this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
86 points (96.7% liked)

Ukraine

8242 readers
993 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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,

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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 Häme 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?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

cockiness is exactly why a lot of people still oppose NATO.

OK

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

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.