried by two member of a fringe party (Stalinist Youth!) that was marching on a back street. Of course, the picture was cropped by CNN as not to make that immediately obvious.
Frankly, the report worried me. Then, in 10 seconds, I stopped worrying, because I found the original picture, and had a laugh. I was scared again, a few days later, when I could not find the CNN clip, or the MSN article, or pretty much anything about the epic fail on English language sites. Good cleanup.
Re: (Score:2)
and how little "nearly collided" means.
At least in the case of SAS flight SAS SK681 from Copenhagen, it missed a Russian IL-20 by 90 meters. http://theaviationist.com/2014... [theaviationist.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The Russian observers weren't meant to be on board the surveillance craft, but you know how they do things in Soviet Russia...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does crap like this get +Insightful? The idea of the treaty is not that you're not forced to disclose all your secrets but show enough to give some verification that you're not amassing an invasion force next to the border. Arguably, I suspect that at least the US (and probably Russia too) have satellites with better capabilities than these flights. The treaty just gives countries without military satellites the means to at least do something.
The timing makes me think that Finland is trying to figure ou
Re: (Score:1)
nothing that a spy satellite cannot accomplish. It might be that Finland does not have one available and want to check out the immediate border situation with Russia?
Re:What good is this? (Score:5, Informative)
The purpose of the treaty is to provide mutual assurance between party states that the other members are not preparing for war against them. More or less, "I'll let you fly over my country and see that I don't have troops amassing in preparation for an invasion if you let me do the same." It was originally proposed as a means for reducing tension between the US and Soviets during the Cold War, but didn't come into effect until decades later.
Towards that end, it really doesn't do much, other than allow nations to see if a large force is building up. The sensor systems must all be commercially available ones that any of the member states can purchase (i.e. no super-fancy x-ray sensors to see inside buildings), so unless you catch the other side unawares (which can't happen, since you have to schedule the flights with them), you're not going to see anything unless they really are building up such a massive force that they're simply unable to hide it.
Anyway, this is actually a pretty routine occurrence, by all accounts. The UK alone has had 40+ such flights over their territory since the treaty came into force in 2002. The US has likewise had dozens of flights over their territory. Ditto for Russia. And the same for the rest of the member states, by and large.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at TFA - yup, this happens multiple times per year. Half the articles on that site are so-and-so flew an Open Skies flight over other so-and-so.
Re:What good is this? (Score:4, Informative)
Reminder: Finland is not a member of NATO. It's not an enemy of Russia like NATO is. It's not looking for venues to attack Russia and therefore looking to scout out defensive positions already in place. As a result, it's goals are completely different and while I would probably agree that for a NATO this would be mostly "wasted fuel", for us it's not.
Because this is about ensuring peace on the long border by letting both sides know what medium and long term installations are already in place and that no agreements already in place are being violated. With no reason for any kind of tensions or conflict on the border and around it, these kinds of actions ensure peace and stability in the region.
Re: (Score:2)
Finland attacking Russia?? That's really funny.
Finland is more likely to be attacked by Russia, it's not even a century since they got their independence from Russia and they fought a long bloody war with Russians when everybody else was otherwise busy during the WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried applying reading comprehension being hitting the mindless rage button?
Re: (Score:2)
"Finland attacking Russia?? That's really funny."
Yessss.
That's why the Finish will flight over Russia. So Russia can rest assured that they are not going to be invaded by Finland in the immediate future (with the exception of that very plane, that is).
Re:What good is this? (Score:4, Funny)
Rather, it's a potential target for conquest.
And Russia and NATO are not enemies. They're each other's best friends. Without Russia, how could NATO recruit new members or justify military spending? Without NATO, how could Russia distract its people from bad leadership?
Just look at how lost the entire global economy has been for the last few decades without Cold War creating endless demand. Look how desperately a few cave-dwelling barbarians have been dressed up as a serious threat. But non-secularized religions are too likely to act rather than just talk, even when they can get their act together, which they usually can't. If global capitalism is to be saved, what we need is a new Red October.
Luckily, Putin seems hell-bent on following in the footprints of the last tsar, so it's mainly a race between which country's populace gets tired of economic troubles first.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1950's it "accomplish" the different sides talking and working on the ideas.
Re: (Score:1)
Put up secret spying along the route first and then place the official spying and then see what moves? ;D
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Surveillance flights along predetermined routes, with people from the country being surveilled on board the aircraft? Besides wasting fuel, what does this accomplish?
It's called "inspections" and agreements about this stuff has been in place since the Cold War.
Meanwhile... (Score:2, Funny)
Meanwhile, Russia flies its planes (and sails its ships) wherever it dang well pleases, even if that means cutting a few international airspace/waters corners into territorial airspace/waters, only getting a friendly scrambling+escort while they fly about responding to no hails (radio / visual signals)
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
I'm sure similar events take place the other way around, which makes this completely orchestrated and observed flight only worthy in mention be
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, they shoot them down [nbcnews.com] without any attempt to contact the aircraft.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Informative)
The cases listed show no evidence of the only violation of international laws that you suggest (invading international space without reason such as avoiding a storm), instead showing that US aircraft did in fact commit to territorial airspace violations during those actions.
Specific example, straight from material linked by you:
On 18 July 2014 an American surveillance plane conducting operations near Kaliningrad was chased into Swedish air-space after being approached by Russian fighters. This evasive action took place without Sweden’s prior approval that the US aircraft could enter Swedish airspace.
Note how "surveillance plane conducting operations" is viewed as a neutral, but aircraft scrambling to intercept it are apparently a hostile move if intelligence aircraft is US one and intercepting aircraft is Russian. And if it's the other way around, it's "oh those evil Russians in the international airspace".
Quite a good demonstration of the severe propagandist bias in related reporting. Thank you for providing such clear example.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look it's Luckyo, one of Russia's useful idiots.
Given that you were telling us previously that Putin's troops weren't in Crimea, and that Crimea's referendum on joining Russia had no predetermined outcome when both of these things have been thoroughly debunked since Putin himself of all people has admitted his troops invaded and has admitted he'd decided to annex Crimea weeks before the "referendum" anyway then why do you still believe you have anything useful to say on this topic?
It's pretty clear you d
In breaking news (Score:1)
The Finnish overflight of Russia, scheduled and approved by the Russians, was shot down today. The missile was fired from Russian territory, from a Russian military base. The missile itself was Russian and the incident happened deep inside Russian territory, far from Finland or any other non-Russian country.
Russia denies all knowledge or involvement. Russia claims that they are "working diligently to identify the culprits" and blamed either Finland, the US or Georgian terrorists. The Russian specialists
Do not want to be on those planes (Score:1)
I suspect that both flights will either disappear without a trace or will be reported to be "downed by Ukrainian troops" that somehow snuck missiles into the heart of Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. Does Finland have a lot of spy satellites?
I looked it up and found this on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: Finland's Aalto-1 Cusesat-satellite (3U) with solar panels is a funded by student nano-satellite project of Aalto University and Finnish Meteorological Institute [2]. When launched (plan was to 2013), it would be the first Finnish satellite. Launch has been procured for the summer 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Does Finland have a lot of spy satellites?
Apparantly not [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
" Does Finland have a lot of spy satellites?
[...] Finland's Aalto-1 Cusesat-satellite (3U) with solar panels is a funded by student [...] would be the first Finnish satellite."
Aahhh... those cunning Finish!
So they managed to fly all their spy satellites in secrecy!
They are conspirant to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... Our precious bodily fluids, I say!
Re: (Score:3)
What is it specific that can be seen from aircraft, nut not satellite. I.......... Or something else I'm missing?
It is probably as much to do with excercising a right. Like I have a second right of way from my property which I never need to use, but I do use it at least once per year just to maintain that right.
"Unarmed"? (Score:2)
Didn't 9/11 teach us that any sufficiently sized plane is a weapon? Can this ever really be safe?
What are they looking for.... (Score:2)
Sorry for being blind, but TFA doesn't say what they are 'observing'...
Re: (Score:2)
They are finding out exactly where anything that might be of any strategic interest is absolutely guaranteed to not be during the duration of the flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are they looking for.... (Score:5, Informative)
That's the point of these flights. Any kind of long term installation would be visible, as would major troop movements. These flights are about showing both sides that neither side is making any significant changes to status quo around the border.
Finland has a very long history of living with Russia on its borders, and unlike our hysterical neighbours in the West and South, we actually know how to communicate with them to defuse conflicts. Comes with being a neutral European state with huge border with Soviet Union that isn't a part of NATO, as well as fighting USSR off twice during 1939-1944 period.
Re: (Score:3)
No. I mean the actual preparation that would suggest a change in status quo.
Bases you're talking about are clearly aimed at securing the northern region. They would be quite bad at functioning as staging areas for attacking us for a number of reasons and nearby Finnish towns have been extremely happy to have those bases to the point of staging events to show soldiers that they are welcome to their new bases near border.
It's good business in the otherwise fairly quiet region.
Of course, hysterical people such
Re: (Score:2)
They fought them off successfully because they were never a Soviet puppet state like e.g. Poland or Bulgaria. They had to not aggravate the Soviets post-war lest they get "liberated" but otherwise had freedom and self-rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we did. A small nation fighting a super power, all you can hope is to fight to a draw.
The point of course being that we were the only state in Molotov-Ribbentrop that remained independent. But when you're a hysterical propagandist with task of creating fear, I suppose that detail is just too detrimental to the cause to even bother to mention. Nevermind it being the elephant in the room.
But even your argument had any truth to it, the question then becomes: where will the Russia gets the hundreds of
Re: (Score:2)
"The point of course being that we were the only state in Molotov-Ribbentrop that remained independent."
Petsamo and Karelia may disagree, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Finland was not independent in World War II, it got partially taken over by Russia, and then was eventually forced to become a puppet state of Nazi Germany, later fighting alongside it. Being subservient to the Nazis and surrendering to the Russians is about as far from being independent as you can be short of being outright annexed by either of them in your entirety.
Perhaps this is part of the Finnish national psyche, that you tell yourself you're better than others because you sided with the Nazi's by cho
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it does have over 2 million men in reserve.
More importantly, Finland has a conscription army. Should Russia come calling, I wonder how many Finns would actually fight back? The economy is getting from bad to worse and all the budget cuts are hitting hardest those already weakest and most vulnerable.
Re: (Score:3)
as well as fighting USSR off twice during 1939-1944 period.
While Finland did much better than expected during the Winter War in 1939-40 (Finnish forces were hugely outnumbered), it clearly lost, surrendering more to the USSR than the USSR had demanded at the outset.
The second conflict, where Finland was allied with Germany (enemy of my enemy is my friend) was closer to a draw.
Re: (Score:1)
The real suprising thing is how on Earth Finland wasn't overrun by Soviets. They did so well in Poland, and later, when they were pushing the Germans back. Agreed, the Soviets were busy with Germans at the time but seriously, it's shocking that Finland managed to do so well without completely being wiped out. Somehow they managed to stay out of the partitioning of Eastern Europe too, I should go and read on that. No one cared about Hungaria or Poland, but Finns managed to get away with their independence, o
Re: (Score:3)
The Finns are actually responsible for the allied victory in WWII.
The fact that the huge soviet forces could not defeat tiny Finland gave Hitler confidence that the Soviet forces were rotten to the core and so could be easily defeated, despite having Britain undefeated on the western front. And Hitler was correct, although Stalin then stopped purging all his best officers and the Soviets recovered amazingly fast.
The Finns, of course, were very effective, motivated, agile fighters. And after the war we aba
Re: (Score:2)
Finland had to pay heavy reparations to the Soviets for many years after the war because they dared to prevent the Soviet attack.
No, because they allied with the Nazis and participated in the Nazi invasion of the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
They never invaded the USSR, stopped at the original border. Wikipedia is your friend. The USSR stole important territory from the Fins which they still hold.
(Are you Russian? If so then realize that virtually all you were taught at school is a fabrication.)
That said, as things turned out, the Fins would have been much better off just giving Stalin what he demanded, even if the demand was unreasonable.
Best not to let Waffen SS perpetuate myths (Score:3)
They never invaded the USSR, stopped at the original border.
You are quite selective in your history. You ignore the Finish Waffen SS units.
Wikipedia is your friend.
Funny you mention that. That is were I double checked everything I wrote.
The USSR stole important territory from the Fins which they still hold.
Agreed. The Soviets were absolutely in the wrong for originally invading Finland. However that was not the topic being addressed, the myth of Finland successfully defending itself and knowing how to handle the Russians was. Both wars ended with Finland ceding territory to the Soviets.
(Are you Russian? If so then realize that virtually all you were taught at school is a fabrication.)
The Finns need to do as Germany has done. Admit its defeat. Admit its sins.
Re: (Score:3)
> - They grossly compromised their ethics by collaborating with the Nazis to invade Russia.
Be aware that good and evil are defined by the victors from the victors viewpoint. The Nazis were evil incarnate because they were the enemy, Uncle Joe was a good guy because he was attacked by Germany.
The truth is that they were both evil with Stalin being an order of magnitude worse than Hitler. With the notable exception of the Jews, most non-political Germans were not in fear of their lives from Hitler. On t
Re: (Score:2)
"Collaborating with the Nazis" is purely a western point of view? Only in the sense that some Fins seem to be in denial about history. When your government is secretly recruiting members of your active
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Finns are actually responsible for the allied victory in WWII.
The fact that the huge soviet forces could not defeat tiny Finland gave Hitler confidence that the Soviet forces were rotten to the core and so could be easily defeated, despite having Britain undefeated on the western front. And Hitler was correct, although Stalin then stopped purging all his best officers and the Soviets recovered amazingly fast.
Hitler had no choice but to fight the Soviets. They had placed two armies right across the border from his only source of oil, and refused to pull them back when asked. It wasn't a question of opportunism, but rather necessity - he could not risk the loss of those resources. Without oil, everything he was doing would collapse. Of course, Hitler had always wanted the opportunity to expand East, but the timing was dictated by the foolishness of the Soviets. The Finns had nothing to do with the strategic
Finland **surrendered** territory to USSR, twice (Score:3)
Finland has a very long history of living with Russia on its borders, and unlike our hysterical neighbours in the West and South, we actually know how to communicate with them to defuse conflicts. Comes with being a neutral European state with huge border with Soviet Union that isn't a part of NATO, as well as fighting USSR off twice during 1939-1944 period.
Actually in the 1939-40 Winter War Finland briefly defended itself from a crippled Soviet Army that had its professional officer corp severely purged and replaced by men loyal to Stalin and devoid of military competence. It took the Soviets three months longer than planned to defeat Finland. Finland surrendered more territory to the USSR than the USSR originally demanded before the invasion. 11% of its land and 30% of its economy.
Finland then allied itself with Nazi Germany and participated in the Nazi i
Re: (Score:2)
""mutual aerial observation" was initially proposed to Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin at the Geneva Conference of 1955 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower"
So the use flights can have "video, optical panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infra-red line scanners for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a day/night all weather capability" with 'Imagery resolution is limited to 30 centimetres".
So what
War crime (Score:2, Funny)
Making those Russian observers ride in a Saab 340 has got to be some sort of Geneva Convention violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Over Soviet Russia... (Score:2, Funny)
Russian specialists on board of the aircraft will ensure strict compliance with the agreed flight schedule
Over Soviet Russia, the observed observe you!
everyone including russia is focusing on wrong end (Score:5, Interesting)
russia and europe will exhaust themselves
then china will "discover" an old map that "proves" all of siberia used to be chinese territory, like the bullshit about the filipino islands china is stealing, or the territory it is stealing from india, vietnam, etc... all chinese neighbors are victims of han imperialism
there are 10 chinese for every 1 russian. the chinese economy is soaring while russia is tanking. china needs resources badly. every single russian hinterland town has more chinese than russians already. russia's military simply won't keep up, but military won't even matter. china will take siberia the way the usa took texas from mexico: enough population shift, and it becomes a fait accompli
congratualtions putin: you degraded georgia and ukraine, your slavic brothers, and ignored the far east. russia is the most obvious territory for china to take, not the tiny bits in other directions. despite the historical hesitation from cold war era aggression between the two, siberia will become chinese in this century
all hail outer manchuria, qing glorious chinese state reclaimed from barbarian eluosi ren!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]
Outer Manchuria (known as Priamurye in Russian)[1] is an unofficial term for the territory formerly claimed by the Qing Empire and now belonging to Russia. Russia officially received this territory by way of the Treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the Treaty of Peking in 1860. The northern part of the area was also in dispute between 1643 and 1689. The area comprises the present-day Russian areas of Primorsky Krai, southern Khabarovsk Krai, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Amur Oblast. Another Chinese claim also adds the island of Sakhalin. Currently, the People's Republic of China has no claim to this territory.
According to the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689, the China–Russia border was the Stanovoy Mountains and the Argun River, which established Outer Manchuria as a part of Qing dynasty China. After losing the Opium War, a series of treaties were forced upon the Qing dynasty that gave away land and ports to the European powers; these were known as the Unequal Treaties. Starting with the Treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the Treaty of Peking in 1860, the Sino–Russian border was realigned in Russia's favor on the Amur and Ussuri rivers. As a result, China lost Outer Manchuria, as well as access to the Sea of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
Russian newspapers began to publish speculation that between two and five million Chinese migrants actually resided in the Russian Far East, and predicted that half of the population of Russia would be Chinese by 2050.[29][36] Russians typically believe that Chinese come to Russia with the aim of permanent settlement, and even president Vladimir Putin was quoted as saying "If we do not take practical steps to advance the Far East soon, after a few decades, the Russian population will be speaking Chinese, Japanese, and Korean."[37]
Some Russians perceive hostile intent in the Chinese practise of using different names for local cities, such as Hishnwi for Vladivostok, and a widespread folk belief states that the Chinese migrants remember the exact locations of their ancestors' ginseng patches, and seek to reclaim them.[7] The identitarian concern against the Chinese influx is described as less prevalent in the east, where most of the Chinese shuttle trade is actually occurring, than in European Russia.[27]
Finnish is a very difficult language (Score:2)
"During the flight that will be conducted along the mutually agreed route, Russian specialists* on board of the aircraft will ensure strict compliance with the agreed flight schedule and monitor the use of the equipment stipulated by the treaty."
*every time I read this, 'specialists' rhymes with schmostages.
Why (Score:1)
Why is this on slashdot?
Not exciting news (Score:1)
But good for Finland!