4 ms·

Warning: hot take. While it is unlikely that Putin would care a bit about Sweden, this is a huge gamble on Finland's side. HUGE. This can go in one of the two

by maratc 4y ago

Warning: hot take. While it is unlikely that Putin would care a bit about Sweden, this is a huge gamble on Finland's side. HUGE. This can go in one of the two directions: either Putin dislikes but somehow swallows it (the way he did with Baltic states in 2004), or he can go about preemptively wrecking Finland (the way he did with Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 and 2014 respectively). Considering Russia was very negative on a prospect of having NATO some 450 km from Moscow, the prospect of having them 150 km from St. Petersburg might aggravate Putin even more. And St. Petersburg is not just another Russian city — it's Putin's home city. Starting with Mannerheim, Finland had a wise policy for the last 70 years, where they largely refrained from taking sides on the USSR/West thingy, and the Soviets let them be. Joining NATO is a complete reversal of that policy, and it is an extremely dangerous gamble at an extremely dangerous time.

tyleo 4y ago
I think folks wanted to maintain that wise policy. Even in the days leading up to the war Ukraine dismissed the fact that Russia would attack as fear mongering. The problem is that Russia has now proven themselves an untrustable party. "Keep the status quo and we won't attack," they say but now they are attacking Ukraine anyways. What do you do if you are Finland? You want to make peace, you want to maintain nonaggression and neutrality but another neutral party doing the same meets devastation before your very eyes. Seems better in this situation to get whatever protection you can.
- maratc 4y ago
  > "Keep the status quo and we won't attack," they say but now they are attacking Ukraine anyways. This does not fit my understanding. In my understanding, Ukraine doubles down on NATO membership, and Russia attacks. Am I missing something? Somewhere between 2014 and 2022 Ukraine denounced its NATO aspirations? In no way I condone the Russian attack, but I also can't see how they're "untrustable".
  - watwut 4y ago
    In what way did Ukraine doubled down? What exact step made it more likely?
    - maratc 4y ago
      Ukraine has done joint "war games" with NATO ships in 2020 and 2021 (see HMS Dragon and HMS Defender for example). On November 11, 2021 Russian jets were scrambled to intercept "British spy plane". On November 29, 2021, a NATO summit was held in Riga, where the commitment to admitting Georgia and Ukraine was repeated, and the idea of sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine was discussed. Zelenskyy was quoted repeatedly saying that "NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbas". Now, if the elevated rhetoric and the calls for sending NATO soldiers do not sound like "doubling down", joint war games should certainly do.
      - watwut 4y ago
        It sounds like Ukraine training their army. Lets be honest, theybwere post soviet sucky army and they are capable now because of learning from west armies. Nato soldiers in Ukraine would be good idea,the peacekeeping mission might have prevented genocide.
        maratc 4y ago
        > It sounds like Ukraine training their army I might agree, but in the end, what I think — or what you think — does not matter. The only thing that matters is what Russians think. What do you think they think this sounds like? > Nato soldiers in Ukraine would be good idea Well. The NATO forces in Poland numbered about 1,000 (before this thing blew up). The whole Polish army (Wojsko Polskie) number about 144,000. What do you think is the exact mission of these NATO forces, amounting to about 0.66% of the total? (Hint: it's not a symbolic gesture.)
      - signatoremo 4y ago
        What do you think Russia did during that period? Did they stand still and let Ukraine alone? No, they bullied, harassed, raised the rhetoric against Ukraine. Putin questioned the validity of Ukraine. They fought the proxy war in Donbas. Is that your idea of being provoked?
Ciantic 4y ago
It's not seen as a gamble here anymore, few months ago it seemed so. Finnish government have been busy building the support for Finnish application in NATO members for few months now. Even NATO's Jens Stoltenberg has already said we are not alone even during the application process and they welcome Finnish and Swedish application. Finnish military is built against Russia. We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000 which is second biggest army reserve in EU [1]. Current war time effort of 240 000 that can be rapidly assembled in few days. It's also built to operate without air superiority, and is more suitable to ground war against Russia than any EU nation. With biggest artillery force in western Europe, Finland is an asset to NATO rather than burden. You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military? After what Russia did to Ukraine, the foreigners will never understand how Finland could be seen as independent if it's not backed by west militarily. NATO membership is seen as among other things an economic benefit. When Russia eventually stages exercises near our borders, the investors know we are NATO country. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy#Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
- maratc 4y ago
  > We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000 This is about what the Soviets lost in the first two months of WW2. Considering Russian population of 144 million, half of which are women and half of the rest either too old or too young to fight, the Russian army reserve can be (conservatively) estimated at about 30 million men. With that in mind, in the possible conflict Finland would need to continuously maintain a loss ratio of 30:1 or more. In the Winter war, the loss ratio was about 5:1, which is a "good" news tactically, but not "good enough" news strategically. It meant that Finland moved to the point of not being able to fight faster than the Soviets did. Another discrepancy — the one that did not exist in either the Winter war or the Continuation war — is that the Russian nuclear arsenal is somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000 nuclear weapons, while the Finnish nuclear arsenal is none. Finally, Russia won't fear any sanctions for its conflict with Finland, because the sanctions weapon is already used against them. > You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military? I may ask why you think that seeking NATO membership is putting Finland in a less dangerous position and not in a more dangerous one. After all, getting in an alliance with Germany in the past proved as a costly mistake. > After what Russia did to Ukraine Russia is in a process of wrecking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. They seem to have achieved at least the goal of keeping Ukraine out of NATO, because NATO will not admit Ukraine while it fights the Russians. I fail to see how doing exactly the same thing that Ukraine did is not a very dangerous gamble.
mrits 4y ago
I don't see it as a gamble at all. It would be a huge gamble for Russia to react to this though. The only possible negative outcome for Finland would also result in the removal of Russia from the planet.
- mordnis 4y ago
  I wonder what do you think would happen if Russia, for example, nuked Helsinki? You think USA would nuke Russia and risk getting San Francisco burned to the ground? I personally find it rather unlikely. I'm not trying to be pro-Russian here, but I just don't see how provoking the second largest nuclear force is a good idea.
  - mrits 4y ago
    Without a doubt NATO would release every single nuke needed to make sure Russia can't launch another missile. We'd take tremendous damage and introduce a possibility of nuclear winter, but we aren't going to sit around and wonder what other targets Russia has in mind. So yeah, we'd blast them back before the first nukes even landed.
    - maratc 4y ago
      Interesting. And what would be your suggestions on the nuclear missiles that are based on Russian submarines that are wandering somewhere in the ocean?
      - meepmorp 4y ago
        Attack subs. The US alone has 60 nuclear ones, able to pursue Russian missile boats.
        maratc 4y ago
        Considering that each nuclear sub has 80-100 warheads that are enough to destroy an entire continent, and considering it takes about an hour to fire them while underwater, do you suggest to attack the subs before they fire or after? How do you suggest to locate them?

by maratc 4y ago

tyleo 4y ago

I think folks wanted to maintain that wise policy. Even in the days leading up to the war Ukraine dismissed the fact that Russia would attack as fear mongering. The problem is that Russia has now proven themselves an untrustable party. "Keep the status quo and we won't attack," they say but now they are attacking Ukraine anyways. What do you do if you are Finland? You want to make peace, you want to maintain nonaggression and neutrality but another neutral party doing the same meets devastation before your very eyes. Seems better in this situation to get whatever protection you can.

maratc 4y ago
> "Keep the status quo and we won't attack," they say but now they are attacking Ukraine anyways. This does not fit my understanding. In my understanding, Ukraine doubles down on NATO membership, and Russia attacks. Am I missing something? Somewhere between 2014 and 2022 Ukraine denounced its NATO aspirations? In no way I condone the Russian attack, but I also can't see how they're "untrustable".
- watwut 4y ago
  In what way did Ukraine doubled down? What exact step made it more likely?
  - maratc 4y ago
    Ukraine has done joint "war games" with NATO ships in 2020 and 2021 (see HMS Dragon and HMS Defender for example). On November 11, 2021 Russian jets were scrambled to intercept "British spy plane". On November 29, 2021, a NATO summit was held in Riga, where the commitment to admitting Georgia and Ukraine was repeated, and the idea of sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine was discussed. Zelenskyy was quoted repeatedly saying that "NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbas". Now, if the elevated rhetoric and the calls for sending NATO soldiers do not sound like "doubling down", joint war games should certainly do.
    - watwut 4y ago
      It sounds like Ukraine training their army. Lets be honest, theybwere post soviet sucky army and they are capable now because of learning from west armies. Nato soldiers in Ukraine would be good idea,the peacekeeping mission might have prevented genocide.
      - maratc 4y ago
        > It sounds like Ukraine training their army I might agree, but in the end, what I think — or what you think — does not matter. The only thing that matters is what Russians think. What do you think they think this sounds like? > Nato soldiers in Ukraine would be good idea Well. The NATO forces in Poland numbered about 1,000 (before this thing blew up). The whole Polish army (Wojsko Polskie) number about 144,000. What do you think is the exact mission of these NATO forces, amounting to about 0.66% of the total? (Hint: it's not a symbolic gesture.)
    - signatoremo 4y ago
      What do you think Russia did during that period? Did they stand still and let Ukraine alone? No, they bullied, harassed, raised the rhetoric against Ukraine. Putin questioned the validity of Ukraine. They fought the proxy war in Donbas. Is that your idea of being provoked?

Ciantic 4y ago

It's not seen as a gamble here anymore, few months ago it seemed so. Finnish government have been busy building the support for Finnish application in NATO members for few months now. Even NATO's Jens Stoltenberg has already said we are not alone even during the application process and they welcome Finnish and Swedish application. Finnish military is built against Russia. We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000 which is second biggest army reserve in EU [1]. Current war time effort of 240 000 that can be rapidly assembled in few days. It's also built to operate without air superiority, and is more suitable to ground war against Russia than any EU nation. With biggest artillery force in western Europe, Finland is an asset to NATO rather than burden. You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military? After what Russia did to Ukraine, the foreigners will never understand how Finland could be seen as independent if it's not backed by west militarily. NATO membership is seen as among other things an economic benefit. When Russia eventually stages exercises near our borders, the investors know we are NATO country. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy#Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...

maratc 4y ago
> We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000 This is about what the Soviets lost in the first two months of WW2. Considering Russian population of 144 million, half of which are women and half of the rest either too old or too young to fight, the Russian army reserve can be (conservatively) estimated at about 30 million men. With that in mind, in the possible conflict Finland would need to continuously maintain a loss ratio of 30:1 or more. In the Winter war, the loss ratio was about 5:1, which is a "good" news tactically, but not "good enough" news strategically. It meant that Finland moved to the point of not being able to fight faster than the Soviets did. Another discrepancy — the one that did not exist in either the Winter war or the Continuation war — is that the Russian nuclear arsenal is somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000 nuclear weapons, while the Finnish nuclear arsenal is none. Finally, Russia won't fear any sanctions for its conflict with Finland, because the sanctions weapon is already used against them. > You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military? I may ask why you think that seeking NATO membership is putting Finland in a less dangerous position and not in a more dangerous one. After all, getting in an alliance with Germany in the past proved as a costly mistake. > After what Russia did to Ukraine Russia is in a process of wrecking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. They seem to have achieved at least the goal of keeping Ukraine out of NATO, because NATO will not admit Ukraine while it fights the Russians. I fail to see how doing exactly the same thing that Ukraine did is not a very dangerous gamble.

mrits 4y ago

I don't see it as a gamble at all. It would be a huge gamble for Russia to react to this though. The only possible negative outcome for Finland would also result in the removal of Russia from the planet.

mordnis 4y ago
I wonder what do you think would happen if Russia, for example, nuked Helsinki? You think USA would nuke Russia and risk getting San Francisco burned to the ground? I personally find it rather unlikely. I'm not trying to be pro-Russian here, but I just don't see how provoking the second largest nuclear force is a good idea.
- mrits 4y ago
  Without a doubt NATO would release every single nuke needed to make sure Russia can't launch another missile. We'd take tremendous damage and introduce a possibility of nuclear winter, but we aren't going to sit around and wonder what other targets Russia has in mind. So yeah, we'd blast them back before the first nukes even landed.
  - maratc 4y ago
    Interesting. And what would be your suggestions on the nuclear missiles that are based on Russian submarines that are wandering somewhere in the ocean?
    - meepmorp 4y ago
      Attack subs. The US alone has 60 nuclear ones, able to pursue Russian missile boats.
      - maratc 4y ago
        Considering that each nuclear sub has 80-100 warheads that are enough to destroy an entire continent, and considering it takes about an hour to fire them while underwater, do you suggest to attack the subs before they fire or after? How do you suggest to locate them?