http://www.turunsanomat.fi/verkkolehti/?ts=1,4:1:0:0,4:1:1:1:2005-02-13,4:283385,1:0:0:0:0:
http://www.rusi.org/gallery/people/ref:G40AE2721A8A52/
http://aei.pitt.edu/archive/00000510/
http://www.iss-eu.org/chaillot/chai49e.html
http://webpro.touchslough.com//webpro/newworld/dyncat.cfm?catid=85
An Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Royal United Services Institute, and a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for International Studies, Cambridge University.
William was a senior official in the British Ministry of Defence between 1986 and 1997, being appointed as Head of the Defence Arms Control Unit in 1988, and Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Policy) in 1993, responsible for European security institutions and oversight of negotiations on arms control treaties.
On leaving Government service in 1997, he joined the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), becoming Deputy Director and Director of Studies before retiring in June 2000. Last year he was Senior Visiting Fellow at the WEU Institute in Paris, where he wrote a Chaillot Paper, Enlargement: A New NATO.
http://www.assemblee-ueo.org/en/documents/colloques/cr/2003/athens_cr_web.html
As for NATO, William Hopkinson of the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London predicted that the consequences of the new U.S. strategy would be limited as the Alliance was already “dying.” In his view, the recent American trend toward unilateralism and the dynamics of ever greater military superiority would mean that in the long term no other nation would be capable of operating alongside U.S. military forces. This would merely reinforce a process at the end of which NATO would no longer be relevant for U.S. security policy.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/05/9c50a181-7221-4c3c-b4b6-ad7886adf4cf.html
William Hopkinson is an analyst with the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.
"Vast sums are put into security, and if one is not careful one's whole way of life is distorted by these people. This is a real problem that the terrorists will get a sort of victory, both in the consumption of resources -- the economic victory -- and the psychological victory, how people feel about things," Hopkinson said.
Hopkinson adds that Britain does not yet appear overly "detached from normality." But he says, the danger that terrorist fears will change the country's democratic traditions is a real one.
"The United Kingdom so far has not given them [terrorists] very much to laugh about -- life has not been radically altered, and the vast majority of people don't go around living their lives as if they are likely to be subject at any moment to a terrorist attack," Hopkinson said.
http://www.europeanaffairs.org/current_issue/2003_spring/2003_spring_43.php4
http://www.rusi.org/gallery/people/ref:G40AE2721A8A52/
http://aei.pitt.edu/archive/00000510/
http://www.iss-eu.org/chaillot/chai49e.html
http://webpro.touchslough.com//webpro/newworld/dyncat.cfm?catid=85
An Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Royal United Services Institute, and a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for International Studies, Cambridge University.
William was a senior official in the British Ministry of Defence between 1986 and 1997, being appointed as Head of the Defence Arms Control Unit in 1988, and Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Policy) in 1993, responsible for European security institutions and oversight of negotiations on arms control treaties.
On leaving Government service in 1997, he joined the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), becoming Deputy Director and Director of Studies before retiring in June 2000. Last year he was Senior Visiting Fellow at the WEU Institute in Paris, where he wrote a Chaillot Paper, Enlargement: A New NATO.
http://www.assemblee-ueo.org/en/documents/colloques/cr/2003/athens_cr_web.html
As for NATO, William Hopkinson of the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London predicted that the consequences of the new U.S. strategy would be limited as the Alliance was already “dying.” In his view, the recent American trend toward unilateralism and the dynamics of ever greater military superiority would mean that in the long term no other nation would be capable of operating alongside U.S. military forces. This would merely reinforce a process at the end of which NATO would no longer be relevant for U.S. security policy.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/05/9c50a181-7221-4c3c-b4b6-ad7886adf4cf.html
William Hopkinson is an analyst with the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.
"Vast sums are put into security, and if one is not careful one's whole way of life is distorted by these people. This is a real problem that the terrorists will get a sort of victory, both in the consumption of resources -- the economic victory -- and the psychological victory, how people feel about things," Hopkinson said.
Hopkinson adds that Britain does not yet appear overly "detached from normality." But he says, the danger that terrorist fears will change the country's democratic traditions is a real one.
"The United Kingdom so far has not given them [terrorists] very much to laugh about -- life has not been radically altered, and the vast majority of people don't go around living their lives as if they are likely to be subject at any moment to a terrorist attack," Hopkinson said.
http://www.europeanaffairs.org/current_issue/2003_spring/2003_spring_43.php4
Vastaukset 8
Vanhimmat
Viittaan TS artikkeliin ja maailman menoon I think i'd rather eat russian pies (pirogi) than Mc.Donalds phewy crub. For what Finland has to say in this in the end is very little. Small counries have no say in the future. However we are far more intelligent than either Midwest US or ST.Petersburg suburb street kids. See how high Finland reached in PISA tests! William is quite right. We have no means of holding anyone back. Did anyone think otherwise!? Really? Oh boy.
...
..mutta täytyy esittää yksi kysymys. Miksi Venäjä hyökkäisi NATO-maahan?
Strategisesti on edullista väittää, että Venäjä hyökkää, koska jollei hyökkäisi, voisi Naton lopettaa.
niin, aina kannattaa ylläpitää jännitystiloja Phj Korea v USA, Iran v USA, Nato v EU (pikku Suomi) jossain reunalla...onhan itsestään selviö, että jos Venäjä haluaisi vallata Suomen ei se kestäisi kauaa, mutta miksi tekisi sen, kun maantietellisesti olemme jo osa tätä pohjoisen ulottuvuutta. pirogia syöty kauemmin kuin mc.donaldsia. Ja meidän nykyinen naurettava 'armeijamme' on vaan alakoulu pojille. Ei pysty kun oikea tilanne alkaa vyöryä.. Sota menee ohjuksina päittemme ylitse. Hm..venäjä hajoaa ja USA hajoaa samoin joskus. Kuinka monta sataa vuotta Suomi oli osa Ruotsin riikkiä..500-600...Miksi jonkun britti advisorin mukaan meidän pitäisi omata heille sopivaa huipputekniikkaa...ollaksemme natolle toimiva puskuri? Se joka miekkaan tarttuu miekkaan hukkuu. Miten kävi Falklandeilla. Saaret menevät kuitenkin jo kohta Argentiinalle vaikka brittipojat menettivät henkensä siellä. Siirtomaavalta jyllää vielä Britanniassa. Vanhaa ajattelua ja varusteluun eli rahan pohjautuvaa hegemoniaa tässä halutaan aloitettavan Suomessa kiiruulla tuon TS artikkelin mukaan. Mitä jos Suomi astuisi askeleen kaiken edelle ja aloittaisi jonkun rauhan vuosituhannen ja harrastaisimme kaikki vaikka vesivärimaalausta. Aivan kuten Prinssi Charles! Juostaan nummille...aletaan hihhuleiksi, kuka meistä välittää kuitenkaan, kun kova paikka tulee EI KUKAAN!
esittää jokin, vaikka lyhyt aikakausi, Venäjän historiasta, milloin se ei olisi käynyt hyökkäyssotaa jossain rajoillaan? Pietarin kauppakorkeakoulun proffan mukaan bisnes Venäjällä on riskialtista, koska maa on jatkuvassa sotatilassa kautta historian. Venäjää vaivaa hänen mukaansa pakkomielteinen laajentumishalu. Itsekkin muistan ko. maan hyökkäilleen tännekkin. Eikä edes kovin kauan aikaa sitten.
Ja englanti myös.
Ihme sotahulluja!
ei suomi kiinosta ketään, täällä ei ole mitään.
paitsi sotahullu oikeisto.
venäjällä ei ole mitään intressejä suomen valloitamiseen.
Joka tapauksessa suomi saisi apua Venäjältä jos Bush hyökkäisi ja päinvastoin.
Ei tarvi itse puolustaa.