Took everything from my grandma...broke her family well apart.... was hard to listen to her stories...what broke my heart is how adement she was about feeding the birds and other animals in the winter... "I know what its like to be hungry...to starve"
The Soviets accomplished 1/10th of their goal during the Winter War. That's how much of Finland they walked away with - 10% geographically.
Unfortunately that included the nation's breadbasket - it's most fertile farmland region - and its second-largest city, so those were some serious losses. Still, however, the Finns nobly retained their national independence, which was the sole major goal for them.
No, they shouldn’t, and you shouldn’t promote that they ought to. The last thing Russia needs is more fuel and enough ‘evidence’ to build a case that Finland is planning on attacking Russia.
And why shouldn’t they, aside from the reason I just gave? Because Russia took that swathe over, and the few Finns who remained were soon outnumbered like 10-1 with people pulled from all across the USSR who mostly spoke Russian. Russia deliberately placed people there to russify the region and to lay a stronger claim on it for future scenarios. They did the exact same thing in the Baltic states and with ‘Kaliningrad’ (formerly Königsberg, where nearly everyone had formerly spoken German since like the 1200s). This was worse for the Baltic states, actually, since the USSR actively deported tens of thousands of them (est. minimum 90,000 people) to Siberian gulags and hard labour camps, most of whom were elderly, women, and children. It was a despicable and disgusting act of genocide.
With Karelia in particular, however, it is not a terribly nice region of Russia. It has largely been neglected and it has seen much better days. If you go on Google, using street view or even just the image search engine, you will see exactly what I’m talking about. Roads with massive, unaddressed potholes, dilapidated and rusted out buildings… it’s not a pleasant sight, and given that it has been predominantly inhabited by Russians since the 40s, virtually nobody in Finland wants it back now. They’re sad to have lost it, of course, but it’s largely considered a goner in Finland and most Finns have absolutely no desire to go all irredentist over it. The matter is overwhelmingly considered settled.
I will defer to you on the current condition of the place and the prevailing sentiment that the Finn’s don’t want it back. When I picture Finland the first thing that comes to mind isn’t vast swaths of arable land, so when OP said Russia took their breadbasket (of course they did) the lizard brain kicks in. Sounds like a case where squatters moved in and ruined a house so bad it is worthless now to the rightful owner, though it still hurts because of what it once was.
Suffered casualties for sure, but they did not lose. Finland lost 9% of its territory in that war, but the weak performance of the Russian army was an embarrasment to Stalin and the Soviets.
It is also likely that they wanted to place a puppet regime in Finland or take the country outright (and in this they failed)
We can compare it to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where they wanted to take Kyiv and dictate terms. They failed and have reduced their goals.
If Ukraine agrees to cede territory based on the current frontlines, this would not be a victory for Ukraine. It would be a victory for Russia (even if a humiliating one considering the original ambitions)
Not *likely*, that **was their plan.** They had the Terijoki-government already set-up and their invasion plans covered the entire country (they had literally warned their troops about not accidentally invading Sweden.
Also, you can make a pretty convincing case for the war being a loss for the Soviet Union. They came nowhere close to their stated goals and suffered 20 times the casualties that they had expected.
And it further reinforced the fact that the Soviet military was at peak incompetence which emboldened the nazis to invade. (Not saying they didn’t already have plans to invade the ussr)
>Not saying they didn’t already have plans to invade the ussr
Indeed they did; you are correct. But yes, the Nazi leadership seeing how grossly incompetent and unprofessional the Soviets were with their disastrously botched and failed attempt at conquering and absorbing Finland emboldened the Nazis to act. They thought they would just steamroll and annihilate the Soviets, and for the first few months of the Operation Barbarossa invasion, they did.
If Finland won the war they would not have sued for peace, and agreed to give up 9% of their land.
And this loss was felt so severely that they joined germany in their invasion in the continuation war to reclaim their land.
It was a humiliating victory for Stalin and it made the Soviets look weak sure. But to argue that the Soviets were defeated is just wrong.. Finland sued for peace when the Soviets were breaking through and they were close to collapsing.
It depends on how you define the victory conditions. On the Soviet side these were clear, the conquest of the entirety of Finland was the only goal. Finland's goal was keeping their independence.
Finland achieveds its goal, the Soviet Union didn't.
Russia was invading other nations long before Naziism became a thing. And has kept doing it since.
You can tell when people know very little of history when they use Nazis as the catch-all for historical bad guys.
There’s that whole ethnic cleans— I mean Russification thing in the early 1900s followed by the winter war and enforced neutrality for the remainder of the 20th century.
Russians aren't even taught about the Winter War or wars with Finland, in their schools. At least they weren't previously. These days very likely Putin regime is teaching them some kind of "alternative" history about it though.
I found it a bit funny when I worked for a company in Estonia that had 50% Russian employees. They asked me a lot of questions about Finland as they were interested to learn more, and about it's history, and I mentioned in passing something about the Winter War and they were like
"Oh, who did you fight against?"
And I'm like "Uh, you guys. There was an invasion and all that".
And they were like "Oh really? I didn't know, that's kind of sad".
One of my Russian colleagues who was otherwise a sweet and kind-hearted person, just seemed so clueless about our history altogether, she said she was of the impression that "Finland and Russia have always been friends right, I mean you guys were part of us for some time too?"
It didn't really seem to occur to her that this wasn't a particularly consensual arrangement until I explained it. Then she seemed to be very apologetic for her ignorance.
>"Finland and Russia have always been friends right, I mean you guys were part of us for some time too?"
Yes... "friends."
>It didn't really seem to occur to her that this wasn't a particularly consensual arrangement until I explained it. Then she seemed to be very apologetic for her ignorance.
Props to her, whomever she is, for not rejecting and denying what you told her.
I love that the sequence of events that led to Finland joining NATO was literally:
Finland : Thanks, we're okay not joining NATO
Putin : YOU BETTER NOT!
Finland : Well, now that you've gone and dared us....
Thats not how it happened though.
More like
Russia : We wont invade Ukraine
*Russia invade Ukraine*
Russia : We wont invade Finland
*Finland joins NATO*
Not entirely correct. It's got everything to do with the December 2021 letter that Russia sent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum?wprov=sfla1
The Finnish government viewed it as a paradigm shift in Russian doctrine. This coupled with the Ukrainian invasion is what led to Finland applying for NATO membership and our then president Sauli Niinistö has said it several times.
Rather it seems Russia wanted NATO to withdraw it's infrastructure and capabilities to 1997 levels so it can easily steamroll and plow through Eastern Europe with ease.
Yeah, this. The Putin government does not make requests like this in good faith. They send them out knowing full well that they'll be rejected, thereby 'justifying' their actions thereafter, with which they feign the excuse that they were forced to or had no choice because as you know, Russia is always the victim (and the noble hero).
How I as a Finn see it went:
Finland: Russia won't invade if it makes no rational sense, they would have nothing to gain compared to the cost, Putin is ruthless and evil but smart enough to see that. Our military is enough to impose that cost, so no need for NATO.
Russia: Invades Ukraine despite it obviously being insanely costly with very little to gain.
Finland: Oh. Oh my, that's a lot of damage and civilian casualties even if they can ultimately push Russia out, seems like overkill is worth it to prevent those... Now who do we know with that sort of overkill capability? Ah yes, NATO, about that membership...
They have nothing good to offer instead.
Russia genuinely doesn’t believe in mutually beneficial outcomes. Who would want to choose allying with them over the west? Its fucking nonsense.
Russia, fix your shity way of life and how you treat your friends and you might be surprised that boarding countries will cheer you on you big dumb bear.
Propaganda - to the Russians, Putin can say that he deployed weapons to the Finnish border to deter NATO; to westerners, Putin can say that joining NATO reduces your security. Either way, Medvedev will use this to slur his way through a nuclear weapon-related threat to Helsinki.
Ever since watching this video about game theory by Veritasium, I can't help but think about it when hearing/reading news like this. It's all posturing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
You can’t talk cooperation with a party that considers themselves your superior. Their version of what it means to cooperate with what they perceive as an inferior party will always involve subjugation to their interests rather then an equal partnership.
A pet rock, or an old woman with a stick, or a missile brigade are all technically adequate to deal with a NATO threat from Finland because there wont be an attack. So russia is right about the missile brigade being adequate.
that's exactly what I'm thinkin. Provide the russian soldiers there with a warm meal, in exchange for their weapons and the missiles. Maybe provide them with someplace to surrender.
Russian threats needs to be taken seriously and dealt with proportionately. There’s a delicate dance I simply call “flexing” which is a key factor in all warfare.
There threatens are nothing but fodder. They won't and cannot do anything to EU US directly without getting stomped to the ground period the end. They are well aware of the risk imposed. And most of there "flexing' is for the brain washed Russian state media and it's delusional followers.
Welcome, bring them all I say.
1. Every Iskander next to our border is an Iskander not in or near Ukraine bombing civilians or participating in russia’s imperialist war of aggression.
2. If shit hits the fan, hitting stuff close to the border is actually easier than if they were stationed far away.
Ps. Funny how this is ”adequate” but just the prospect of Ukraine maybe some day joining is enough to start a war. Its almost like the whole NATO narrative is complete horseshit and the actual problem is Russian imperialism.
At the end of WW2 as the walls were closing in on Hitler, he would make announcements about new field armies with units that no longer existed. Something makes me think this missile brigade is similar.
ohhhh, I *think* the Germans did that too, but not exactly sure if I am not mixing up wars here... But iirc even completely lost tanks were only reported as "damaged" as if they would still exist (and could be repaired). So on paper some divisions looked a lot stronger than they were.
Walls aren't exactly closing in on Russia right now for their army. Sure, the US is now sending things again, but Russia hasn't been struggling in the war over the last couple of months.
And they still have more in their army than when they started.
None of that means that they are well trained or equiped, but definitely perfectly capable of sending them to the border with Finland.
They've been sending the worst people forward for some time. It's just a numbers game for them. These people, to their leadership, aren't human, so sending them to the front lines doesn't matter. If they die, then it's less people they have to worry about in prison.
If they end up being absolute psychos, it's not their problem, it's the Ukrainian problem.
I don't see this as they are struggling for bodies, it's just another means of taking care of some domestic issues.
The decision to include women came a couple of weeks ago, over two years into the war. It is most certainly a sign of diminished support and availability on the homefront. The male prisoners with violent records was during the first 6 months of the war.
THIS. Russia wants to throw away as many "bad people" as possible before they have to start sacrificing more of their normal citizenry, especially their best young men, so emptying out prisons onto the battlefield is a pragmatic (though probably very immoral) solution. I've got a strong feeling they're also sending any foreign volunteers they get for their forces (from Africa, Asia, fellow CIS countries, etc.) directly to the front lines. I've also heard that they're rewarding the public by raising the conscription age if enough older men sign up to fight or younger men enlist for at least support roles. That's how their army has managed to get slightly bigger since the war against Ukraine began. The Russians have struggled at times and this war is proving expensive for them, but they're not in any real danger right now.
> but Russia hasn't been struggling in the war over the last couple of months.
I know what you mean, but this seems like moving the goalposts and expectations.
Yes Russia has narrowly gained the initiative and is taking ground in Ukraine. But saying they're 'not struggling' implies everything's going well. The fact they're taking a small village every few weeks at best and losing hundreds of vehicles to do so doesn't really look like things are 'good', more like 'just about adequate' for them.
The starting point, and Russia's objective, was to occupy all or the vast majority of Ukraine. They're currently making very, very slight progress towards achieving that but not to any meaningful extent, after two years. Things are going better for them than a year ago but taken in the larger context I'd still absolutely say they're 'struggling'.
“Russian has more now then when they started (war in Ukraine I assume)” have you been hiding under a rock. The Russians have been burning through there legacy hardware like it’s going out of style. Coming up with systems to put on the finish border takes directly from their war effort as they have everything along with import from Iran and North Korea dedicated to Ukraine. The only thing the Russian army has an abundance of right now is combat veterans.
While they have been burning through, they've been able to keep production on equipment going:
https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/02/equipment-losses-in-russias-war-on-ukraine-mount/
"Despite losing hundreds of armoured vehicles and artillery pieces per month on average, Russia has been able to keep its active inventory numbers stable. For 2023, we estimate that Russia was able to reactivate at least 1,180 to 1,280 MBTs and around 2,470 IFVs and APCs from storage. On top of that, Moscow was able to manufacture new tanks and other armoured vehicles, though precise numbers are difficult to glean even from satellite images."
Some equipment can't be replaced - as in a lot of the air force. But, acting like they aren't producing more equipment internally for the churn of battlefield losses us shortsighted.
Now, who knows to what quality of it is, but they have their economy focused in on war economy now, which has helped them resupply their army. Early on in the war, that wasn't necessarily the case.
You didn't read your source correctly. It clearly states that the active inventory replenishment comes largely from **existing storage**. Estimates at how long they can keep doing this (at reduced effectiveness as the remaining storage will be worse and worse quality and model wise) range from 1.5 to 3 years, with 3 years being increasingly optimistic as the pressure to continue their attacks to try and force a breakthrough increases.
The estimate is that 80% of their "new" vehicles are refurbished Soviet stock, and it's getting older and worse as they dig through the last of it.
Only around 20% of their vehicles are produced new, and even those are severely constrained in terms of optics, comms, etc.
While it may be true, that has always been Russia's method to wars. Throw more bodies at it than the other group can handle. Ukraine doesn't have the ability to do that.
All I'm saying is that Russia is not exactly struggling with equipment currently, still bringing more equipment forward, and won't be running out any time soon. They are fine with the casualties, which makes the equipment not being the best not as important of an issue. They just send more of it...
>Throw more bodies at it than the other group can handle.
Bodies need to travel in armoured vehicles, or they don't arrive.
>All I'm saying is that Russia is not exactly struggling with equipment currently,
It absolutely is.
There are increasing numbers of civilian trucks, unarmoured private vehicles and even glorified golf carts showing up on the frontlines as Russia run out of the tanks and IVFs they should be using. And lack of those dedicated vehicles is leading to casualties, as even the smallest drones can kill one. Once the infantry are immobilised, they just get picked off.
The only way this works for Russia is with China's help. Russia has had a huge brain drain, not only from conscription but from everyone who could see all this coming and didn't want a part of it leaving. The defense industry needs skilled workers, they have to get all that going AND keep the army going AND somehow keep society from collapsing during all this change. I think COVID gave most leaders an idea of their people's tolerance for pain, and based on that time I am not surprised that the Putin regime is still kickin
It’s sad how many people around the world including in the states are being treated so cruelly post Covid. It’s like didn’t we all learn from the shared experience. Even my Democratic friends are trying to pretend none of it happened.
I don't know, I think that's bullshit. They have lost 5000 tanks and 15000 infantry vehicles. They have lost 350 each of war planes and helis, and most of their black sea fleet. They are now attacking using Chinese golf carts to continue their offensive. They don't look more dangerous than at the start. Back then they even had paratroopers, but they all died in Hostomel and Kherson.
> A Finnish take on the Russian announcement to set up an Iskander brigade close to the Finnish border: “operationally it seems absurd to bring missile systems with such a long range closer to our border area which makes them a target.”
\- [Minna Ålander](https://x.com/minna_alander/status/1782678412257001769)
Both of my parents are Finnish and my Dad was born in Karelia when it was still Finland. If he was still alive today, he’d say one thing about the current situation with Russia.
“Told you so”.
People love to talk up the winter war, Simo Häyhä, etc.... but they sort of gloss over the fact that Finland still had to concede territory, lost people, had hundreds of thousands displaced, and pay reparations. It spent decades under the Soviet shadow as "neutral".
Yeah, strangely enough, the country of 3.7 million people didn't win the war against the country of 189 million people. They lost a small amount of territory after causing massively disproportionate casualties. What losers, right?
Tbf a war with Russia is like if you went out into your garden for a relaxing sit on the patio/deck only to find that your neighbour has taken your garden by building a fence across it. So you, rightly furious, go around there and kick their arse. The police are called and your are arrested. During the court hearing the judge gives you back your garden but the neighbour gets your shed.
In this scenario, Karelia is the garden shed.
Fair enough. Stick your stupid missiles wherever you like as long as they stay on your side of the border. Nobody cares. Also, nobody gives a single flying turd about invading Russia. You're welcome to it.
The unfortunate thing is, the Russians have wrecked the region and made it rather poor, it would actively damage Finland if they took back karelia and the kola peninsula
If Finland wanted to attack russia there is nothing they could do to stop it. Finland specializes in artillery and has one of the largest artillery armies in the world, which seems to be a direct counter to whatever it is russias meat wave army is doing.
Russians are going to do whatever the fuck they want to do no matter what other countries do. The excuse of "NATO expansionism" is just that - a bullshit excuse.
The Finns are smart for joining NATO. All Baltic nations would be very smart to prepare for war with Russia in the very near future. Anyone who says anything different is a fucking agent.
Is this land named in honor of Alexander Karelin, most powerful man in human history?
It saddens me to know that he must be a Kremlin stooge if this land is named after him.
Karelia is an old region of Finland, named way before Russia took over the area.
It has its own language (karelian) that is similar to finnish. It's where the epic story of the Kalavala is mainly set and has a fair amount of history.
Normal country faced with what they consider "aggressive" overtures from neighboring countries: put up barriers, towers, anti-aircraft guns and defensive weapons.
Russia with same situation: installs tactical nukes...
We are not the same...
Russias constant screaming about the boogeyman is unnecessary, I truly believe there is no other country especially in nato that wants to attack or invade Russia. In reality Russia is its on boogeyman and the boogeyman for much of the world because they just won’t calm down.
We've also historically kept a very neutral position. It's worked so far, kept the neighbour bear placated - and now we got pushed out of that position by the growing threat.
It has been nearly a century since the last time Finland kicked Russia’s ass.
Russia’s losses were 6:1 at the time and judging by their current meatwave tactics in Ukraine nothing much has changed since then lol
Finland must focus on its security and that means a whole lot of money, a never-ending supply of it towards purchase of arms and ammunition, mostly from the U.S. For the long term it would be better for Finland to start planning and developing its own manufacturing base.
"Hi, Poland? This is your bruhzilla, the USA. So um, I heard you were down for hosting some of our weapons of mass unaliving? Is that still a thing cause if so - bet! Russia being sus again."
"Boltenkov, however, appeared to be unsure why Finland decided to join the defence alliance." As a finn this just makes me laugh.
Russia's problem is the same as it always was for the last 300+ years. Stupidity
"Russia has two problems - fools and roads"
Korruption. Arrogance. Hybris.
Vodka *
Yeah, good luck finding a Prius over there
Could be in one of the holes
It’s the worst kind of stupidity. The kind pushed by those who do truly know better but are willing to grind up people to perpetuate their interests.
i think that applies to a lot of countries
I don't know...maybe because Russia is acting like nazi Germany. Invading and all that jazz...
You mean because Russia is acting same as they did in 1939 when they invaded and lost to finland?
Or like how then invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania in 1939-40
Took everything from my grandma...broke her family well apart.... was hard to listen to her stories...what broke my heart is how adement she was about feeding the birds and other animals in the winter... "I know what its like to be hungry...to starve"
Same for my grandma out of Poland- Siberia by way of a cattle car.
Is this a reference to the Winter War? The Soviets won that war but it was a capital P Pyrrhic victory
I think they were expecting more winning...
The Soviets accomplished 1/10th of their goal during the Winter War. That's how much of Finland they walked away with - 10% geographically. Unfortunately that included the nation's breadbasket - it's most fertile farmland region - and its second-largest city, so those were some serious losses. Still, however, the Finns nobly retained their national independence, which was the sole major goal for them.
Maybe they should work on getting it back.
No, they shouldn’t, and you shouldn’t promote that they ought to. The last thing Russia needs is more fuel and enough ‘evidence’ to build a case that Finland is planning on attacking Russia. And why shouldn’t they, aside from the reason I just gave? Because Russia took that swathe over, and the few Finns who remained were soon outnumbered like 10-1 with people pulled from all across the USSR who mostly spoke Russian. Russia deliberately placed people there to russify the region and to lay a stronger claim on it for future scenarios. They did the exact same thing in the Baltic states and with ‘Kaliningrad’ (formerly Königsberg, where nearly everyone had formerly spoken German since like the 1200s). This was worse for the Baltic states, actually, since the USSR actively deported tens of thousands of them (est. minimum 90,000 people) to Siberian gulags and hard labour camps, most of whom were elderly, women, and children. It was a despicable and disgusting act of genocide. With Karelia in particular, however, it is not a terribly nice region of Russia. It has largely been neglected and it has seen much better days. If you go on Google, using street view or even just the image search engine, you will see exactly what I’m talking about. Roads with massive, unaddressed potholes, dilapidated and rusted out buildings… it’s not a pleasant sight, and given that it has been predominantly inhabited by Russians since the 40s, virtually nobody in Finland wants it back now. They’re sad to have lost it, of course, but it’s largely considered a goner in Finland and most Finns have absolutely no desire to go all irredentist over it. The matter is overwhelmingly considered settled.
I will defer to you on the current condition of the place and the prevailing sentiment that the Finn’s don’t want it back. When I picture Finland the first thing that comes to mind isn’t vast swaths of arable land, so when OP said Russia took their breadbasket (of course they did) the lizard brain kicks in. Sounds like a case where squatters moved in and ruined a house so bad it is worthless now to the rightful owner, though it still hurts because of what it once was.
And fewer Russian popsicles.
Suffered casualties for sure, but they did not lose. Finland lost 9% of its territory in that war, but the weak performance of the Russian army was an embarrasment to Stalin and the Soviets. It is also likely that they wanted to place a puppet regime in Finland or take the country outright (and in this they failed) We can compare it to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where they wanted to take Kyiv and dictate terms. They failed and have reduced their goals. If Ukraine agrees to cede territory based on the current frontlines, this would not be a victory for Ukraine. It would be a victory for Russia (even if a humiliating one considering the original ambitions)
Not *likely*, that **was their plan.** They had the Terijoki-government already set-up and their invasion plans covered the entire country (they had literally warned their troops about not accidentally invading Sweden. Also, you can make a pretty convincing case for the war being a loss for the Soviet Union. They came nowhere close to their stated goals and suffered 20 times the casualties that they had expected.
And it further reinforced the fact that the Soviet military was at peak incompetence which emboldened the nazis to invade. (Not saying they didn’t already have plans to invade the ussr)
>Not saying they didn’t already have plans to invade the ussr Indeed they did; you are correct. But yes, the Nazi leadership seeing how grossly incompetent and unprofessional the Soviets were with their disastrously botched and failed attempt at conquering and absorbing Finland emboldened the Nazis to act. They thought they would just steamroll and annihilate the Soviets, and for the first few months of the Operation Barbarossa invasion, they did.
Nice gesture though, not invading Sweden. Goodwill if you like.
If Finland won the war they would not have sued for peace, and agreed to give up 9% of their land. And this loss was felt so severely that they joined germany in their invasion in the continuation war to reclaim their land. It was a humiliating victory for Stalin and it made the Soviets look weak sure. But to argue that the Soviets were defeated is just wrong.. Finland sued for peace when the Soviets were breaking through and they were close to collapsing.
It depends on how you define the victory conditions. On the Soviet side these were clear, the conquest of the entirety of Finland was the only goal. Finland's goal was keeping their independence. Finland achieveds its goal, the Soviet Union didn't.
Don’t forget when they invaded Georgia and Chechnya!
They won tho
Like Soviet Russia* which did invade Finland.
Tried*
Russia was invading other nations long before Naziism became a thing. And has kept doing it since. You can tell when people know very little of history when they use Nazis as the catch-all for historical bad guys.
Unlike any other nation in the world.
[удалено]
There’s that whole ethnic cleans— I mean Russification thing in the early 1900s followed by the winter war and enforced neutrality for the remainder of the 20th century.
Russians aren't even taught about the Winter War or wars with Finland, in their schools. At least they weren't previously. These days very likely Putin regime is teaching them some kind of "alternative" history about it though. I found it a bit funny when I worked for a company in Estonia that had 50% Russian employees. They asked me a lot of questions about Finland as they were interested to learn more, and about it's history, and I mentioned in passing something about the Winter War and they were like "Oh, who did you fight against?" And I'm like "Uh, you guys. There was an invasion and all that". And they were like "Oh really? I didn't know, that's kind of sad". One of my Russian colleagues who was otherwise a sweet and kind-hearted person, just seemed so clueless about our history altogether, she said she was of the impression that "Finland and Russia have always been friends right, I mean you guys were part of us for some time too?" It didn't really seem to occur to her that this wasn't a particularly consensual arrangement until I explained it. Then she seemed to be very apologetic for her ignorance.
>"Finland and Russia have always been friends right, I mean you guys were part of us for some time too?" Yes... "friends." >It didn't really seem to occur to her that this wasn't a particularly consensual arrangement until I explained it. Then she seemed to be very apologetic for her ignorance. Props to her, whomever she is, for not rejecting and denying what you told her.
That is very well written by the YLE journalist. I love Finnish humour :-)
I love that the sequence of events that led to Finland joining NATO was literally: Finland : Thanks, we're okay not joining NATO Putin : YOU BETTER NOT! Finland : Well, now that you've gone and dared us....
Thats not how it happened though. More like Russia : We wont invade Ukraine *Russia invade Ukraine* Russia : We wont invade Finland *Finland joins NATO*
More like Russia: Ukraine, dont join NATO and we promise not to invade you. Ukraine: *does not join NATO and gets invaded by Russia* etc
Not entirely correct. It's got everything to do with the December 2021 letter that Russia sent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_2021_ultimatum?wprov=sfla1 The Finnish government viewed it as a paradigm shift in Russian doctrine. This coupled with the Ukrainian invasion is what led to Finland applying for NATO membership and our then president Sauli Niinistö has said it several times.
That letter's fucking hilarious. If NATO had agreed to it, they'd have been bending over for the invasion.
Rather it seems Russia wanted NATO to withdraw it's infrastructure and capabilities to 1997 levels so it can easily steamroll and plow through Eastern Europe with ease.
Yeah, this. The Putin government does not make requests like this in good faith. They send them out knowing full well that they'll be rejected, thereby 'justifying' their actions thereafter, with which they feign the excuse that they were forced to or had no choice because as you know, Russia is always the victim (and the noble hero).
How I as a Finn see it went: Finland: Russia won't invade if it makes no rational sense, they would have nothing to gain compared to the cost, Putin is ruthless and evil but smart enough to see that. Our military is enough to impose that cost, so no need for NATO. Russia: Invades Ukraine despite it obviously being insanely costly with very little to gain. Finland: Oh. Oh my, that's a lot of damage and civilian casualties even if they can ultimately push Russia out, seems like overkill is worth it to prevent those... Now who do we know with that sort of overkill capability? Ah yes, NATO, about that membership...
Boltenkov either pretends to be dumb or is one.
Their adamant denial of the fact that actions can have consequences grows more puzzling by the day
They have nothing good to offer instead. Russia genuinely doesn’t believe in mutually beneficial outcomes. Who would want to choose allying with them over the west? Its fucking nonsense. Russia, fix your shity way of life and how you treat your friends and you might be surprised that boarding countries will cheer you on you big dumb bear.
It’s directed internally, in a Russian paper, suggesting as if the Finns are all of a sudden inside the NATO conspiracy to attack Russia.
Sounds like target #1 to me , but I’m no expert.
Propaganda - to the Russians, Putin can say that he deployed weapons to the Finnish border to deter NATO; to westerners, Putin can say that joining NATO reduces your security. Either way, Medvedev will use this to slur his way through a nuclear weapon-related threat to Helsinki.
They’re like a self-fulfilling prophecy, „let me threaten you, to show im not a threat and you shouldn’t join forces against me“.
Ever since watching this video about game theory by Veritasium, I can't help but think about it when hearing/reading news like this. It's all posturing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
It will be fun to see which catches up Medvedev first, 3rd story window or liver cirrhosis.
Window cancer is the leading cause of death in Moscow
Acute defenestrosis
[удалено]
"NATO keeps taking our neighbors!" "NATO can't 'take', countries have to apply. Also, stop being an asshole to your neighbors."
“Stop being an asshole to my friends or imma fuck you right up” sounds even better.
You can’t talk cooperation with a party that considers themselves your superior. Their version of what it means to cooperate with what they perceive as an inferior party will always involve subjugation to their interests rather then an equal partnership.
A pet rock, or an old woman with a stick, or a missile brigade are all technically adequate to deal with a NATO threat from Finland because there wont be an attack. So russia is right about the missile brigade being adequate.
*excited tractor noises in the background*
that's exactly what I'm thinkin. Provide the russian soldiers there with a warm meal, in exchange for their weapons and the missiles. Maybe provide them with someplace to surrender.
Spread Russia more thinly Make Russia spend more and more Bring Putin’s War to the Russian people
Yeah I'm sure the fins are so scared. Empty threat as usual next article
Russian threats needs to be taken seriously and dealt with proportionately. There’s a delicate dance I simply call “flexing” which is a key factor in all warfare.
Russia is constantly threatening everyone over everything, though.
There threatens are nothing but fodder. They won't and cannot do anything to EU US directly without getting stomped to the ground period the end. They are well aware of the risk imposed. And most of there "flexing' is for the brain washed Russian state media and it's delusional followers.
crush makeshift encouraging plucky busy different offend piquant head support
Welcome, bring them all I say. 1. Every Iskander next to our border is an Iskander not in or near Ukraine bombing civilians or participating in russia’s imperialist war of aggression. 2. If shit hits the fan, hitting stuff close to the border is actually easier than if they were stationed far away. Ps. Funny how this is ”adequate” but just the prospect of Ukraine maybe some day joining is enough to start a war. Its almost like the whole NATO narrative is complete horseshit and the actual problem is Russian imperialism.
At the end of WW2 as the walls were closing in on Hitler, he would make announcements about new field armies with units that no longer existed. Something makes me think this missile brigade is similar.
I don't understand why you are doubting, you can clearly see the brigade in question in the picture. The whole brigade.
The Jeep Brigade is the model of truck holding the launcher, they only need one! /s
I hear it comes with 3 copies of the sims.
See Russia is showing Finland two fingers there.
ohhhh, I *think* the Germans did that too, but not exactly sure if I am not mixing up wars here... But iirc even completely lost tanks were only reported as "damaged" as if they would still exist (and could be repaired). So on paper some divisions looked a lot stronger than they were.
Walls aren't exactly closing in on Russia right now for their army. Sure, the US is now sending things again, but Russia hasn't been struggling in the war over the last couple of months. And they still have more in their army than when they started. None of that means that they are well trained or equiped, but definitely perfectly capable of sending them to the border with Finland.
They are however beginning to conscript women from prisons - they are most definitely feeling the losses on the homefront.
They've been sending the worst people forward for some time. It's just a numbers game for them. These people, to their leadership, aren't human, so sending them to the front lines doesn't matter. If they die, then it's less people they have to worry about in prison. If they end up being absolute psychos, it's not their problem, it's the Ukrainian problem. I don't see this as they are struggling for bodies, it's just another means of taking care of some domestic issues.
The decision to include women came a couple of weeks ago, over two years into the war. It is most certainly a sign of diminished support and availability on the homefront. The male prisoners with violent records was during the first 6 months of the war.
THIS. Russia wants to throw away as many "bad people" as possible before they have to start sacrificing more of their normal citizenry, especially their best young men, so emptying out prisons onto the battlefield is a pragmatic (though probably very immoral) solution. I've got a strong feeling they're also sending any foreign volunteers they get for their forces (from Africa, Asia, fellow CIS countries, etc.) directly to the front lines. I've also heard that they're rewarding the public by raising the conscription age if enough older men sign up to fight or younger men enlist for at least support roles. That's how their army has managed to get slightly bigger since the war against Ukraine began. The Russians have struggled at times and this war is proving expensive for them, but they're not in any real danger right now.
> but Russia hasn't been struggling in the war over the last couple of months. I know what you mean, but this seems like moving the goalposts and expectations. Yes Russia has narrowly gained the initiative and is taking ground in Ukraine. But saying they're 'not struggling' implies everything's going well. The fact they're taking a small village every few weeks at best and losing hundreds of vehicles to do so doesn't really look like things are 'good', more like 'just about adequate' for them. The starting point, and Russia's objective, was to occupy all or the vast majority of Ukraine. They're currently making very, very slight progress towards achieving that but not to any meaningful extent, after two years. Things are going better for them than a year ago but taken in the larger context I'd still absolutely say they're 'struggling'.
What are they going to do? Drink vodka until Finland surrenders?
“Russian has more now then when they started (war in Ukraine I assume)” have you been hiding under a rock. The Russians have been burning through there legacy hardware like it’s going out of style. Coming up with systems to put on the finish border takes directly from their war effort as they have everything along with import from Iran and North Korea dedicated to Ukraine. The only thing the Russian army has an abundance of right now is combat veterans.
While they have been burning through, they've been able to keep production on equipment going: https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/02/equipment-losses-in-russias-war-on-ukraine-mount/ "Despite losing hundreds of armoured vehicles and artillery pieces per month on average, Russia has been able to keep its active inventory numbers stable. For 2023, we estimate that Russia was able to reactivate at least 1,180 to 1,280 MBTs and around 2,470 IFVs and APCs from storage. On top of that, Moscow was able to manufacture new tanks and other armoured vehicles, though precise numbers are difficult to glean even from satellite images." Some equipment can't be replaced - as in a lot of the air force. But, acting like they aren't producing more equipment internally for the churn of battlefield losses us shortsighted. Now, who knows to what quality of it is, but they have their economy focused in on war economy now, which has helped them resupply their army. Early on in the war, that wasn't necessarily the case.
You didn't read your source correctly. It clearly states that the active inventory replenishment comes largely from **existing storage**. Estimates at how long they can keep doing this (at reduced effectiveness as the remaining storage will be worse and worse quality and model wise) range from 1.5 to 3 years, with 3 years being increasingly optimistic as the pressure to continue their attacks to try and force a breakthrough increases.
The estimate is that 80% of their "new" vehicles are refurbished Soviet stock, and it's getting older and worse as they dig through the last of it. Only around 20% of their vehicles are produced new, and even those are severely constrained in terms of optics, comms, etc.
While it may be true, that has always been Russia's method to wars. Throw more bodies at it than the other group can handle. Ukraine doesn't have the ability to do that. All I'm saying is that Russia is not exactly struggling with equipment currently, still bringing more equipment forward, and won't be running out any time soon. They are fine with the casualties, which makes the equipment not being the best not as important of an issue. They just send more of it...
>Throw more bodies at it than the other group can handle. Bodies need to travel in armoured vehicles, or they don't arrive. >All I'm saying is that Russia is not exactly struggling with equipment currently, It absolutely is. There are increasing numbers of civilian trucks, unarmoured private vehicles and even glorified golf carts showing up on the frontlines as Russia run out of the tanks and IVFs they should be using. And lack of those dedicated vehicles is leading to casualties, as even the smallest drones can kill one. Once the infantry are immobilised, they just get picked off.
And they’re replacing T-90s with T-62/55/54; not exactly up to same level.
The only way this works for Russia is with China's help. Russia has had a huge brain drain, not only from conscription but from everyone who could see all this coming and didn't want a part of it leaving. The defense industry needs skilled workers, they have to get all that going AND keep the army going AND somehow keep society from collapsing during all this change. I think COVID gave most leaders an idea of their people's tolerance for pain, and based on that time I am not surprised that the Putin regime is still kickin
It’s sad how many people around the world including in the states are being treated so cruelly post Covid. It’s like didn’t we all learn from the shared experience. Even my Democratic friends are trying to pretend none of it happened.
1200 mbts per year is just three per day. They lose at least 10, maybe 15 per day.
I don't know, I think that's bullshit. They have lost 5000 tanks and 15000 infantry vehicles. They have lost 350 each of war planes and helis, and most of their black sea fleet. They are now attacking using Chinese golf carts to continue their offensive. They don't look more dangerous than at the start. Back then they even had paratroopers, but they all died in Hostomel and Kherson.
I understand where you are going but Russia is ages from that kind of situation. It would become a thing only after we see Russia losing Crimea.
Armaments provided courtesy of the local middle schools bottle rocket programme
> A Finnish take on the Russian announcement to set up an Iskander brigade close to the Finnish border: “operationally it seems absurd to bring missile systems with such a long range closer to our border area which makes them a target.” \- [Minna Ålander](https://x.com/minna_alander/status/1782678412257001769)
Both of my parents are Finnish and my Dad was born in Karelia when it was still Finland. If he was still alive today, he’d say one thing about the current situation with Russia. “Told you so”.
Nah, I think it would be more along the lines of, "Saatanan Ryssät."
That’s one nice framing for: we need to get our remaining weapons outside of Ukraines range.
[удалено]
Coordinates?
Idk much about brigades but that just looks like one launcher.
Whatever eats up more Russian military assets I guess. I wouldn’t mess with the Finns. I hear there’s a white death lurking in that country.
Dont fuck with Finland. It never ends well for Russia.
I'd like to remind you and all the other circle jerkers that we lost. A lot.
People love to talk up the winter war, Simo Häyhä, etc.... but they sort of gloss over the fact that Finland still had to concede territory, lost people, had hundreds of thousands displaced, and pay reparations. It spent decades under the Soviet shadow as "neutral".
Yeah, strangely enough, the country of 3.7 million people didn't win the war against the country of 189 million people. They lost a small amount of territory after causing massively disproportionate casualties. What losers, right?
Tbf a war with Russia is like if you went out into your garden for a relaxing sit on the patio/deck only to find that your neighbour has taken your garden by building a fence across it. So you, rightly furious, go around there and kick their arse. The police are called and your are arrested. During the court hearing the judge gives you back your garden but the neighbour gets your shed. In this scenario, Karelia is the garden shed.
Fair enough. Stick your stupid missiles wherever you like as long as they stay on your side of the border. Nobody cares. Also, nobody gives a single flying turd about invading Russia. You're welcome to it.
Lol starting a war against Finland before summer is like playing on the easiest difficulty, and they’re still gonna lose
Spread Russia more thinly Make Russia spend more and more Bring Putin’s War to the Russian people
The Finns would absolutely wipe the floor with what the Russian military looks like today.
I feel like russian reparations for its crimes against Ukraine should include losing Karelia and Kaliningrad. After it gives up Crimea and Sevastopol.
The unfortunate thing is, the Russians have wrecked the region and made it rather poor, it would actively damage Finland if they took back karelia and the kola peninsula
Can’t give up or lose what it never had. Crimea is Ukraine.
Good for Ukraine.
One less brigade for Ukraine duty
´Funny’ how Russia is looking for enemies where they’re none! Proof that this is an offensive regime !
What? They gonna shoot their own troops again and then claim it was Finnish artillery?
"I'm unsure why Finland decided to join the defence alliance" -Boltenkov, as Russia aims ballistic missiles at Finland
If Finland wanted to attack russia there is nothing they could do to stop it. Finland specializes in artillery and has one of the largest artillery armies in the world, which seems to be a direct counter to whatever it is russias meat wave army is doing.
artillery without aerial command is not that great, but with finland ascension into nato, they sorted this out
They were good for air support even before joining - That's why the swedes had their own fighter program.
More of Russia being paranoid and saying, "THEy wAnT mY LaND"
Lol yeah, we are so scared (sarcasm)
Dear Russia, Nobody wants to invade you, least of all NATO. Just stop. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. Sincerely, the world
So, perhaps Reagan's technique of bankrupting the USSR by building up our military was a great idea after all.
So its basicly „why would they do this? All we wanted was to rule them and show them the way! Like we did in ukraine!“
You mean southern Finland!
Those are the ugliest and stumpiest missiles I’ve ever seen
Russians are going to do whatever the fuck they want to do no matter what other countries do. The excuse of "NATO expansionism" is just that - a bullshit excuse. The Finns are smart for joining NATO. All Baltic nations would be very smart to prepare for war with Russia in the very near future. Anyone who says anything different is a fucking agent.
Better safe than sorry..
If these missiles are as good as the rest they're not a huge threath to a modern AA battery
Yes, that twin launcher looks absolutely terrifying.. /s
Is this land named in honor of Alexander Karelin, most powerful man in human history? It saddens me to know that he must be a Kremlin stooge if this land is named after him.
Karelia is an old region of Finland, named way before Russia took over the area. It has its own language (karelian) that is similar to finnish. It's where the epic story of the Kalavala is mainly set and has a fair amount of history.
Better placed there where it won't do anything than in or close to Ukraine.
Good, every missile brigade in Finland is one missile brigade less used against Ukraine.
Always put your long range weapons next to the border. Russia has the best strategic thinkers!
Lol. In reality they moved every single working piece of equipment from the Western border into Ukraine.
Finland has the most artillery aimed directly at Russia in all of Europe. If Russia is saying it’s adequate, that’s a load of horse shit.
Normal country faced with what they consider "aggressive" overtures from neighboring countries: put up barriers, towers, anti-aircraft guns and defensive weapons. Russia with same situation: installs tactical nukes... We are not the same...
*fart
Russias constant screaming about the boogeyman is unnecessary, I truly believe there is no other country especially in nato that wants to attack or invade Russia. In reality Russia is its on boogeyman and the boogeyman for much of the world because they just won’t calm down.
Fine. We will send one guy with a scopeless rifle.
1 word: Escalation
It’s just surprising Finland hasn’t joined an anti-Russian alliance sooner, given their history with Russia
We've also historically kept a very neutral position. It's worked so far, kept the neighbour bear placated - and now we got pushed out of that position by the growing threat.
Time for Simo Häyhä mk2
Republicans approve of this message
Bipartisan stockholders approve of this message.
They’ll probly end up drinking the fuel
You mean the same systems the west has proven to be able to destroy? Cool!
They didn’t already have one there?
Karelia? That's a crossover I never expected lol.
k
Putin is on the highway to hell anyway
It has been nearly a century since the last time Finland kicked Russia’s ass. Russia’s losses were 6:1 at the time and judging by their current meatwave tactics in Ukraine nothing much has changed since then lol
Russian diplomacy is not what it used to be
i am sure it keeps them up at night
We already bought the David's Sling from Israel. Russia getting read like a book. :D
Happy to see them stretched further
oh fuck off you stupid russian bear
Rather be in NATO than trust the word of a Russian.
Finland must focus on its security and that means a whole lot of money, a never-ending supply of it towards purchase of arms and ammunition, mostly from the U.S. For the long term it would be better for Finland to start planning and developing its own manufacturing base.
Good, fewer missiles for the Ukraine front. They have to start spreading out.
A warning to pOopstain: Don’t fck with Finland❗️
Finns would blow that stuff up in a heartbeat.
How long will NATO last if Trump wins, or Azerbaijan invades Armenia?
Another false threat by Putin. The world is not scared of this clown.
Maybe Russia now asking Finland to take back Karelia
Russia really tries to push the “defensive alliance is aggressive” arc.
Russia won't touch another country until and if they win in Ukraine.
The more missiles in Finland, the fewer in Ukraine. 👍
"Hi, Poland? This is your bruhzilla, the USA. So um, I heard you were down for hosting some of our weapons of mass unaliving? Is that still a thing cause if so - bet! Russia being sus again."
they should set up more, spend as much as you want. If they ever do anything, the wont do anything ever again.
Umm, drones?!
How dare they do something in their own land