401–410 of 521 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody expects the attack from Kaliningrad!
It would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a simplification, and there are a bunch of other reasons. The dictator Erdogan wanting to pressure Sweden and NATO for instance.
The most important reasons IMHO are (1) domestic election and (2) wanting to get a hold of some F-16s for their air force.
They also wanted F-35s, not just F-16s. That's not one to sell unless you're 100% confident they won't copy it for their own domestic production, or sell it to, say, the Russians. And modern Turkey is looking a little shaky in that regard (no, not an earthquake joke).
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
>> just Hah, yeah, that's not a big deal at all, neutralizing Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors, through threats of aggression. Like, who's scared of Russia these days? They're just empty threats. I'd like totally bet my life on it, just empty threats. EDIT: /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the battle of Stalingrad they were the ones being attacked. Big difference.
Yes, a difference of will. They were simply willing to fight much harder to defend Stalingrad than to invade Finland.
They could do it anytime. They just chose not to.
You truly believe this? Remarkable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a difference of will. They were simply willing to fight much harder to defend Stalingrad than to invade Finland.
If we were to follow that mindset, then no country has ever truly lost a war. They simply lacked the will to win. They could do it anytime. They just chose not to. You truly believe this? Remarkable.
And the Soviets were nowhere near running out of resources or people at the end of the Winter War, as shown by their ability to defeat a much more powerful enemy a few years later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.
The only thing that really matters about Kaliningrad is the (very probable) nukes that are there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that's completely expected though I imagine. Buying S-400 something as advanced as AA or Fighter jets is basically the same as a long term future military partnership. It's not like buying socks or trucks. And buying such complex equipment from within the alliance comes with the equivalent promise not to share that tech with those who shouldn't have it. I think in terms of arms deals Saab will benefit a lot from…
Don't know what to say about SAAB benefiting from Sweden joining NATO. France got their submarine deal with Australlia cancelled and instead they get to sell less subs and some corvettes to Romania. Unlike the F-16, the Rafale and Grippen programs don't have an upgrade path towards 5th gen fighters like the F-35. You need to re-train the pilots on something else emtirely different. The Gripen is very much built for a…
I also think that dispersed deployment and simpler operation like 20 minute turnaround with a 3 man crew like the Gripen will be something all air forces including the USAF will master. Finland has always done this with their F-18s and they’ll continue to do it with F-35. It’ll be a bit more demanding no doubt, but they’ll make it work.
As a Swede this makes me happy, partially because Finland shares a lot of their border with Russia and can now feel safe knowing they have the might of 30 nations behind them, but also because we're now surrounded by NATO countries. So no need for us to join, right? Right?! Let's remain neutral and a free haven for political dissidents and potential refugees of the future, right?!!
Is that how NATO is spoken about in Europe, that it is the might of 30 nations and not just the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of influence or increase tensions with Russia. Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms.
Reading about what the Soviet Union did in countries like Estonia and Ukraine is pretty harrowing stuff. Wanting to join NATO for protection after is completely understandable and denying them because it would upset their former (and present) abuser is a shameful thought.
But I have been grateful that Finland has been independent. As a child, I visited the Soviet Baltic countries since church choirs were allowed entry. I remember it clearly because I saw for the first time the fear of speaking about certain topics.
Defending the country’s independence took a whole generation, as all men who could be drafted were sent to war and women participated as volunteers. My other grandmother worked behind enemy lines as an underage girl, delivering messages. The other grandmother volunteered to work in prison camps.
When Finland was last attacked by Russia (formerly known as the Soviet Republic), Finland did not receive much help apart from thoughts and prayers and socks knitted by housewives in the UK and US. In the first round, Finland defended its independence but lost a significant portion of its most prosperous areas, including its second-largest and most international city, Viipuri/Vyborg. What happened in the second round of the war was not glorious for Finland, who allied with Nazi Germany since they were the only ones that offered an alliance against Soviet Union aggression.
I have not thought of myself as a nationalist, but I am concerned about the safety of my family and this thing we call Finland. And I don't want us to face again the situation as Ukraine is facing now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we were to follow that mindset, then no country has ever truly lost a war. They simply lacked the will to win. They could do it anytime. They just chose not to. You truly believe this? Remarkable.
Of course that's not true. Nations can run out of at least three things required to wage war: resources, people, or will. And the Soviets were nowhere near running out of resources or people at the end of the Winter War, as shown by their ability to defeat a much more powerful enemy a few years later.
It was the pure will of the Soviets which led them to their, and only their victory.
I don't even know what to say. It must have been a lack of will, surely. /s
(edit) Look, I know what you're trying to say. But if we put it that way, we're implying that they could've surpassed the will of the Finns in some way, if they wanted to. And I firmly believe that to not have been the case.