Sometimes I wonder do people read at all or not what thye post.
False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either. They are resource-rich and have excellent economies and are some of the best, if not flat-out the best, countries for quality of life.
Now, if you're instead saying "Now that Russia is expanding and it looks to gobble up the Scandinavian countries, what can they do?", you're also wrong about them not being able to do anything. Why? Diplomatic relations. Russia will not expand into those countries one-by-one, because if it tries the whole world is going to piss all over Russia's party. Sure, if Russia did face each country one-on-one, they might win (though it should be noted that the environment in Scandinavia is atrocious for waging an offensive war), but that is never a situation that will happen. Things haven't escalated into global war because everyone's hoping Putin will stop at Crimea and urges everyone to join collective defense treaties in order to prevent such things in the future.
Not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
They can not do anything on their own because they are not strong/big enough, that was my point when we talked about it.
False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either.
You uh, missed a very important couple words in that statement. Those words being "per capita".
I did forget to post "per capita". My apologies. Still, per capita GDP is a good indicator of economic strength. I did agree with you that, paired off with Russia in a 1 on 1 they may not fair that well, but they would not stand alone (At least Norway and Denmark wouldn't as-is. I'm thinking that the countries of NATO, if not the organization itself, would just say "fuck it" and help out Sweden and Finland if they don't join NATO before a hypothetical hostile situation), so it's a moot point in if they can do anything individually or not.
Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
Sorry, I care more about my family and friends than to throw people lives on something stupid like we are talking here about UK and crimea.
"on something stupid" is a very, very key part of what you just said.
Also, WTF are you even talking about? USA, WW2?
One of the posts I quoted you on was your response to BlindKitty, a Pole who was talking about WW2 and post-WW2. I brought up the US as a country you'd probably not want to see control the entire world to challenge your point of view of "Lesser states should just roll over and die."
WTF man? If USA attacks you and says i will bomb the shit out of you, if you do not do this, this and this, what will you do if you are in small country? Throw your family on them, so they all die and the end result will be same or even worse? Think a little dude.
If they are a small country, I'd expect them to fight for their freedom, yes. I would expect them not to sit idly by and watch a large nation stroll right into their country and subjugate them. Even if it meant many lives would be lost, even if they likely wouldn't win, it would show that the aggression of a large nation is not tolerated, on any level, by anyone. If it would not save more lives in that singular country by the actions of the patriots of that small nation, then it may save the lives of more countries that would be in the path of aggression, as it would cause them to bond together, find hope, and submit to the US that there is a price for aggression that they will be forced to pay.
And again, there is international relations to keep in mind. If everyone is a pacifist, the world will think "They are okay with this." and will allow the gross subjugation without much problems stirred at all. If they fight, there will be perceived injustices, which will align more countries against the aggressor.
The same thing we are talking here about ukraine, would they get anything from war, or would they actually lose more?
If they win, they deal an absolutely massive blow to the pride of Russia, severely undermine the political power of Putin, regain sovereignty of Crimea, quell the political instability of Ukraine ("Pro-Russian" political instability anyway) and gain the respect of pretty much every non-Pacifist for at least one generation. (Note: from my point of view outside of Ukraine, obviously)
If they lose, well, that'd depend on the terms of war Russia would be fighting on.
In either case, many lives would be lost. It's up to those willing to fight to determine if the cost of victory is too high or not.
Dude, stop posting things that are simply not correct, and check what you post. All polls show more than 50% russian people. The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.
On the population: ... Okay, I just checked again, and I swear that when I looked at Crimean populations, and Crimea specifically, it did not have that. Apparently whatever I looked at before was just the Ukraine population statistics copy-pasted for Crimea. I'm actually pretty upset about this. Sorry. You're right, on what I can find, ethnic Russians compose more than half of the population.
The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.
Now think how plausible the result is
Not according to that. Granted, when I saw those poll results (also I'd need a good source, not sure where UR got them), I mistook the "Secede to Russia" section for one of the other sections, so it's a lot bigger than I thought it was. Still, ~30% and ~20% is very, very far away from the results that were obtained recently.