5 ms·

Negative. Finnish defense forces, while highly capable, do not suffice. The cornerstone of Finnish defence strategy is to make sure, that the cost of invasion

by fsloth 5y ago

Negative. Finnish defense forces, while highly capable, do not suffice. The cornerstone of Finnish defence strategy is to make sure, that the cost of invasion is for all sane parties obviously too high. The point is that anyone in Kremlin considering their next foreign adventure looking into FI would go "no way in hell, nope, need another strategy". Alone the Finnish defense are not sufficient to instill this "cost-plus" model to the adversary's calculations. Finnish defense forces would incur considerable manpower and material cost to invading army, but in a long conflict their capability would decline. Without military alliance, material transports would be questionable and attrition would soon kick in. The cost would be high to RU, but without alliance, not blatantly obviously too high. Before Ukrainian invasion the second part of this "cost plus" model of territorial defence was belief that international community would incur huge economic penalties on Russia, and the fear of this repercussion would be enough to make even the most courageous military gambler to reconsider their options. Those sanctions? More or less what RU is suffering now. Their effect? Yep. Not very efficient in deterring the attacker. The invasion of Ukraine basically demolished this second part of the defense strategy. First a single huge blow - no, RU will invade regardless of trade sanctions - and the second blow, continuing - even though sanctions have kicked in, RU still has exports and not all countries oppose it's illegal behaviour. And it still continues the war effort. FI therefore needs something else to rebuild it's cost-plus model of deterrence. Only thing that can be used to immediately patch it, is NATO alliance. It's that, or becoming a Kremlin/Beijing puppet.

jeltz 5y ago
> It's that, or becoming a Kremlin/Beijing puppet Let's not exaggerate. There is a large middle ground where Finland bets on that the EU defence clause will deter Russia, that we can build an EU army or that the war in Ukraine will cripple Russia. But yes, your main point is correct. The Finnish and Swedish defence strategies have been primarily based on knowning that we will lose to Russia but making the invasion too costly for a sane Russian leader to consider an invasion. And Putin's stupid invasion of Ukraine just reduced confidence in the idea that we can rely on a sane cost benefit analysis from the Russian leadership. Which does increase the appeal of a NATO membership.
- ahartmetz 5y ago
  From what I read, Putin is not insane in a strict sense, but he based his decision on wrong information (Ukrainians hate their government and will not put up a fight). He would probably not get the same wrong information about Finland and Sweden - it would be much less plausible and the history-based Russian biases don't exist. Well, I still see the point for Finland and Sweden.
- fsloth 5y ago
  The kowtowing to Kremlin/Beijing would not be due to direct military pressure, but from lack of capital sources elsewhere. It's a plausible scenario, but not a sure one. Finland is capital poor country, it needs foreign investment or else it will stagnate. Without NATO after Ukraine the investment environment in Finland will likely be perceived as highly unstable. China, OTOH, is happy to continue investing vast amount of capital in it's Eurasian project / Belt&Road initiative. Without NATO, Russia being a loyal subject of the CCP after being sanctioned out of the western sphere of trade, Beijing alliance would be irresistible by guaranteeing both capital and security. Would that be bad? If you like free speech, then yes. If you like high quality institutions then yes. This is of course again a bit hyperbolic - western capital flight might not happen.
oxff 5y ago
If we do not have enough deterrence to maintain territorial integrity (as of now) against Russian military aggression (by virtue of the cost model being broken), then what is going to deter Russia from dragging us into a localized conflict tomorrow if we announce we are joining NATO day-after-tomorrow? I mean, something has to guarantee that we have no conflicts between now and being an actual member AFAICT. There's talk of "safety guarantees IF we start membership procession" or something, but then there's still a gap where we need to guarantee territorial integrity / "no conflict". The point being, if we can deter them from attacking us between now and being a member (when attacking us would have higher ROI for Russia, stopping our NATO track) ... we have the deterrence to stop them from attacking us without NATO membership too (since it would be costlier for them in that case relatively speaking, the ROI would be lower).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > what is going to deter Russia from dragging us into a localized conflict tomorrow if we announce we are joining NATO day-after-tomorrow? The Russian military being bogged down in Ukraine. So the trick is having something else in place by the time it extricates itself from Ukraine and starts looking for ways to rebuild it's credibility in the aftermath. Which is why some previously NATO hesitant places that have shifted are likely to seek to act quickly.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> Those sanctions? More or less what RU is suffering now. Their effect? Yep. Not very efficient in deterring the attacker. The impacts of those sanctions are frequently not immediate. 3-6 months from now, some of them may have a lot more impact than they're having by now. If I were Russia, my difficulty with the Ukrainian armed forces might give me pause with the idea that Finland's - with a comparable military budget and similar conscription - would be manageable.
- fsloth 5y ago
  "3-6 months from now, some of them may have a lot more impact than they're having by now." The problem is, 3-6 months of Russia heavy bombing of civilian targets would likely level several major cities in Finland (most smaller than Mariupol) to rubble.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Sure, but if the Ukraine-conflict sanctions have the desired longer-term impact, that impact would serve as a deterrent if they're thinking about invading Finland a few years down the line. As would the fact that Ukraine's military stood their ground quite successfully.

by fsloth 5y ago

jeltz 5y ago

> It's that, or becoming a Kremlin/Beijing puppet Let's not exaggerate. There is a large middle ground where Finland bets on that the EU defence clause will deter Russia, that we can build an EU army or that the war in Ukraine will cripple Russia. But yes, your main point is correct. The Finnish and Swedish defence strategies have been primarily based on knowning that we will lose to Russia but making the invasion too costly for a sane Russian leader to consider an invasion. And Putin's stupid invasion of Ukraine just reduced confidence in the idea that we can rely on a sane cost benefit analysis from the Russian leadership. Which does increase the appeal of a NATO membership.

ahartmetz 5y ago
From what I read, Putin is not insane in a strict sense, but he based his decision on wrong information (Ukrainians hate their government and will not put up a fight). He would probably not get the same wrong information about Finland and Sweden - it would be much less plausible and the history-based Russian biases don't exist. Well, I still see the point for Finland and Sweden.
fsloth 5y ago
The kowtowing to Kremlin/Beijing would not be due to direct military pressure, but from lack of capital sources elsewhere. It's a plausible scenario, but not a sure one. Finland is capital poor country, it needs foreign investment or else it will stagnate. Without NATO after Ukraine the investment environment in Finland will likely be perceived as highly unstable. China, OTOH, is happy to continue investing vast amount of capital in it's Eurasian project / Belt&Road initiative. Without NATO, Russia being a loyal subject of the CCP after being sanctioned out of the western sphere of trade, Beijing alliance would be irresistible by guaranteeing both capital and security. Would that be bad? If you like free speech, then yes. If you like high quality institutions then yes. This is of course again a bit hyperbolic - western capital flight might not happen.

oxff 5y ago

If we do not have enough deterrence to maintain territorial integrity (as of now) against Russian military aggression (by virtue of the cost model being broken), then what is going to deter Russia from dragging us into a localized conflict tomorrow if we announce we are joining NATO day-after-tomorrow? I mean, something has to guarantee that we have no conflicts between now and being an actual member AFAICT. There's talk of "safety guarantees IF we start membership procession" or something, but then there's still a gap where we need to guarantee territorial integrity / "no conflict". The point being, if we can deter them from attacking us between now and being a member (when attacking us would have higher ROI for Russia, stopping our NATO track) ... we have the deterrence to stop them from attacking us without NATO membership too (since it would be costlier for them in that case relatively speaking, the ROI would be lower).

dragonwriter 5y ago
> what is going to deter Russia from dragging us into a localized conflict tomorrow if we announce we are joining NATO day-after-tomorrow? The Russian military being bogged down in Ukraine. So the trick is having something else in place by the time it extricates itself from Ukraine and starts looking for ways to rebuild it's credibility in the aftermath. Which is why some previously NATO hesitant places that have shifted are likely to seek to act quickly.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Those sanctions? More or less what RU is suffering now. Their effect? Yep. Not very efficient in deterring the attacker. The impacts of those sanctions are frequently not immediate. 3-6 months from now, some of them may have a lot more impact than they're having by now. If I were Russia, my difficulty with the Ukrainian armed forces might give me pause with the idea that Finland's - with a comparable military budget and similar conscription - would be manageable.

fsloth 5y ago
"3-6 months from now, some of them may have a lot more impact than they're having by now." The problem is, 3-6 months of Russia heavy bombing of civilian targets would likely level several major cities in Finland (most smaller than Mariupol) to rubble.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Sure, but if the Ukraine-conflict sanctions have the desired longer-term impact, that impact would serve as a deterrent if they're thinking about invading Finland a few years down the line. As would the fact that Ukraine's military stood their ground quite successfully.