86
Russia has moved almost all ground forces from Finland's vicinity to Ukraine, media report
(kyivindependent.com)
Shows how concerned they actually are about NATO
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
86 points (96.7% liked)
Ukraine
11084 readers
689 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Well Finland, really, in this case.
Joining NATO really didn't change the situation in practice at all.
We've had a pretty stable if salty relationship with Russia, since, well... quite a few hundred years since.
The NATO thing has been on the table for 70+ years. I don't mind it went through, the idea of NATO is great (US just has somewhat too much influence over it for it to be truly a politically neutral defence alliance), but even when it went through, it was about 50/50.
The people who were pro-NATO used a lot of fear mongering about Russia. Even when it was rather clear Russia would not have had the resources and troops to open up a second front.
but even when it went through, it was about 50/50.
First search result:
Seems support for NATO is way more than 50/50, 76% for and only 12% against. (May 2022)
https://yle.fi/a/3-12437506
Second search result:
Maybe you claim that's an outlier, but the next result was 78% for: (September 2022)
https://www.rferl.org/a/finland-nato-survey-membership/32145117.html
US just has somewhat too much influence over it for it to be truly a politically neutral defence alliance
Nobody ever claimed it is politically neutral, there are actually political requirements to become a member, like it's only possible for democracies.
The people who were pro-NATO used a lot of fear mongering
Maybe you are naive, and believe Russia would never dream of doing anything against Finland if Russia won over Ukraine. The Ukraine war by Putin was a moment of truth, Putin was ready to use military power against peaceful neighbors, and Finland used to be under Russia too, so Finland is very likely on the list.
But all that is besides the point, that Russia very obviously does not in reality fear NATO, Because Finland is NATO now, and that was the point of the comment:
Shows how concerned they actually are about NATO
Which is true, and Russia has been lying all the time about their need to defend themselves against NATO.
In the last few months, yeah, it was more popular than 50/50, that's why it went through. But even during the first several months of the current Russo--Ukrainian wars, most polls showed it to be pretty even. Until it wasn't.
Joining NATO was a good thing. I just do have certain reservations about it, and we definitely didn't need it against Russia.
You'll notice that September 2022 is several months later than the start of the current Russo-Ukrainian war.
The people who were pro-NATO used a lot of fear mongering or maybe you are naive
Or maybe I'm an NCO in the Finnish reserves and have a better understanding of Finnish military capabilities than you? I've sat lessons in which most scenarios of Russia attacking were discussed.
And even without NATO, we weren't alone. We're part of NORDEFCO and EU.
So yeah, I'm not naive, but you're definitely I'll-informed. Like a lot of people were, which is why the fear mongering worked so well.
Finland used to be under Russia too, so Finland is very likely on the list.
If you're talking pre Finnish independence, technically, yes, but also, no. We were an autonomous region, the Grand Duchy of Finland.
And yes, of course we're "on the list", but unless Russia attacks straight up with nukes, it's really not a potential threat currently. And hasn't been since Russia's "special military operation".
We had good plans, resources and alliances to deal with a Russian who hadn't put all their resources towards Ukraine, and we could've easily done it without NATO, but after Russia is even weaker and has no resources to send against us, we somehow suddenly require NATO?
Ridiculous. Do you know that the EU also has a mutual defence clause?
That's why we need to quickly push through the Accession of Ukraine into the European Union.
Again, I'm not anti-NATO, and don't mind that we joined NATO, at all. It was probably due at some point, and what better point than when Russia is weak and can't even manage their usual threats. My problem is that the rhetoric that was used to gather support for the notion was entirely fearmongering.
Edit adding this direct quote from the article you linked
"Backing for membership in Yle polls has grown from 53 percent in February to 62 percent in March and 76 percent in May. Before the Russian attack on Ukraine, a majority of Finns had long opposed membership."
I do not think you understand the strategic danger Finland would be in without NATO, If Russia had won Ukraine.
It's not even really questioned whether Russia would go further afterwards, but more what the strategy would be. And that would likely be to go for areas that only had lose defense alliances, meaning Finland would probably be higher on the list than Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Maybe Russia would go for Moldova and Georgia first, but they would fall quickly, and Russia could surprise by going for Finland first.
There is no doubt that Finland would be in much higher danger than Sweden, and the idea of Russia as a mostly peaceful neighbor ought to be dead for anyone by now. And it's absolutely laughable to compare EU with NATO, Just see how Hungary has messed up aid for Ukraine, Finland could be overrun before a decision was made in EU to even do anything.
NORDEFCO is mostly nothing, and it's definitely NOT a defense pact. IDK why you would even mention that?
It's amazing you feel you need to mention you are not anti NATO, being anti NATO as an NCO in the Finnish reserves, would be insane now IMO.
I do not think you understand the strategic danger Finland would be in without NATO
Well I've sat actual lessons on it in the army, from people who's literal job is defending this country.
Where are you getting your info from?
The point is that a majority of Finns saw no need of NATO even when we had shittier equipment for our military and no military alliances. Now we're in NORDEFCO and the EU. We've the advantage when defending, especially with our utilisation of our geography and the biggest and most accurate artillery in Europe.
With an arsenal of 700 howitzers, 700 heavy mortars and 100 multiple rocket launchers, Finland has the largest artillery capability in western Europe. Homeland defence willingness against a superior enemy is at 83%, one of the highest rates in Europe.
Nordefco is definitely not a defense pact
What on Earth are you smoking, my man? That's literally all it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Defence_Cooperation
Just the combined power of the Nordic countries would be pretty significant against Russia. Swedes rule the Baltic Sea, we hold the border with Russia, and Norway holds the North, with tons of cooperation that's been practiced for decades (Official Finnish Defence Forces channel) .
And if Russia attacked an EU country, every member nation is required to assist?
The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
"... by all means in their power. "
That means military aid, troops, for those who can. France, Germany, UK, Poland, everyone.
This is why we can't send troops to Ukraine, because that could be seen as an aggressive move by the EU against Russia. But if Russia attacked Finland, or any other member of the EU, Russia would be practically declaring war with them all.
Ukraine is a big country, yes, but compared to the entire EU, it's something Russia dares to challenge.
It wouldn't dare to challenge the European fucking Union.
It's amazing you feel you need to mention you are not anti NATO, being anti NATO as an NCO in the Finnish reserves, would be insane now IMO.
How so? A majority of Finnish males are in the reserves, and I remind you that as we saw from the Yle article you linked, before 2022, most Finns were opposed to NATO.
We're not so authoritarian that we demand people can't have their own opinions.
~75% of Finnish males go through the service and thus are in the reserves up until they're 55-65 (NCO's and officers remain in the reserves 10 years longer.)
It's alway fun talking to some American who thinks their military equals NATO (one of the reasons NATO wasn't so popular here) and think they're some knight in shining armor saving a damsel in distress.
Sorry bruv, but American troops wouldn't manage shit in Finland.
A group of conscripts from a supply group (ie a group of cooks, basically, who get six months of training) defeated a USMC group in an exercise here in Finland.
https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/65e5530a-2149-41bd-b509-54760c892dfb
Oh fuck that's paywalled.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Finnish-military-just-beat-the-US-Marines-in-Cold-Response
That's better.
You should be more open to what you don't know instead of assuming you do.
I don't care to go through all your misunderstandings, but this is probably key enough to show you don't really grasp the basics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Defence_Cooperation
NORDEFCO has not generally been seen as a mutual defence pact and it is not regarded as a command structure,
It's not a binding agreement. It's based on voluntary cooperation, as is with quite clear letters in the name. But is is most definitely purely for defence cooperation. To challenge that would be silly.
Why'd you skip over 95% of the comment?
Where did you sit your lessons on Finnish military capability, especially in regards to a war with Russia?
Mine were in the Pori Brigade, and HΓ€me Regiment for my special training.
And the EU article is a very clear defence pact.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html
Please, do respond to the other points. I'm interested.
Did you also skip the part where I was completely right about the support numbers? Probably because I actually live here, and you had to quickly just Google something?
Where did you sit your lessons on Finnish military capability,
Please show me where I make just a hint about that, I have not written ANYTHING about the Finish defense capabilities.
The reason I don't care to go through all, is that it's just to damned much.
Yes EU is an actual defense pact, but it lacks structure and capability, because most countries have relied much on USA for the actual military muscle.
This has been shown in our lacking ability to supply Ukraine without USA. Also EU unfortunately doesn't include UK anymore, which would be the best militarily prepared country if they were in.
EU is ramping up now, so we will be less dependent on USA. And I'm happy we have Finland and Sweden with us. (Denmark here)
Before Russia invaded Ukraine, things were different, there was a strong effort for cooperation with Russia, which unfortunately they didn't appreciate as we had hoped. So if by "before" you mean when Russia had not shown their true colors, I'd believe the 50/50 thing. The difference is the invasion. And after that it was certainly not 50/50, and it became clear the danger to Finland had increased too.
The part of the Russian strategy I'm talking about, was exactly about Russia poking in places that was NOT Nato, but where they might have a chance to divide both Europe and NATO, and Finland could be such an area to poke.
Obviously we are all standing much stronger now, because we have been strengthened both EU and NATO, and Russia has been weakened. But if Ukraine had fallen when USA didn't support them much for 8 months, the situation could be way more dangerous than it is.
Please show me where I make just a hint about that, I have not written ANYTHING about the Finish defense capabilities.
Ok:
Finland could be overrun before a decision was made in EU to even do anything.
"Our lacking ability to supply Ukraine without USA". It's not about the lack of ability. It's about Ukraine not being in EU, so direct military aid, and especially troops is harder to send. Our militaries aren't designed to be overflowing with equipment we can just donate away, so it takes a bit of time to see what can be taken and from where. EU is now, afaik, making seized Russian assets available to Ukraine, and getting money to buy armament with is quite as important as getting armament. Even more so, because with money you can also buy non-armament supplies, which are also needed.
Finland has never trusted Russia. Sweden tried to, a bit, by generously demilitarising Gotland, up until it had to rearm it a few years back because after there was no military there, suddenly Russian tourists of military serving age started "touring" it. Now there's a permanent base again.
might have a chance to divide both Europe and NATO, and Finland could be such an area to poke.
What are you on about? Do you know how the Winter War and the Continuation War played out? How would Russia attacking Finland "divide" Europe, unless you're implying that Russia is a part of Europe, because we were more discussing in the context of the European Union, not Europe in general. European Union is very strong and there's articles that have been agreed to. International politics don't really work with the "no I'm not gonna, because I don't wonna" attitude.
You're severely underestimating Finland's defenses pre joining NATO. And that (usually American) cockiness is exactly why a lot of people still oppose NATO.
cockiness is exactly why a lot of people still oppose NATO.
OK
Again, skipping 95% of the reply, but still you feel the need to answer.
That's rather weird.
How would Russia attacking Finland "divide Europe"?
Ukraine had no defense cooperation with any country, yet people still think Finland is in a similar situation, and like you, always willfully ignore NORDEFCO and the EU.
Joining NATO really didn't change the situation in practice at all.
Russia has been shouting the "only defending against NATO" line for decades, as an excuse for annex other countries and/or threatening them. A move like this shows they don't even believe it themselves.
We've had a pretty stable if salty relationship with Russia, since, well... quite a few hundred years since.
Calling the Winter War "salty" is maybe a bit too relaxed. I'm guessing the Karelians would feel somewhat more strongly about it.
it was rather clear Russia would not have had the resources and troops to open up a second front.
Sounds like it's time to open a second front for them
Time for a training exercise on the southern end of the finnish-russo border, no?
I suggest operation "wintery open door" as a name for the exercise.
It's a bit cold here, what's that? By god it's the Finnish Army
No no.. we're just here for exercise, don't mind us.
The little white men are not affiliated with us and are possibly on vacation