5 ms·

> How is Finland in NATO sad? I was talking about Russian perspective. > the largest defensive military alliance in the world Putting aside the question of w

> How is Finland in NATO sad? I was talking about Russian perspective. > the largest defensive military alliance in the world Putting aside the question of whether large military alliances are a good or a bad thing, NATOs "defensiveness" and peacefulness is nothing more than a marketing slogan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations One surely doesn't use toxic depleted uranium munitions for defense. > they clearly felt as a country What exactly is implied by "as a country"? Cuz I remember how some Fins were upset that there wasn't any specific voting process, but only a decision of politicians. > invaded by the USSR in the past that they needed more protections. If you are referring to the Winter war some years after the collapse of the Russian Empire (of which Finland had been part of), this has all been resolved a long time ago, and all the political will for conflict and related frictions had died out before any of us was born. > Russia won't even breathe in the direction of Finland now Did it though? There were no frictions up until Finlands decision to join NATO. > because Russia cannot handle NATO and Russia knows it. Russia already feels like it's handling NATO in Ukraine with all those NATO instructors and NATO weapons. Besides, I think by now it should be clear that "I dare you, watchagonnado" politics doesn't bring you to good places.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> Russia already feels like it's handling NATO in Ukraine with all those NATO instructors and NATO weapons. Besides, I think by now it should be clear that "I dare you, watchagonnado" politics doesn't bring you to good places. Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukraine, I dont think the Russian military actually think its fighting NATO in Ukraine and knows that NATO itself would wipe the floor with Russia, considering the performance of Ukraine using only some second hand NATO weaponry.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukrain Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. Take Afghanistan for example: 20 years of campaign undone in like a week and it's not even a real problem for the US, as it all happens to be far away on another continent - they don't even have to deal with Tliban, unlike everyone else around.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" Its obvious, if you think the Ukrainian military really represents the might of NATO you are kidding yourself. > It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. Yes but Ukraine does not have the numbers, nor the latest weaponry at all. Ukraine is pushing back Russia with a hand full of HIMARS and old Russian and Soviet aircraft that have been jerry rigged with HARM missiles and Russia and Soviet tanks, when Ukraine gets F16's and Ambrams tanks the difference will be even starker. > (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is comparable, it latest 26 days and was conducted thousands of kilometres away from the participants. Russia cannot take a city that is less than 300km from their border in 6 months. Thats the comparison.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > Its obvious, if you think the Ukrainian military really represents the might of NATO you are kidding yourself. I think it is a representative fraction of NATOs might. You also probably don't assume that LNR/DNR soldiers with mosins assisted by Russian special operation corps represent Russian Armed Forces might, do you? I am not even considering CSTO here. We have only fractions, but these fractions seem to be more or less on par. > Yes but Ukraine does not have the numbers Ukraine has overwhelming numbers, compared to LNR/DNR forces and Russian operation forces combined. > when Ukraine gets F16's and Ambrams tanks the difference will be even starker. And so Russia starts "partial mobilization" to match it, so will have to see how it plays out. > The 2003 invasion of Iraq is comparable. I don't know why some think it is comparable as it was yet another "bomb a backwards country" and run kind of war. Completely different goals, completely different methods, completely different repercussions. The state of Iraq army was a joke compared to modern Ukraines, less in size, extremely poorly equipped virtually no air defense, key Iraqi army officers were surrendering or even declaring that they won't oppose the invading force. The US had simply leveled the whole of Iraq, purged all the infrastructure and what they caputed was already reduced to a stone-age rubble, what a feat! And the US couldn't care less what happens next with all the people, the territories, with bandits and other paramilitary groups. They just hit and then they simply ran to a safe haven beyond the ocean. I was actually mostly keeping Iraq in mind when I said that all the previous modern conflicts were kinda meh. No one had fought an actual real modern army before, no one cared about infrastructure (and likely Russia won't be too, judging by recent Zelensky's speech), no one had to care about really controling, managing and restoring captured territories, didn't have to care about reinforcing own borders against retaliations, didn't matter how loyal or opposing the local population would be in a long term, and there was always an option to just run back to a far away safe haven, which they always ended up using. Zero real opposition from other key global players also seems kinda tengible. Completely and totally incomparable.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> Russia already feels like it's handling NATO in Ukraine with all those NATO instructors and NATO weapons. Besides, I think by now it should be clear that "I dare you, watchagonnado" politics doesn't bring you to good places. Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukraine, I dont think the Russian military actually think its fighting NATO in Ukraine and knows that NATO itself would wipe the floor with Russia, considering the performance of Ukraine using only some second hand NATO weaponry.

foverzar 4y ago
> Russia says they are fighting NATO itself in Ukraine as a way to try and justify there armies poor performance in Ukrain Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. Take Afghanistan for example: 20 years of campaign undone in like a week and it's not even a real problem for the US, as it all happens to be far away on another continent - they don't even have to deal with Tliban, unlike everyone else around.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Says who? Cuz this awfully seems like western propaganda talking points, where it's always "we best, they worst" Its obvious, if you think the Ukrainian military really represents the might of NATO you are kidding yourself. > It is an established fact that Ukraine's army was trained under NATO's instructors and since weapons are not clothing, being second hand doesn't really make it less effective. Yes but Ukraine does not have the numbers, nor the latest weaponry at all. Ukraine is pushing back Russia with a hand full of HIMARS and old Russian and Soviet aircraft that have been jerry rigged with HARM missiles and Russia and Soviet tanks, when Ukraine gets F16's and Ambrams tanks the difference will be even starker. > (Un)fortunately there isn't really a benchmark against which one can compare Russia's successes or failures, all recent modern conflicts boiled down to hit and run tactics of safely bombing the complete shit out of some far away backwards country, assuming control of the flaming ruins, and then just dropping it for it to deal with the consequences by itself with no fear of repercussions, as it's just too far away. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is comparable, it latest 26 days and was conducted thousands of kilometres away from the participants. Russia cannot take a city that is less than 300km from their border in 6 months. Thats the comparison.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > Its obvious, if you think the Ukrainian military really represents the might of NATO you are kidding yourself. I think it is a representative fraction of NATOs might. You also probably don't assume that LNR/DNR soldiers with mosins assisted by Russian special operation corps represent Russian Armed Forces might, do you? I am not even considering CSTO here. We have only fractions, but these fractions seem to be more or less on par. > Yes but Ukraine does not have the numbers Ukraine has overwhelming numbers, compared to LNR/DNR forces and Russian operation forces combined. > when Ukraine gets F16's and Ambrams tanks the difference will be even starker. And so Russia starts "partial mobilization" to match it, so will have to see how it plays out. > The 2003 invasion of Iraq is comparable. I don't know why some think it is comparable as it was yet another "bomb a backwards country" and run kind of war. Completely different goals, completely different methods, completely different repercussions. The state of Iraq army was a joke compared to modern Ukraines, less in size, extremely poorly equipped virtually no air defense, key Iraqi army officers were surrendering or even declaring that they won't oppose the invading force. The US had simply leveled the whole of Iraq, purged all the infrastructure and what they caputed was already reduced to a stone-age rubble, what a feat! And the US couldn't care less what happens next with all the people, the territories, with bandits and other paramilitary groups. They just hit and then they simply ran to a safe haven beyond the ocean. I was actually mostly keeping Iraq in mind when I said that all the previous modern conflicts were kinda meh. No one had fought an actual real modern army before, no one cared about infrastructure (and likely Russia won't be too, judging by recent Zelensky's speech), no one had to care about really controling, managing and restoring captured territories, didn't have to care about reinforcing own borders against retaliations, didn't matter how loyal or opposing the local population would be in a long term, and there was always an option to just run back to a far away safe haven, which they always ended up using. Zero real opposition from other key global players also seems kinda tengible. Completely and totally incomparable.