The Karelian question

[Jopo1980]

There are some Finns who think like me and wish for the return of Karelia and the lost territories and it is good that we don´t just forget what happened. Most Finns though do not want a war of any sort and some are still cowering in fear of angering the Russians and hence opposing our membership in NATO, although the public opinion may be shifting to favor it. Some of the Presidential candidates in next years election have spoken for NATO membership in the past, although they are keeping their voices down for the moment in fear of alienating voters who do not support NATO membership.

 

Finland would not have a snowballs chance in Hell as an aggressor against Russia, so starting a war with them is quite out of the question. Russia however remains a threat, not only to Finland, but to Europe and I would hate to see the EU being unprepared to fight Russia because all of NATO´s military assets have been geared towards overseas expeditions in distant lands such as Afghanistan. NATO was created to protect Europe and not to fight overseas wars and especially not to further American interests on the global arena.

[Aurielius]

There are some Finns who think like me and wish for the return of Karelia and the lost territories and it is good that we don´t just forget what happened. Most Finns though do not want a war of any sort and some are still cowering in fear of angering the Russians and hence opposing our membership in NATO, although the public opinion may be shifting to favor it. Some of the Presidential candidates in next years election have spoken for NATO membership in the past, although they are keeping their voices down for the moment in fear of alienating voters who do not support NATO membership.

 

Finland would not have a snowballs chance in Hell as an aggressor against Russia, so starting a war with them is quite out of the question. Russia however remains a threat, not only to Finland, but to Europe and I would hate to see the EU being unprepared to fight Russia because all of NATO´s military assets have been geared towards overseas expeditions in distant lands such as Afghanistan. NATO was created to protect Europe and not to fight overseas wars and especially not to further American interests on the global arena.

News Flash..NATO was created to protect the Atlantic Sea Lanes to our primary allies (hence it's acronym). NATO was a post war response to the experience of the Battle for the Atlantic in which the resupply of the UK (our primary ally) which was imperiled by the Third Reich's U-boat attacks on the convoys.

Subsequently to protect Western Europe from further Soviet expansion. The prism of nationalism that you are viewing NATO through is flawed, it's a Defensive alliance not Offensive one. It was created to further Anglo-American geopolitical interests, so critiques of those aims in the present is droll but not accurate. In it's nacient stages all other members were protectorates not full fledged members that only changed with the passage of time and the reconstruction of Europe, there were no other military forces capable of withstanding the Soviets at the end of WW2 only the former allies.

That you personally see the Russians as the 'enemy' does not mean that we do or wish to. War with Russia is something that most sane military planners aways wanted to avoid, it would have had no outcome that would have been desirable for us or the Russians not to mention all the unfortunate nations caught in the middle of such a debacle. Historically prior to the Soviets, the US always had good relations with Russia and there is no reason why that path cannot be resumed now that the ideological issue of Communism no longer perceived as a threat.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Aurielius

[Marxist ßastard]

Russia however remains a threat, not only to Finland, but to Europe

You keep saying this. I've asked for proof, but you haven't offered any.

[zegh8578]

having ones mind set on the idea that a certain one culture or nation is a threat, and to "everyone" (no less) is a dangerous prospect.

 

a country has every right to be prepared for the worst, but this kind of thinking has an easy tendency to flip over into "pre-emptive action", which basically turns the entire situation super-ironic, in that the victim decides to victimize his still innocent would-be-attacker, and basically turn the situation 180.

 

not good for anybody.

[Jopo1980]

You want proof that Russia is a threat to Finland? Okay, look at history, how many times have we fought the Russians? Today two of Russias important strategic centers lie on the borders of Finland; St. Petersburg (remember that the WInter War was about the security of Leningrad) and Murmansk in the North. St. Petersburg is the second most important city in all of Russia after Moscow and Murmansk is the only year-round Ice-free port the Russians have and a primary Naval base for their Northern Fleet. This has led to the fact that both the St. Petersburg military district and the Murmansk area are heavily garrisoned with troops and materiel. Russia maintains overwhelmingly superior forces right next to our borders and you are perhaps suggesting that we trust the Russian democratic government (if it can be called a democracy) and its goodwill to protect our safety? I think not, we´ve seen what happens to those who trust in peace and international institutions as the guarantors of that peace.

 

I am aware of the fact that NATO is a defensive alliance and not an offensive one, but in the case of war, would NATO rather fight on Russian soil or on the soil of some EU country? Every belligerent nation will try to push the fight to the territory of the enemy to avoid casualties and damage on their own soil. I too would rather fight the Russians on Karelian soil, rather than allow the Russians to freely penetrate deeply into Finland, which would result in casualties and damage to Finnish property, but alas, our forces are geared purely for a defensive role and plans call for defense on Finnish soil, resulting in inevitable damage to our infrastructure and property. Russians too are probably only too eager to avoid the kind of damage to Russian property that was inflicted in WW-2 by the Germans. That´s why the Russian doctrine was an offensive one during the Cold War and I believe the Russians would attempt to push the fight to the territory of the EU and NATO in any potential conflict.

Also the question is, who has the resources to go on the offensive? Russia maintains the strongest conventional forces in Europe, so it is questionable if NATO could even stop the Russians without using tactical nuclear weapons, which would lead to a likely escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. To counter the Russian supremacy in conventional forces NATO countries would have to increase their defense budgets considerably and currently there seems to be no will to do that. So NATO is left with the hope of trying to counter Russian superiority with Air Power and superior technology or prepare to use nukes and the latter option is out of the question, so which one will win, Russian superiority in numbers or superior NATO air power and technology?

[Werne]

@Jopo1980 Russia is no threat for now, they are currently in a mess so I sincerely doubt they would attack anyone. But if they do decide to attack, Europe would not be able to defend itself without the help of America and NATO, and even then it would be hard. Russia currently has the largest conventional military force in Europe, not to mention hey have the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They can, by their current state, send over 1 000 000 soldiers (current nuber of Russia's military forces is 1 500 000), and if they ask China for help, over 30 000 000 (current number of Chinese military forces is 30 000 000), they have a large number of armored vehicles and personell cariers, and a very large number of military aircrafts. Europe would need to mobilize everyone capable of holding a rifle to defend itself, otherwise they would be overrun pretty fast, and I believe Europe would be able to mobilize around 10 000 000 soldiers. But Russia would need to take care of other problems first so we would know they are getting ready to attack.

 

The biggest problem is that Europe doesn't have a lot of soldiers that have seen real combat, maybe a few thousand. For example, croatia has only 26 men that have been in combat (not counting the retired veterans that fought in the Yugoslavian war), and we have 150 000 soldiers. Send guys with no experience to the frontline and you should pack a lot of body bags cause most of them won't come home. War is hell, going to war against Russia is even worse than hell. I just hope one day there's going to be a world peace. No one wants peace more than the soldier.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Werne

[Marxist ßastard]

The US and Canada have fought several times already. We share the world's longest border, and it isn't fortified at all. Our capitals, largest population centers, and many key military assets are right next to each other. We each have resources the other wants. And you've already suggested that the US is at least as violent as Russia.

 

So according to your analysis, how many months before the US invades Canada?

[Aurielius]

The US and Canada have fought several times already. We share the world's longest border, and it isn't fortified at all. Our capitals, largest population centers, and many key military assets are right next to each other. We each have resources the other wants. And you've already suggested that the US is at least as violent as Russia.

 

So according to your analysis, how many months before the US invades Canada?

Not that I disagree with your thesis in general but only our northern neighbors have a capital near the border and wasn't our last conflict with them slightly over 200 years ago? I am reasonably sure that the Canadians have forgiven us by now. :whistling:

[zegh8578]

The US and Canada have fought several times already. We share the world's longest border, and it isn't fortified at all. Our capitals, largest population centers, and many key military assets are right next to each other. We each have resources the other wants. And you've already suggested that the US is at least as violent as Russia.

 

So according to your analysis, how many months before the US invades Canada?

Not that I disagree with your thesis in general but only our northern neighbors have a capital near the border and wasn't our last conflict with them slightly over 200 years ago? I am reasonably sure that the Canadians have forgiven us by now. :whistling:

 

americans... :) 200 years is nothing 8)

we're still bitter about swedish aquisitions of our territory, and thats 400 years ago. even to this day, many local inhabitants there will insist on "longing back" to norway

[Marxist ßastard]

only our northern neighbors have a capital near the border

DC is as far from Ottawa as St. Petersburg from Helsinki.

 

americans... :) 200 years is nothing 8)

Hey, 200 years is a long time. I've been in a building that's 200 years old and it didn't even have wifi!