5 ms·
These questions are irrelevant. The tactical significance of Finland to Russia is small compared to the resources required to invade it as is. Due to bad cost/b
by sprash 4y ago
These questions are irrelevant. The tactical significance of Finland to Russia is small compared to the resources required to invade it as is. Due to bad cost/benefit ratio it is therefore unlikely for Russia to attack Finland. But now that Finland is part of NATO it has to bear the cost when some other country gets attacked. It's a bad deal.
- thehappypm 4y agoRussia literally invaded Finland last century
- ElectricalUnion 4y agoI don't think you can count "non-NATO" when NATO did not exist yet.
- lolinder 4y agoThe point is that Finland matters a lot to Russia. The border with Finland is huge, geographically hard to defend, and right next to Russia's capitol. Finland's maritime zones join with existing NATO states to block Russia from operating in much of the Baltic (a process that would be completed when Sweden joins). Finland joining NATO is more than a shrug for Russia.
- Gravityloss 4y agoMoscow is nowhere close to Finland. St Petersburg is. Most of Russian border area near Finland is just forest.
- lolinder 4y agoOops, fair enough—I had just been thinking of older history and forgot that the Bolsheviks moved the capitol. St. Petersburg is still the second-largest city and a major strategic location, but you're right that it's not the capitol.
- BurningFrog 4y agoFinland was also part of Russia until 1917.
- ckrapu 4y agoYeah, and the Finns hated it. My ancestors immigrated to the US to avoid being drafted from Finland into the imperial Russian army.
- carlosjobim 4y ago[flagged]
- thehappypm 4y agoHmm, except Ukraine isn’t in NATO and they’re being occupied. NATO stops occupations.
- dralley 4y ago>Yes, and for the same reasons they are invading Ukraine now! They feared German attacks through Finland and decided it was better to invade first, just as they fear American attacks through Ukraine and decided to invade first. Next you'll argue that they feared German attacks through Poland, and that's why they invaded Poland alongside the Germans.
- carlosjobim 4y agoOf course yes. The Soviets and the Nazis were preparing for war with each other long before they jointly attacked Poland. This is a widely known historical fact. Stalin wasn't ready for the war with Germany just yet and bought some time. Invading Poland gave him a buffer zone, instead of having the Germans closer. As for the Finno-Russian war in WWII, just take a look at the map and see how close Finland is to Russia's largest city. Modern wars work like this. Rulers will invade to get a buffer zone between themselves and the enemy. Putin felt cornered by perceived US advances towards Russia and lashed out.
- dralley 4y agoRussia has nukes, they don't need to invade other countries for land buffers, and excusing that behavior (much less the rape, torture, murder of civilians, etc.) is appalling. Moreover it doesn't even mesh with Putin's own stated rationale for the war, which doesn't have much to do with NATO at all.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoEven worse deal for Russia, which now has to think even harder about attacking NATO countries with its magnificent invincible army.
- UncleEntity 4y agoExactly one[0] NATO country has ever been attacked and that wasn’t even in Europe but in the Falkland Islands. Being a member state is a pretty good bet on not being invaded. [0] not counting non-nation state terrorist attacks on various members
- time0ut 4y agoIt is also interesting to note that 9/11 resulted in the first and only time article 5 was invoked.