Merged: Russia threatens Finland & Sweden/ they may join within months

[dudalb]

In a off the record remarks, Fnnnish officials are saying it is "highly likely" FInland will join Nato.
It is eginning to smell like a done deal.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by dudalb

In a off the record remarks, Fnnnish officials are saying it is "highly likely" FInland will join Nato.
It is eginning to smell like a done deal.

Cue minor border skirmish by Russia to ensure Finland is "in dispute" with another country. Wasn't that why Ukraine couldn't join?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by timhau

Probably so. The Finland of 1939 was a poor agricultural nation, where many country pumpkins still had to rely on fishing and hunting to amendtheir diet. This has a reverse effect as well - something like 20 % of available conscripts were deemed unfit for service due to the aftereffects of childhood malnutrition, tuberculosis etc.

Fair point. One should bear in mind though, that tuberculosis was rampant throughout Europe and was no respecter of class. Likewise, the value judgement of 'poor'; it is relative, when impoverishment was surely the case for the UK working classes, albeit a heavily industrialised nation rather than an agricultural one. 20% unfit for the army is quite shocking, though.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why would you stage your forces spread out along the border?
It would consign you to not having a force concentration capable of stopping an attack.

How much cheaper is it to have a conscript army than a professional one?

Great Britain has a natural border with the sea, and thus - aside from petty rows about fishing rights - has rarely had disputes over them. However, as you may appreciate, Europe has been embroiled in hundreds of years of war over border disputes. Stalin spitefully took Finnish land after WWII simply becuase he was on the victor's side. Finland never knows when the Stalin-inspired Putin will decide to do a Stalin on Finland (even though the Karelian land it took remains desolate and Viipuri, Vyberg, a Russian **** hole, once the second city of Finland and an important Swedish town).

To compare GB with Finland, a country of 67million, with natural borders, to Finland, almost twice the size but with 5.6m and a 1,340km land border with Russia when the UK is just 965km from north to south (not sure if that includes the northern most Shetlands). There is conscription in Finland for a good reason.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by dudalb

In a off the record remarks, Fnnnish officials are saying it is "highly likely" FInland will join Nato.
It is eginning to smell like a done deal.

Yep, my bet for the timing of the application is early May - maybe coinciding with this fortunately timed joint excercice:

https://www.joint-forces.com/exercis...ise-in-finland

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Great Britain has a natural border with the sea, and thus - aside from petty rows about fishing rights - has rarely had disputes over them. However, as you may appreciate, Europe has been embroiled in hundreds of years of war over border disputes. Stalin spitefully took Finnish land after WWII simply becuase he was on the victor's side. Finland never knows when the Stalin-inspired Putin will decide to do a Stalin on Finland (even though the Karelian land it took remains desolate and Viipuri, Vyberg, a Russian **** hole, once the second city of Finland and an important Swedish town).

To compare GB with Finland, a country of 67million, with natural borders, to Finland, almost twice the size but with 5.6m and a 1,340km land border with Russia when the UK is just 965km from north to south (not sure if that includes the northern most Shetlands). There is conscription in Finland for a good reason.

A professional. skilled army with those that finish their service being put in to a reserve backed up by a trained volunteer 'Territorial' force would be the way I went.
As for the length of the border, you don't try and spread your forces along a border. that just results in your forces being spread thin and unable to oppose any concentrated advance by an invading force. That lesson was learned a very long time ago, even the Romans knew that Hadrian's wall was a symbol of the frontier and a way of providing lookouts that would alert the main part of the Legions held concentrated in garrisons back from the Wall.

As for the sea. Mainland Britain has 17,819km of coast, that's quite a lot to defend but not all of it is suitable for invasion.
When it looked like there would be an invasion in WW2 there was no attempt apart from some bunkers and obstacles on the beach to defend at the coast. There were small observation forces at the coast itself, mostly made up of volunteer 'Home Guard' units. Main forces were concentrated inland ready to move and counterattack wherever an invasion landed.

Similarly with Finland and Sweden, Not all of the frontier is suitable for invasion and any forces will be held back and concentrated ready to move to wherever the invasion comes through.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Cue minor border skirmish by Russia to ensure Finland is "in dispute" with another country. Wasn't that why Ukraine couldn't join?

Yes.

Same with Georgia and Moldova.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Yes.

Same with Georgia and Moldova.

Experts here say that in such a case we would have bilateral defence treaties with countries like the USA and UK etc. But basically no-one thinks it very likely that Russia would sabotage the application with military action. It just does not appear a rational course of action in this debacle....

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Experts here say that in such a case we would have bilateral defence treaties with countries like the USA and UK etc. But basically no-one thinks it very likely that Russia would sabotage the application with military action. It just does not appear a rational course of action in this debacle....

You're probably right about other treaties being in place, but I wouldn't be relying on Russia for rational behaviour.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

A professional. skilled army with those that finish their service being put in to a reserve backed up by a trained volunteer 'Territorial' force would be the way I went.
As for the length of the border, you don't try and spread your forces along a border. that just results in your forces being spread thin and unable to oppose any concentrated advance by an invading force. That lesson was learned a very long time ago, even the Romans knew that Hadrian's wall was a symbol of the frontier and a way of providing lookouts that would alert the main part of the Legions held concentrated in garrisons back from the Wall.

As for the sea. Mainland Britain has 17,819km of coast, that's quite a lot to defend but not all of it is suitable for invasion.
When it looked like there would be an invasion in WW2 there was no attempt apart from some bunkers and obstacles on the beach to defend at the coast. There were small observation forces at the coast itself, mostly made up of volunteer 'Home Guard' units. Main forces were concentrated inland ready to move and counterattack wherever an invasion landed.

Similarly with Finland and Sweden, Not all of the frontier is suitable for invasion and any forces will be held back and concentrated ready to move to wherever the invasion comes through.

Nobody is advocating lining the border with troops. Today is very different from WWII because it is so easy to monitor your borders remotely and electronically. I dare say it is easy to know when someone steps over your border and to have a ready computer model showing the risk assessment:

• Man on a bike?
• A group of illegal migrants (Belarus-style to wind up the EU)?
• A wild animal or bird?
• Grandpa went out hunting but got lost in the forest?
• Russian tanks? OHO! Activate all systems go.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Experts here say that in such a case we would have bilateral defence treaties with countries like the USA and UK etc. But basically no-one thinks it very likely that Russia would sabotage the application with military action. It just does not appear a rational course of action in this debacle....

Oh snap! Too bad nobody thought to sign one of those mutual defense thingummies with Ukraine.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oh snap! Too bad nobody thought to sign one of those mutual defense thingummies with Ukraine.

Well, that seems to based mostly on the US assesment of its security policy as regards Ukraine. Finland and Sweden appear to be more suitable than Ukraine was deemed to be.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oh snap! Too bad nobody thought to sign one of those mutual defense thingummies with Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/u...o-ukraine.html

All of the reasons in the article are still valid. Sweden and Finland do not have these issues. Looking at a map shows that adding them to the alliance immediately makes the Baltic states easier to defend since more of the Baltic sea becomes NATO's bath tube.

Adding in a weak country that does not have a history of good govrenment weakens NATO. See Hungry for an example of this.

[sarge]

There is no such thing as ‘war experience DNA’ but both Norway and Sweden have significant relevant experience in waging war.


In 1991, US armored forces had not engaged in meaningful tank warfare in the history of anyone then serving in a tactical formation. No US Tanker had fired at an enemy tank, ever. Still, US Tankers had more practical experience at armored warfare than any other armored force in the world. They fielded (arguably) the best equipment and (indisputably) the best trained Soldiers. Their tank on tank results from the first gulf war bear this out.

The US Army has a facility and a philosophy in the National Training Center that is now the norm but in the 80’s was unique. I’ve got a total of almost 5 years in combat. Every day of combat was easier to do well than many days in the NTC against the OPFOR was. Even the stresses in NTC do a very good job of replicating the stress of combat. Physically, NTC (and JRTC for light forces) is much more demanding than actual combat.

Sweden, especially, and Norway to a lesser extent, have adopted very realistic, instrumented, force-on-force training models. They employ full-time OPFOR and real-time engagement results feedback. Their current armed forces face superior opposition regularly.

If Russia were to attack Norway, I believe that Norway would easily attrit the Russian forces as they traded easily defensible land for time to mobilize and deploy their extensive reserve forces. Even without NATO, Norway has little to fear from a conventional Russian assault.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by sarge

The US Army has a facility and a philosophy in the National Training Center that is now the norm but in the 80’s was unique. I’ve got a total of almost 5 years in combat. Every day of combat was easier to do well than many days in the NTC against the OPFOR was. Even the stresses in NTC do a very good job of replicating the stress of combat. Physically, NTC (and JRTC for light forces) is much more demanding than actual combat.

I went to PNCOC in '83 with a couple of guys who were OPFOR at the NTC. They were a bit cocky about that whole rarely loosing to the troops they training against. But of course they had the home field advantage every time and still did not always win. PNCOC became PLDC about a year after that and apparently has been changed around again at least once more since then.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Doubt

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/u...o-ukraine.html

All of the reasons in the article are still valid. Sweden and Finland do not have these issues. Looking at a map shows that adding them to the alliance immediately makes the Baltic states easier to defend since more of the Baltic sea becomes NATO's bath tube.

Adding in a weak country that does not have a history of good govrenment weakens NATO. See Hungry for an example of this.

This isn't about NATO. Finland and Sweden already have bilateral defense agreements outside of NATO.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This isn't about NATO. Finland and Sweden already have bilateral defense agreements outside of NATO.

Same reasoning still applies. Ukraine does not have a good history of stability yet and still has other issues that would make them a less than desirable long term ally. This may change as a result of the current conflict be the future is hard to predict.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Doubt

I went to PNCOC in '83 with a couple of guys who were OPFOR at the NTC. They were a bit cocky about that whole rarely loosing to the troops they training against. But of course they had the home field advantage every time and still did not always win. PNCOC became PLDC about a year after that and apparently has been changed around again at least once more since then.

Their in the field success rate was phenomenal, but it had nothing to do with being any better at soldiering than the troops they trained against. The 11th ACR was protected against many of the training detractors regular units face. They trained all the time and (most importantly) they were absolute experts with M.I.L.E.S gear.

The real point of the NTCs was that our rotational forces encountered opposition forces that were significantly better trained and were doctrinally identical to our likely real-world foes. Sweden and Norway have adopted this same approach to training regimental sized units, as have most other modern western forces. Either nation would fare significantly better against a Russian Invasion than Ukraine has. They start from a far superior position: they have a better professional cadre and a larger real reserve, they have superior equipment in superior numbers, their terrain, especially in Norways case, is exquisitely suited to the defense, and they would not be at as great a tactical or strategic disadvantage in the air war.

[Vixen]

The military secrets that Gustavus Adolphus (1594 - 1632) used to make Sweden the super powerful nation of its day:

Quote:

Future commanders who studied and admired Gustavus Adolphus include Napoleon I of France and Carl von Clausewitz. His advancements in warfare made Sweden the dominant Baltic power for the next hundred years (see Swedish Empire). He is also the only Swedish monarch to be styled "the Great". This decision was made by the Swedish Estates of the Realm when they convened in 1633, making him officially called Gustavus Adolphus the Great (Gustavus Adolphus Magnus).

Gustavus Adolphus was the main figure responsible for the success of Swedish arms during the Thirty Years' War and led his nation to great prestige. As a general, Gustavus Adolphus employed mobile artillery on the battlefield, as well as very aggressive tactics, where attack was stressed over defense, and mobility and cavalry initiative were emphasized.

Among other innovations, he installed an early form of combined arms in his formations, where the cavalry could attack from the safety of an infantry line reinforced by cannon, and retire again within to regroup after their foray.

<Snip>

Carl von Clausewitz and Napoleon Bonaparte considered him one of the greatest generals of all time, an evaluation agreed with by George S. Patton and others. He was also renowned for his constancy of purpose and the equality of his troops—no one part of his armies was considered better or received preferred treatment, as was common in other armies where the cavalry were the elite, followed by the artillery, and both disdained the lowly infantry. In Gustavus Adolphus's' army the units were extensively cross-trained. Both cavalry and infantry could service the artillery

It is worthwhile to compare and contrast Gustavus Adolphus' military philosophy to that of Putin and his generals, paying particular attention to the issues of raping and looting, of which the Russian Army appear to have no qualms. This is apparent in a news report today that says Putin has given the army unit that committed atrocities against civilians in Bucha a special honour.

Quote:

The Columbia Encyclopedia sums up his record:

In military organization and strategy, Gustavus (sic) was ahead of his time. While most powers relied on mercenary troops, he organized a national standing army that distinguished itself by its discipline and relatively high moral standards. Deeply religious, the king desired his soldiers to behave like a truly Christian army; his stern measures against the common practices of looting, raping, and torture were effective until his death. His successes were due to this discipline, his use of small, mobile units, the superiority of his firearms, and his personal charisma. Although he was deeply interested in the internal progress of his kingdom, much of the credit for the development of Swedish industry and the fiscal and administrative reforms of his reign belongs to Oxenstierna.

wiki

Of course, times have changed but values and ethics remain the same.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by sarge

Their in the field success rate was phenomenal, but it had nothing to do with being any better at soldiering than the troops they trained against. The 11th ACR was protected against many of the training detractors regular units face. They trained all the time and (most importantly) they were absolute experts with M.I.L.E.S gear.

The real point of the NTCs was that our rotational forces encountered opposition forces that were significantly better trained and were doctrinally identical to our likely real-world foes. Sweden and Norway have adopted this same approach to training regimental sized units, as have most other modern western forces. Either nation would fare significantly better against a Russian Invasion than Ukraine has. They start from a far superior position: they have a better professional cadre and a larger real reserve, they have superior equipment in superior numbers, their terrain, especially in Norways case, is exquisitely suited to the defense, and they would not be at as great a tactical or strategic disadvantage in the air war.

I have no idea what all the acronyms mean but I do know that the Norwegians were absolutely amazing in WWII. Outstanding bravery.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Yep, my bet for the timing of the application is early May - maybe coinciding with this fortunately timed joint excercice:

https://www.joint-forces.com/exercis...ise-in-finland

You know the Brits in the Challngers are going to be singing that Monty Python song about Finland.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Yep, my bet for the timing of the application is early May - maybe coinciding with this fortunately timed joint excercice:

https://www.joint-forces.com/exercis...ise-in-finland

Someone pointed out that some of the photos of Russian tanks with similar levels of camouflage had one significant difference from these.

Namely that the optics were also covered.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You know the Brits in the Challngers are going to be singing that Monty Python song about Finland.

To be honest they'll mostly be about 30 years too young to know it.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Someone pointed out that some of the photos of Russian tanks with similar levels of camouflage had one significant difference from these.



Namely that the optics were also covered.

That bring to mind some more Monty Python, about the importance of not being seen. If I were a conscript in a T72 I would prize not being seen far above seeing anything.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by sarge

In 1991, US armored forces had not engaged in meaningful tank warfare in the history of anyone then serving in a tactical formation. No US Tanker had fired at an enemy tank, ever. Still, US Tankers had more practical experience at armored warfare than any other armored force in the world. They fielded (arguably) the best equipment and (indisputably) the best trained Soldiers. Their tank on tank results from the first gulf war bear this out.
.

I would dispute that. They are certainly the second best.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

I would dispute that. They are certainly the second best.

Dispute away. You are permitted to be wrong.

In 1991, there is no reasonable dispute that US tank crews were the best in the world. In tank on tank engagements, they were undefeated. Literally, undefeated. They lost not a single tank to enemy tank fire. In a whole war. In a whole war that included the largest single tank battle ever fought (Kursk was a campaign).

Part of this result is due to the substantial difference in the quality of the equipment. It remains true however that training played a much bigger role. Had the two forces swapped tanks, the US tankers would have still prevailed, handily.

[arthwollipot]

Finland joining NATO is going to seriously piss off Russia.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Finland joining NATO is going to seriously piss off Russia.

Putin, Lavrov, Peskov and Zakharova have zero credibility. They can threaten as much as they like.

(Or, Poo-poo-tin, Lav-atory, Pisskoff and Zak-horror-show, if we want to be as childish and crude as they are.)

[Vixen]

Comparisons are odious. However, this video gives a quick and succinct overview of the defence forces of Finland and Sweden.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by sarge

Dispute away. You are permitted to be wrong.

In 1991, there is no reasonable dispute that US tank crews were the best in the world. In tank on tank engagements, they were undefeated. Literally, undefeated. They lost not a single tank to enemy tank fire. In a whole war. In a whole war that included the largest single tank battle ever fought (Kursk was a campaign).

Part of this result is due to the substantial difference in the quality of the equipment. It remains true however that training played a much bigger role. Had the two forces swapped tanks, the US tankers would have still prevailed, handily.

That's nice, I know another tank force with the same claims but it is off topic for this thread.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by sarge

In a whole war that included the largest single tank battle ever fought (Kursk was a campaign).

Note: Operation Citadel, The German 1943 Spring Offensive, was cancelled shortly after starting, the Russian Counterattack; Operation Kutusov started immediately after. These are both considered parts of the Battle of Kursk.

The bulge in the line, we call the Kursk Salient, any of the battles around the Kursk Salient in July and August of 1943 are normally considered parts of the Battle of Kursk. Call of Duty calls one of it's levels The Kursk Campaign.

The takeaway from this, and another Putin screw up, is that the Germans after 2 years of getting bogged down in mud in the spring, waited until JULY 5th to start their 1943 Spring Offensive (partly due to equipment and Hitler being nervous). Putin is now bogged down 2-3 months before Hitler's would even consider a push into the Kursk region. In fact. the Germans were able to manage large offensive operations in the winter, tanks can roll on ice, and didn't stop until March of 1943, when the mud set in. Invading the Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, Putin was firmly committed to a muddy disaster by March of 2022.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Note: Operation Citadel, The German 1943 Spring Offensive, was cancelled shortly after starting, the Russian Counterattack; Operation Kutusov started immediately after. These are both considered parts of the Battle of Kursk.

The bulge in the line, we call the Kursk Salient, any of the battles around the Kursk Salient in July and August of 1943 are normally considered parts of the Battle of Kursk. Call of Duty calls one of it's levels The Kursk Campaign.

The takeaway from this, and another Putin screw up, is that the Germans after 2 years of getting bogged down in mud in the spring, waited until JULY 5th to start their 1943 Spring Offensive (partly due to equipment and Hitler being nervous). Putin is now bogged down 2-3 months before Hitler's would even consider a push into the Kursk region. In fact. the Germans were able to manage large offensive operations in the winter, tanks can roll on ice, and didn't stop until March of 1943, when the mud set in. Invading the Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, Putin was firmly committed to a muddy disaster by March of 2022.

Worth highlighting. (Again).

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Finland joining NATO is going to seriously piss off Russia.

Yeah, I suspect they won't be happy campers. Sweden is likely to follow us pretty shortly which they probably won't enjoy that much either.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You know the Brits in the Challngers are going to be singing that Monty Python song about Finland.

One does hope!

[Vixen]

The Finnish parliament discussed today the issue of joining NATO. Whilst the question would not be put to referendum, it does need to go through the democratic process. From people who followed the debate, there appears to be a majority in favour, with Finland especially calling out Sweden.

Former PM Alex Stubbs is enthusiastic about it and thinks the application could be as early as June.

AIUI it then takes another year before Finland would be a full member. However, it is an EU member and Clause 1 iirc stipulates that fellow states have a duty to come to its aid fattacked.

Quote:

Parliament of #Finland is set to begin debate about changed security environment and needed changes regarding ���� security policy (read seeking NATO membership).

threadreaderapp

Edited by sarge:

removed rule 4 violation

[Vixen]

A key takeaway from this is the position of the Åland islands autonomous government. This group of islands has long been used over the centuries as a defence/fortification base and a key position for any attacking/defending army. For example, it was once a Russian fort against Sweden. At the beginning of the twentieth century there was a debate as to whether it belonged to Finland or Sweden, as the population there considers themselves Swedish and Swedish is the only official language, today. It was decided that it belonged to Finland (probably because it forms part of the geographical archipelago of islands, after which is open sea until the Swedish coasts). It was also noted by the Åland islanders that Sweden did not come to their aid during the war but Finland did.

The upshot of today's debate appears to be a move to make the Åland islands a military defense base once again, in view of Russia's threats.

[llwyd]

The majority looks very clear with only Vasemmistoliitto (the Left Alliance) as a major exception. Hopefully the parliament would deal with this very quickly and we could send the application as soon as possible. I'm hoping for the first week of May.

[llwyd]

In Sweden we got today clearly increased figures for Nato membership: 57% for vs 21% against (from 51-27 couple of weeks ago, itself a dramatic result) - with an especially dramatic shift within in the governing Social Democratic party. At the same time the other major tabloid of the country, Aftonbladet, close to the Social Democrats, changed its position from against to for.

[llwyd]

Quite a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oach-to-russia

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by sarge

Dispute away. You are permitted to be wrong.

In 1991, there is no reasonable dispute that US tank crews were the best in the world. In tank on tank engagements, they were undefeated. Literally, undefeated. They lost not a single tank to enemy tank fire. In a whole war. In a whole war that included the largest single tank battle ever fought (Kursk was a campaign).

Part of this result is due to the substantial difference in the quality of the equipment. It remains true however that training played a much bigger role. Had the two forces swapped tanks, the US tankers would have still prevailed, handily.

Really? I acknowledge the training would have undoubtedly been better but I thought (from memory, so not necessarily reliable) that the main difference was their respective ranges ie you could shoot the enemy tanks from a distance at which they couldn't shoot back?