No direct NATO involvement, but NATO supports the way it did Ukraine. Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?
Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
No direct NATO involvement, but NATO supports the way it did Ukraine. Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?
Considering Finland would likely be able to draft an actual highly trained reserve military force, already has access to western weaponry, and has pretty much all bridges rigged to blow.
Probably pretty well.
I thought the swiss were the ones with the bridges rigged to blow
They have tunnels ready to blow.
Russians are always ready to blow
Yes, doubly so since 1991
Russians might as well drop their pants an walk backwards cause they would get fuckin raw dogged hard. Like they are in Ukraine
Where do they find people this fucking dumb to shill for them?
If Russia can't even invade flat open steppes, which is literally what they designed their army for. How TF are they going to invade a country that is 75% forests and covered in an absolute metric fuck ton of lakes
God damn, and I thought Minnesota had a lot of lakes.
Something like so
>How TF are they going to invade a country that is 75% forests and covered in an absolute metric fuck ton of lakes
By exploiting the wider ridges that offer room to maneuver.
I don't see how an armored company ever gets across that area. The Finns can mine one road to make it impossible for Russians.
yes, that's been the plan since 1945. The finns are serious about their national defense, and as opposed to Ukraine they have virtually zero corruption.
Seems like an easy to ambush / mine path
aka deathtraps. I would not want to see the carnage.
>I would not want to see the carnage
Are thy gay?
Oh, so the few specific areas that Finland's military has had 80 fucking years to focus on?
Ukraine and Russia were essentially the same polity until 30 years ago, and then were nominally allied or neutral until 9 years ago. Finland has had 80 fucking years where it's only military focus is stopping Soviets / Muscovites from invading and making it as painful for them to do so as possible. There will be no fifth columnist "Russian brothers" to prevent bridges being destroyed or city defenses to fail to rally,
"Russian" Federation Armed forces would be brutalized in Finland even without NATO interdiction, there will be tons of "One Soldier's War" books afterward.
Ukraine has really ramped up anti-Muscovite defenses for less than a decade, had one of their flanks compromised by fifth columnists when the "Special Military Operation" began, and still embarassed the fuck out of the Muscovites. Finland's entire defense outlook and mindset has been preparing for 80+ years to make Muscovites suffer.
How so, when the Muscovites don't have million Ukrainians (one of the few Soviet blocs of people who were somewhat competant) to freeze and bleed in Finland anymore?
Devon was my favorite LightspeedGirl.
You dont have to be a tactical genius to see that is a rape funnel.
when you use weapons to kill russians they win
>wait for a column to pass through there
>blow/mine one end of the road
>blow the other end of the road
>obliterate that with arty or airstrikes at your leisure, or just set the woods on fire until they either cook or test their tanks' amphibious capabilities
>you'll never wage naval warfare against panicking Russkie IFVs and APCs swimming in every direction
why even live
Just tanks and ifvs alone firing from the other shore would be absolute killers, nevermind what arty, mines and planes could do.
Anons... They have the VDV, Their best amphibian units.
Take a look at Finnish roads. They purposefully prioritized north-south axis and there are barely any large roads from the east for the express purpose of hindering a Russian attack.
Fun fact, it's full of swamps and forests. And as the other anons mentioned north south roads and structures meant to be blown up in case of war.
>1300 km border
>only 13 isolated border crossings
In 2017 Russia was ready to expand the roadnetwork into Finland, how helpful of them! The idea was to connect a new road with big cargo transfer potential, for more trade, just for more trade. Nothing nefarious about that, my friends.
Oh, that 200 billion ruble building project from Russian Ministry of Defence, whose purpose is secret and located 50 km from the border? No worries, friends.
All those russian investors who keep buying property right next to your army facilities? Just a coincidence, friend. Surely you want someone to invest in rural areas?
Posts like these are slowly turning me into a moderate
From which direction?
its funny because we are going to use the same roads to invade Russia instead
The rusmorons have been planning to try and re-establish their empire again, and if they don't get utterly dismantled after this they'll just bide their time again in 40 or so years, it'll just be chechen-tatar-jihad style then (and probably use Muslims in the EU as fifth columns as Russia larps as now the 4th Rome, but an Islamic one). I understand why our politicians won't say it, it'd just radicalize Russia further and make people back Putin with their backs to the corner, but our goal really has to be dismemberment of the Russians. Whether I am saying to dismember the Russian Empire or every Russian is up to you. I am a moderate.
Nah I don't want a muscular UN, that's how you get them being weaponized to deal with what should be localized affairs like Katanga.
If this happened instead of Ukraine it'd be interesting, real shitshow. If this happened after Ukraine/during Ukraine then WW3 will officially be happening and you'd see US/EU direct military action in Finland. Even no US, there's no way the Germans and French can dither when it comes to an EU member. If Russia fait accompli'd with VEE DEH VEE then maybe they'd be able to run out.
God I just want Russians to fuck off back to their hole.
Ukraine has a way larger population and tactical depth of NATO land connection at it's back of form of Poland via which there is non stop flow of ammo/weapons. In case of Finland they are isolated by the sea and all aid would have to be shipped by the sea or transport airplanes which could be blocked way easier by Russian air force and fleet in the Baltic. Also Ukraine has a magnitude times more heavy weapons, tanks. AA systems and so on than Finland has thanks to soviet times that left a lot of weapons in Ukraine. Finland only operates light mobile weapons for the most part they don't have that much heavy weapons. Finland would probably get grinded into submission pretty quickly.
>Inb4 winter war
It was literally at the times when Russian army was formed from piss poor plebs left alive from commie purges with 20IQ and nothin more than a one rifle for 5 soldiers. Nowadays with new technology it won't happen.
cope and sneed
You do know that Sweden has a large land border, and has multiple large arms companies like borfors, saab, and their own branch of BAE systems?
Are you retarded? Do you realize that they share a land border with an allied Nordic country?
With what I know now, I'm certain they could have done it a year ago, and if Russia tried to invade with their current army after the shitkicking they've gotten in Ukraine, it would be even more an idiotic catastrophe for Russia.
I would pay good money to witness the absolute buffoonery of Russians trying to navigate tank columns through the absolute mess of rivers, lakes and bogs.
Their only real effective strategy would be to contaminate Finlands freshwater supply with the shear number of HIV infected Russian bodies rotting in their forests
These maps make it clear why SP artillery is the go-to for Nordics.
You wouldn't need airpower to completely eliminate the chance of an armored push in that region.
God I'm imagining the Russian fleet trying to run the gauntlet between Finland and Estonia on their way out of St Petersburg. Imagine...
Drowing vatnig gif would of been out 2 hours after invasion.
What I wouldn't give to see a mobik column get swallowed by Saimaa during the heart of winter
They’ve been preparing for a long time.
I'm American and even I don't have a swimming pool in my bunker.
Blame the peacenik useful idiots who came up with nuclear winter and all the other nonsense that convinced the American government to give up on civil defense.
>Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?
>No direct NATO involvement, but NATO supports the way it did Ukraine. Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?
Everyone is making Winter War jokes but honestly I don't see it. With 1/7th the population, half the landmass and a lot less armor, artillery and air defense as Ukraine, I don't see them fairing well.
Initially it will be Russian slaughter but attrition will take a far heavier toll on them, they just can not absorb losses of men and material the same way Ukraine can and significant chunks of the small population might end up in occupied territory during the opening Blyatskreig. Yes they have certain advantages, their training, their equipment and F/A-18 Hornet's especially and if equipment came fast and Finland mobilized quickly they could put up one hell of a fight and slaughter tens if not hundreds of thousands of Russians but I think by year two they would just be spent.
>the opening Blyatskreig
Any threats of getting bled dry applies to both Russia and Finland. Russia doesn't have unlimited manpower or material, A year of the special needs operation should have made this apparent to anyone above room temp IQ.
Finlands population: 5.5m
Russias population: 140m
Russia can afford to take horrendous losses and still win a war of attrition against Finland.
Lol they couldn’t even do that during the 40s. Twice in fact
Finland was like 2 weeks from losing the winter war, if Stalin knew that he would've never signed a peace treaty. Later Finland lost the continuation war.
And yet Russia couldn’t do shit. The casualty rates are severely lopsided on Russia’s side
>A year of the special needs operation should have made this apparent to anyone above room temp IQ.
That Russia continues to call up more reservists and throw more men into the war? That last 5 months of the war defeat your entire argument
>They’ve done none of those.
Russia has mobilized 300k+ reservists and now are calling up another 500k.
>Being able to feed piecemeal designs older than the troops operating them is not the equivalent of producing thousands of new tanks and aircraft
They produce 300 tanks per year during non-wartime operations. Right now, the war isn't intense enough for them to ramp up to war time production given how much they have in reserve.
>sending waves of mobiks at entrenchments is not the equivalent of bagration
Imagine comparing WW2 to the Ukraine War lol. The USSR almost 2x the amount of troops on their side alone than what Ukraine and Russia have in the entire war.
>starts giving out increasingly worse equipment
>has to unironically recruit penal batallions just to not call up more reservists
Lmao yeah they can definitely sustain more pointless bloodshed
>the war isn't intense enough to ramp up to war time production
More vatnik fantasy gotcha
>Russia has mobilized 300k+ reservists and now are calling up another 500k.
Which is not the millions of the Soviet Union. That they’ve struggled as much as they have is notable.
>They produce 300 tanks per year during non-wartime operations. Right now, the war isn't intense enough for them to ramp up to war time production given how much they have in reserve.
This is just cope. If Russia could produce a thousand armatas they would have. The war is intense enough to call up another 500k but not enough to merit an increase in tank production? This isn’t the overwhelming industrial might of the Soviet Union.
>Imagine comparing WW2 to the Ukraine War lol. The USSR almost 2x the amount of troops on their side alone than what Ukraine and Russia have in the entire war
Exactly the point. Pointing to Soviet performance in the winter and continuation war as a benchmark for how modern Russia would perform is dumb.
>call up 800k reservists
>don't increase tank production
what did they mean by this
Dude, Finland has JASSMs and JDAMs.
Like.. while they're still bogged down in Ukraine? Opening a second front? With a country that has spent almost every moment since getting independance training for this fight? I can't imagine it goes well. Fuck. Even if they wrap up the current retardation, and actually prepare I give them low odds. Ukraine as a whole didn't take the threats of Russian invasion very seriously before the war kicked off. Finland never seemed to forget.
The "win on numbers alone" arguement was being used to claim Russia would wafflestomp Ukraine within the week.. then month.. then year. Maybe there's more to war then lots of expenable undertrained conscripts.
>The "win on numbers alone" arguement was being used to claim Russia would wafflestomp Ukraine within the week.. then month.. then year.
No it wasn't, that's their strategy right now. Russia invaded with less troops than Ukraine had at the start.
>The "win on numbers alone" arguement was being used to claim Russia would wafflestomp Ukraine within the week.. then month.. then year. Maybe there's more to war then lots of expenable undertrained conscripts.
Ignoring numbers isn't good either. Ukraine has taken heavy casualties in both men and equipment, take a look at the rarely seen Oryx visually confirmed losses page.
They have lost more visually confirmed equipment than Finland has, sometimes twice over. Finland is expected to at full wartime mobilization swell their army to 180,000, Ukraine has taken over 100,000 casualties. There is a huge difference between Ukraine with a population 41 million serving or fueling the war effort and Finland with a population 5.5 million.
Saying things like "win on numbers alone" doesn't make numbers irrelevant. Ukraine's large numbers has let it absorb high losses in the grinding attritional warfare. I am not knocking Finland or praising Russia, it's embarrassing how bad they are at war and the Finnish will inflict disproportionate casualties in everything... but I don't think they will win the same way Ukraine will.
>Finland is expected to at full wartime mobilization swell their army to 180,000,
Finnish mobilization strength is 280,000 with 870,000 trained reservists to call for reinforcements.
How many of those tanks still exist and are in running order? Finnish terrain is about as bad as one can find for operating tanks, so why would the Finns have put their resources in getting large number of tanks.
>1/7th the population
It's 1/28th the population
Vatnik figure to save face
UA had ~850 tanks active, and received ~750 more from NATO
And Russian BTGs had the most artillery support of any battalion-sized unit in the world. Know what was the NATO strategy to deal with them?
>870,000 trained reservists
That number would necessarily include all reservists up to about 40+ years of age
trained, yes, a long time ago
>trying to cram even more equipment down even tighter avenues of advance
This is a valid point
Horatius at the Bridge, Spartans at Thermopylae, etc
>trained, yes, a long time ago
that's better than the russian counterpart, where they aren't trained at all.
The Russians get the same deal. Finnish conscripts get only about a year plus of training and service.
Oh my god, that's terrible! Is there video evidence?
>The Russians get the same deal. Finnish conscripts get only about a year plus of training and service.
Duration might be the same or similar but the quality of training absolutely is not
>the quality of training absolutely is not
But still... that is something to be borne in mind regarding the training status of
>870,000 trained reservists
>The Russians get the same deal
have you been asleep this past year? No, they absolutely do not. And their 'training' mostly consists of ass-rape and performing menial labor for the commander.
>have you been asleep this past year? No, they absolutely do not. And their 'training' mostly consists of ass-rape and performing menial labor for the commander.
Russian conscription service involves 1 year of service, that's been the norm since 2008. The guys Russia is sending out right now who got 2 months of refresher training are reservists who already completed their service when they turned 18.
You plebbit morons get so emotionally attached to shit you can't even think intelligently.
>1 year of assrape
>The Russians get the same deal.
Can you make a comparison of these two training regimes so I can point out how wrong you are?
>Vatnik figure to save face
>UA had ~850 tanks active, and received ~750 more from NATO
Ah yes Global Firepower is vatnik propaganda. You gays are so damn annoying jfc
>thinks Global Firepower is anything other than a meaningless turdie numbers game
You have to be 18 to post here.
>source doesn't support my argument so its Vatnik propaganda
Back to plebbit
>all sources must certainly be accurate, they're sources
Back to elementary school.
I wonder if pic rel is something that pajeets really believe in. Their army cannot fucking do peacetime exercises without falling apart and without crippling corruption that tops that of russians and chineese.
Sirs, we're eating golgappa tonight
>Everyone is making Winter War jokes but honestly I don't see it.
I think the helo rush strategy would work well here - which is why we should invest in AA, stat. I'm not too worried about the roads because the number of roads leading to Russia isn't significantly bigger than it was in 1939
>we should invest in AA, stat
It's called sixty-four F-35As
>planes for anti-helo work
I'm talking missile and possibly AAA installations
They have these amazingly cute truck-mounted RBS-70. Besides Starstreak, the only other laser beam-riding anti-air missile in the world, and reportedly quite effective. Also MANPADs and NASAMS.
If she'd actually worn that and if she'd actually done a stint in the infantry, yes, I would.
They probably do, because delusion and self-deception is a hell of a drug. Also TBF the average joe doesn't understand the difference between a T-55 and an M1A2sepV3. Tank is tank.
>having a hope of attacking anybody else at all in the next 10 years
>It's called sixty-four F-35As
>In service 2026
Just what the living fuck do (You) think is going to happen before 2026? pozzniya is dead in the water and probably won't even exist in 5 years.
Chucklefucks always forget Finland LOST the winter war
And chucklefucks also forget that winter war was Finland ALONE against the whole Soviet Union that had 100 times bigger population than finland at the time (nazis were allied to soviets and blocked foreign aid, excluding from swedes).
And that Finland had just had a bloody civil war, and were out of fucking equipment even before soviets invaded.
Can you tell us what was the Red Army's objective, anon.
Logistics would be much much harder in Finland and the supply depots would eat a long range missile the second they are set up. Railway would be entirely unusable so you'd have to fit both tanks and the supply vehicles on same zeroed in roads.
Honestly, Russia opening a second front in this war would I think force an escalation from "The West" if not NATO specifically.
I think they wouldn't be able to take Finland, but neither do I think the Finns have the capability to fully throw them out. Depends on how much longer the Russian state/people can tolerate the grinder. I think people seriously over estimate the capability of Western conscript/reservist forces. Great if you need bodies to pull local security patrols or absorb retard unsupported zerg rushes, but not great when complex offensive operations are needed.
If they want to open up a second front, the least retarded option (which would still be monumentally retarded) might be Kazakhstan.
this. kazakstahn would also create a land bridge to China.
>I think people seriously over estimate the capability of Western conscript/reservist forces.
One active officer described the FDF as a domesticated training organization pre-2014, so Crimea and Donbas came as a great shock and led to great emphasis being placed on readiness and quick response,
FDF mil video showing some of the current thinking:
But more broadly speaking, the big ideas are dispersed operations and coaxing a reserve army into a more flexible response than "general mobilization y/n?" This logic is obvious where a mobilization can trigger a "casus belli" on the Russian side at least on the propaganda side of things. The Ukrainians were in a "damned if you do/don't" situation before February 2022 as the Russian buildup increased for months but kept "plausibly deniable."
>she danced in a club and let some man who was not her husband lick her neck and allowed another man to grope her ass
Confucius said "don't give a sword to a man who can't dance." Or something like that.
Fun video, it reminds me of the Swedish one from the CW, but what exactly is the Finns plan with the FDF or whatever their reservist force is? Again, we've seen that dispersed Light Infantry style reservists can have an effect on conflict, but I don't think a decisive one when faced with heavy mass. You need professional, well trained and ideally mechanized troops if you want to actually strike at the Russians and route them rather than playing the waiting game and seeing who gets sick of the blood first.
Finland does not plan to pussyfoot around if it comes to war with Russia. Aim is to capture russian nuclear assets located in Kola peninsula and use them to wipe out russian central command.
They have 3 years until Finland gets all the F-35s they paid for.
About as well as the last 2 times they fought Russia
soviets had resources and men to keep going despite losses and the Fins didn't have much, in this modern day Russia might not have all the resources and men to fight especially if they were to go at it while still being in Ukraine
Finland doesn't have the sheer amount of manpower and equipment to brawl with the Russians like the Ukranians do.
>44 million population
>5 million population
>not realizing that Finland has the most artillery emplacements out of all the EU countries
Just wait until you learn how many rockets Finland has.
What do mailmen have to do with this?
Things are about to go postal.
Do you have source on that? That’s higher than any number I recall and if they had had that kind of armor force at the beginning of the war it would have been used more liberally.
Granted, I'm guessing prob 50% of those tanks were in storage prior to the Russians invading.
I don’t think that chart takes into account losses in the Donbas from 2014-2021. Forbes before the war began has
>210 T-64BV mod 2017s
>100 T-64BM Bulats
With another thousand in “storage”, which could mean anything from old but functional to rusted out hulk.
Call it 2k tanks then, that's still significantly more than what Finland has at 250.
2000 tanks don't mean anything in boreal forests, if they are underequipped with thermals and unsupported by infantry (like they've been for Russia this war) then their performance in Finland would be exponentially worse than in Ukraine. AT4s and NLAW threats would always be active, unlike in Ukraine where they were only active in urban fights.
Are you really telling me the baltics have ZERO (0) tanks? And Belgium?
unlike rest of ex ussr we were only left with 3 btr 80's. early militia units had a clusterfuck of equipment, i remember seeing some footage and fuckers had stens. we only recently got IFV's. basically started with fuck all
the 21 BTR 80 were confiscated in 1992 because they were marked as agricultural machines for angola
You can't keep trying to sneak up on us like that.
The map is retarded because the number means different things.
The figures for Ukraine and Russia include active tanks (<1k and ~3.5k pre-war respectively) plus the tanks they have in various states of storage
The figures for the UK just include the active fleet of Challenger 2 tanks but not the 75 tanks in storage that can be reactivated/rotated quickly or the other ~75 tanks that would need time to be reactivated since they have largely been stripped for spares but their hulls and turrets are still in storage
So Finland has more tanks than Russia right now?
The Soviet Union is not Russia
You gotta remember the finns had minimal support from other nations during this time, they had minor swedish and german support and everything else was just volunteers.
Relatively speaking Swedish support was quite huge, comparable to Estonian support for Ukraine novadays.
Of course Swedes simply did not have enough to give.
Finland is part of EU, and if there was no significant European response to an invasion EU would cease to exist even if it isn't a military alliance.
Finland's eastern border is deliberately built as a vatnik kill zone. The roads are shitty and linear, there's shitloads of woods and in general the terrain doesn't exactly favor motorized vehicles.
They'd get bogged down and shelled to shit before they even fired a rifle
They lasted 3 months by themselves in the Winter War and 1 year of concentrated Soviet assaults with heavy German support in WW2. Finland doesn't have enough equipment or manpower to hold out against Russia
>not enough equipment
Those artillery figures are about half of what they really are. There are annual articles around the time military has to announce publicly what the figures are, and how they use loopholes to underreport what they have.
I don't remember if this one touched on loopholes but it does tell about the changes in how much artillery there is.
>Those artillery figures are about half of what they really are
But enough about Russia.
Russia doesn't have twice the amount of artillery they claim to have, you fool. In fact, if anything, Russia always overreports their strength and capabilities in order to put up an impressive face.
Thank you for proving my point.
I remember there being some finger waggling when chunk of the artillery equipment was listed under the navy and thus weren't reported
What's the point of under reporting your artillery. isnt deterrence it's first use case?
International treaties that limit the amount of artillery. Silly I know.
>International treaties that limit the amount of artillery
spare parts obviously don't count as artillery
Most of them are 122mm so the ammo won't hold out for long unfortunately.
> "WESTERN" Europe
Holy fucking shit.
>> "WESTERN" Europe
well, yes, we are not orthodox
Northern Europe is Western Europe
"Western" and "eastern" in Europe's case have a cultural and political dimension as well as a geographical one.
Russia is not the Soviet Union and the OP specified western support. During this he winter war Finland had to go it alone and the Germans had their own problems in the continuation war.
>Germans had their own problems in the continuation war.
Germany had 250k troops in Finland bros, not sure what you're implying
That the Soviet Union was an industrial juggernaut and that Germany couldn’t match them on a total war footing in open conflict. That’s a far cry from the situation today.
>That’s a far cry from the situation today.
Russia wouldn't be fighting Germany though, they'd be fighting Finland who isn't capable of sustained total war on their own.
And Finland wouldn’t be fighting the Soviet Union, they’d be fighting Russia who isn’t capable of mass manufacturing modern military equipment, mobilizing millions of men, and conducting large complex combined arms operations.
>isn’t capable of mass manufacturing modern military equipment, mobilizing millions of men, and conducting large complex combined arms operations.
I mean I'm not saying they're doing a great job but they've shown they're capable of doing all 3 of those to the point where the war hasn't ended in a total route back across the border. They continue to conscript more troops, pump out T-72s and T-90s and are launching offensives across the donbas region with no signs of stopping.
i think it depends on whether or not Wagner would be part of the invasion.
obviously Ukraine isn't as developed as Finland and it has been able to fight regular russian army to a standstill. so Finland would absolutely ass rape regular russian army
They’ve done none of those. Being able to feed piecemeal designs older than the troops operating them is not the equivalent of producing thousands of new tanks and aircraft. Being able to conscript a few hundred thousand men is not the equivalent of being able to pour millions into a theater. And sending waves of mobiks at entrenchments is not the equivalent of bagration. The Soviet Union was able to sweep through the Ukraine SSR facing a larger better equipped enemy than what Russia faces today.
America was the industrial juggernaut. The Russians paid the human cost of winning the war, something they were quite used to after a millennium of getting shafted by invading forces.
Which is why they'll continue to throw people into the meat grinder in Ukraine for a long time still.
The Soviet Union was as well. Second largest economy in 1940. For some reason Nazi Germany made the baffling decision to go to war with the three most industrialized and wealthy nations on the planet all at the same time.
USSR was demanding hegemony over eastern Europe. They wanted to annex Romania, to turn Bulgaria into a vassal, and to attack Finland again. Hitler wasn't willing to throw his allies under the bus and he knew the USSR would attack eventually.
Had Hitler been more cynical and let the Soviets annex whatever they wanted, yeah, Germany would have probably dunked on Britain eventually, since they'd have access to the raw materials they'd need to actually get their Me-262s built and (more importantly) actually fuel them and put them in the air.
Modern Finland has exponentially more manpower, equipment (notably one of the largest artillery forces in western Europe) and a military doctrine entirely based around Russia attacking as well as a major geographical advantage.
Saying "but look, they got overwhelmed a hundred years ago when they had a third of the manpower and were severely underequipped so that must be the case now!" is just plain retarded
>but look, they got overwhelmed a hundred years ago when they had a third of the manpower and were severely underequipped so that must be the case now
Finland had 450k troops and were decently equipped during WW2 and still lost once Russia started pushing despite additional German support
They weren't decently equipped what the fuck are you talking about their anti tank weaponry was bottles with vodka in them and shoving logs into the tanks tracks. They had no airforce to speak of and their artillery was ridiculously outgunned, they just used it a lot more effectively. It was also a piss poor country back then. Now it is a wealthy country with equipment that far outclasses anything Russia has and the world isn't as distracted by a German spergattack so support would be significant. That's discounting the EU defence clause as well.
>notably one of the largest artillery forces in western Europe
That's not exactly a high bar lol
Russian performance doesn't either
Finns barely had parity in terms of equipment quality during both Winter and Continuation wars and STILL forced Russia to concede major aims in the region. Modern Finland outmatches anything Russia could ever field during this special needs operation era.
>STILL forced Russia to concede major aims in the region.
They still lost both wars, 20% of their land in the Winter War and another 10% in WW2 + getting forced at gun point to demobilizing their troops and turning their guns on their allies. The Russians only held off on taking the rest of Finland because taking the rest of Germany before the Allies got there was more important.
>we managed to take 20% of their land!
>just ignore the fact actually originally wanted more than that and a puppet state
>also don't look at how much blood we lost per meter gained
The point is that trying to take Finland would bleed them dry as much if not more than the Finns trying to defend it. The Soviet Union during the height of their military might and outmatching Finland in literally every metric wasn't able to force a non-phyrric victory and somehow you're telling me a crippled Russia could?
450,000 Russians died in the winter and continuation wars and couldn’t manage to decisively defeat a country with 3.5 million people in it. It may honestly
be the most lopsided ratio of dead soldiers to the population of an invaded country in history.
>450,000 Russians died in the winter and continuation wars and couldn’t manage to decisively defeat a country with 3.5 million people in it
Finland was close to collapse after 3 months of fighting in the Winter War and Germans had 250k troops in country + provided the Finns with a fuck ton of equipment during WW2. Without that, the Finns would have been close to collapse in 3 months just like the Winter War.
Don't try to push the stupid ass meme they held out on their own lmao.
>the most lopsided ratio of dead soldiers to the population of an invaded country in history.
400k KIA vs 100k KIA is a 4:1 k/d ratio, given the circumstances of the wars, you should read more military history if you think that's LE INSANE
>provided the Finns with a fuck ton of equipment during WW2.
What's the definition of fuck ton of equipment? They certainly didn't provide fuckton of planes or tanks
That was in the 1940s you stupid FUCK. Now they've got ATGM and MANPADS teams in the goddamn trees!
>That was in the 1940s you stupid FUCK. Now they've got ATGM and MANPADS teams in the goddamn trees!
And Russia has ballistic missiles and laser guided artillery.
>laser guided artillery
Why aren't they using it?
They did, they just run out of it quickly
So they don’t have it any more? Got it.
It sounds like they SHOT their shot too early!
Russia wouldn't dare invade Finland in any time other than winter. I doubt their logistics could last regardless, considering the weight of AFVs nowadays. Crossing lake ice is dangerous enough for 40 ton truckers alone.
finland was a backwater 20 years removed from russian rule then, they've spent all of the interim modernizing and preparing for another invasion
Finland in 1939 was poorer than Ukraine in 2014 minus the corruption but also being 1/10 the population.
Finland is also about 10 times harder for invader to assault
And modern weapons would turn that advantance into Finnish victory of unforeseen scale.
Does that allow for NATO members to act on their EU obligations to help defend Finland?
>No direct NATO involvement
What's the tactical advantage of attacking a nation that's in another alliance that that has more active troops than you have?
Finland is in the EU, and the EU itself has military assistance clauses.
If anything they would get even more assistance than Ukraine, in the form of direct involvement of EU countries.
I'm going to bend the rules a bit and say that Finland COULD at least delay russians for several weeks or months until the rest of NATO arrived.
Other than that, Finland has a tradition of high technology and has nuclear power plants, thus nuclear physics is not a stranger - if it was a genocidal war, nukes could be maintained or even built over time for the safety of Finland. With such short distances, Finland could nuke most of russia in a matter of minutes and there would absolutely be no moral doubts about doing it.
>That whore of a politician
Absolute state of Finland
gonnna vote for her simply because she's sexy
She's pretty good as a politician too, shame that foreigners never know or care about Finland's politics. She's not perfect but definitely better than our previous PMs.
Fuck off you social democrat shill, she attended drug frenzied parties and ok'd a deal where Finland had to pay Germany billions of dollars via SMS while getting drunk at a rock concert. And her defense was literally, "I'm just a normal 35-year-old woman, why can't 35-year-old women dance and enjoy their life. Not to mention she was against Nato membership in the beginning of the invasion and now tries to play it off as it was her leadership and deciciviness which caused Finland to apply for the membership.
The fucking whore. Thank God we have elections in 4 weeks and this slut gets voted out.
>Thank God we have elections in 4 weeks and this slut gets voted out.
Our problem right now is that neither PM or president have any good successor candidates, both are unironically so popular and good at their roles that there is no one who wouldn't be a downgrade on paper.
Oh and I forgot to say, I'm going to be voting Kokoomus because I'm a highly educated and make good money. Fuck commies
kokoomus is a cuck party
Let me guess, you're voting for PS?
Eh, still better than leftist parties. PS are right about few important things and then pantsu on head retarded about few other important things.
let's keep the discussion weapons related (christ is my shield)
Just vote for anyone who doesnt have 'socialist' in their political alignment, its not hard.
There's no way she isn't re-elected.
Pretty much. Another 4 years of PM's role and afterwards presidency, that's basically guaranteed to happen at some point of her life. I don't mind because she has been a good leader and there is no one else I'd prefer to have as a PM.
I've been trying to learn more about Finnish politics since you guys have been in the news so much lately. Your military is astoundingly small given your importance to Europe and your history of conflict.
>Your military is astoundingly small
First, examine their demographics and other key national statistics
I guess it's not that small by European standards but at the same time you share a massive border with a country that has been seething at you since 1918.
>Your military is astoundingly small
I wouldn't call it small by European standards and because of how small our population is
>ok'd a deal where Finland had to pay Germany billions of dollars via SMS
tbh you're right about everything else but contractually Fortum was fucked
I hate to admit that she's still better than our latest embarrassing "right-wing" government ever was.
>ruin our taxi services
>ruin our education and healthcare
>and above all, rubber stamp the anti-gun directive and try to pass the buck to the lefties after losing the election
I can't believe I find leftists more respectable than the spineless SSS cunts
What's that food called again? Had some at a Pikkojoulo or whatever it's called. It was pretty good, a little bland but with sugar and cardammon on top it was really tasty, like a portable serving of riskrem in a edible bread cup.
>with sugar and cardammon on top
Trust me bro my cunttree does absolutely nothing in its own interest. We will probably choke on that deal very soon and Sch*lz will fix it by robbing the taxpayers some more.
Oh man, that's crazy. Got any sources?
>be the Finnish PM
>be at a rock concert and "help with Uniper negotiations" via SMS at the same time
>go party with bunch of no-brain influencers who leak videos about you
>drug lingo is spoken in the background
>present yourself as pic related
>later get caught smooching with other men than your husband
>left wing spins it as if it is great to have this kind of PM "doing the kind of things that other 35-year-old mothers do" and portrays criticizers as Talibans who want to deny dancing from women
>#ImWithSanna and other similar bullshit spreads around the world
>apparently it is ok to act like a stupid whore if you're the PM of Finland
I'm fucking fed up with this stupid bitch and the media building a fucking cult following around her.
that whole video thing felt fabricated to me
>get caught smooching with other men than your husband
why are yuros such cucks?
honestly it's like yalls have nothing better to do than have affairs
As far as AI generated sannas go I give this a 4/10
She was dancing with someone, they weren't kissing or anything
shes a borderline traitorous cunt. better than Rinne, "Lavrov is my friend" Stubb or the cult nut from Kempele? maybe but the bar is not set high
Fucking how? Literally the entire establishment since the war has worshipped Russian cock with her as the sole exception. She's an anti-gun commie but literally the only person to shit on Russia openly since Koivisto
Any friendship disappeared immediately one year ago
>Any friendship disappeared immediately one year ago
> sauce: crickets
The last thing I would want in a war is a woman in charge. They are cowardly and traitorous by nature. I would even rather have a nig or a garden gnome like Zelensky.
The president is the head of state and the supreme commander of the armed forces and he is a man.
>PrepHoleoper sees perhaps the most competent PM in decades
>gets mad, 'cause she's a woman
In case you didn't know, our artillery and mortars shoot accurately enough that they have to introduce artificial dispersion by shifting fire, as to not to hit something that's already dead.
you know you want her
There wmare putinist in our parliement who could have sabotaged the F-35 fighter deal. She put the stamp of approval on the deal. There are Reds in her own party (Erkki Tuomioja being their lead figure) who resisted joining Nato for decades. She curb stomped them.
Also gave couple of billion € bonus to FDF.
Vatnik fears Sanna.
>whore of a politician
First, thats an oxymoron.
Secondly, Finns are the most promiscuous peoples in the world.
>First, thats an oxymoron.
don't you mean redundancy?
oxymoron would suggest it's contradictory
baka I now feel bad about putting things this way.
Politicians as a rule are prime subjects of corruption and conflict of interest. But that's not how it should be, the standard a citizen holds their representative to should be higher than that. Tacit acceptance and cynicism is how you end up "apolitical" like russians.
i wonder if she has an only fans where she sells her used panties
she danced in a club and let some man who was not her husband lick her neck and allowed another man to grope her ass
Finland averaged about 55,000 births in 2003
Let's assume 25,000 of those are fit males
Let's call up everyone born from 1988 to 2003
You now have 375,000 infantry aged 20 to 35
Assume women take all the support / admin / logistics roles, so all of these infantry can be deployed in the front line
Finland does enjoy NATO-tier weapons and training, but it would still be a close call I think, if Russia goes to partial mobilisation - they outnumber the Finns 25-fold in population
If there’s anything the war in Ukraine has shown us it’s that the numbers don’t tell the whole story. On paper the Russians should have crushed the Ukrainians with overwhelming force but they didn’t. In a hypothetical invasion of Finland Russian forces are going to have to advance through incredibly difficult terrain. Russia struggled with its offensive in terrain that it was far more familiar with and that was far more conducive to operations. Ukraine lacked the equipment at the time to take advantage of opportunities provide by these struggles. This is not the case with Finland. The difficulties that NATO had in supplying Ukraine with equipment that was compatible with the systems that they had would also be absent. These are positions that the Finns have been planning on how to defend for decades and I can’t imagine that an advance as shambolic as what happened last February would be anything short of catastrophic.
I’m not saying that Finland would win or that it would be a cakewalk, but I can’t imagine Russia trying to cram even more equipment down even tighter avenues of advance would go well for them.
Yes, simply based on the fact Russia has very few options when it comes to invading. The vast majority of Finland's border is complete wilderness.
Also St. Petersberg would be in artillery range.
The geography of the border is totally different. The war would be fought in a different way.
Finland having the "biggest artillery force" is :
a)completely useles in a modern conflict
b) not actually true as a boast.
It's not true because its like saying a guy throws "the best punches" only because he has no legs. He's not the best AT it, it's just that it's the best he can do. Like if there were some sort of artillery forces olympics its not like they would stand out or anything.
Standing out on artillery when modern bombs are defined by electronics and air power is a bro... moment
You're wrong though, US is putting billions into the long range precision fires program which consists of new howitzer-fired and rocket artillery products.
Artillery is far more cost-effective than air power where it matters and it's stupid to compare these two as it's expensive to gain air superiority, even for US.
This is directly linked to China and the fact that air support will NOT be available 24/7 in such conflict. Long range land attacks are absolutely vital for US forces.
>are defined by electronics and air power
Russia has none of this so Finland wins automatically?
You mean if Russia never invaded Ukraine and decided to invade Finland instead?
Yes. Russia isn't the USSR
The forrest Fins would carve vatnik buttholes up like jack-o-lanterns.
So how much Finland
1. Air defense
2. Long range rockets
4. Artillery ammunition
5. Modern tanks, IFVs and AFVs
7. Naval defense
It's all fine and cool having good infantry but if you can't stop enemy air assets and Artillery then it won't help
>he doesn't know
>No direct NATO involvement
What about defence pacts outside of NATO?
How you guys think your PM would fare as a wartime leader in a conflict with Russia? She always has this weird accelerationist tone whenever she talks about Russia. Is that just standard Finnish anti-Russian autism or do you think she genuinely believes you guys could hold your own?
President is the wartime commander of the FDF. Not the PM.
Are they actually though? The stuff that I've read seems to suggest that the President's military powers are mostly symbolic and parliament holds most of the actual power. I'm not disagreeing I'm just confused.
No he's indeed the CIC
I think we're living in bizarro Finland, because our right wing largely sucks Russian cock while our lefties cast off the Russian yoke we'd been carrying since 1944.
>our right wing largely sucks Russian cock
But they don't? No political party supports Russia, PS for sure doesn't. You only have some individual absolute misfit clown PMs like Turtiainen who show preference for Russia. And what comes to ''right wing organizations'' 1. I've never heard of them doing so 2. literally who gives a fuck lmao those groups have no power or relevance.
I'm talking about the neoliberal cucks, PS is much better about Russia now that Soini fucked off
Bro Russia can't even conquer the poorest nation in Europe, let alone fucking Finland.
Thread is a bunch of video game retards spamming Xbox tactics. Russia is fighting a land war in Ukraine, protecting their own people. They havent bombed the living shit out of it from the air like America would have. What you think is Ukie resistance is Russian restraint.
Russia could split Finland in half, north from south, and thereafter Finland loses the north with almost no fight. It is roughly 200 miles across Finland and all the population is southeast from there. Are there ethnic Russians in that area of Finland? You had better hope so because otherwise you are getting fucked badly from the air.
It would be fun to watch because Finns deserve it. Damn cucks like the Swedes. Watch your nogs and heebs flee with your women while the Russians put the weak men out of their misery. Your biggest problem is there are not that many of you, so what Finns have been willingly letting globohomos do slowly, the Russians can do quickly. Your so called allies (Zogbot NATO) want to disappear your society, culture and people, so they will basically invite Russia to invade and then hope for devastation.
On the other hand, maybe Russia will take it easy on you and just expel globohomo. Ironically, might save what we used to call Finns.
The irony is unreal. Globo convinced all the Europeans in the US (Irish, Italians, Germans, Scandis of all kinds) to kill their brethren in Europe to protect bankers in England and Soviet bolsheviks (who had encouraged Europeans to start killing each other in the first place). Ever since then the ((bankers)) and bolsheviks have been destroying Europe and the US (and Australia), while Russia shed bolshevism. Role reversal, in that western bolsheviks are now causing conflicts (as they always do) and Russia is the good guy. As usual, the US and Europe are fighting on the wrong side.
Later retards. Try not to let the whore in charge of Finland start WW3 for real.
Post ur gun
"Um actually sweetie we're sacrificing tens of thousands of our own men to a meat grinder because of restraint. We could win this war from the air without spilling any rissian blood but we choose not to because we love Ukraine so much"
>ackshually we don't want to really win yeah....
>They havent bombed the living shit out of it from the air like America would have. What you think is Ukie resistance is Russian restraint.
>Memoryholing General Armageddonouttahere
hit all of the right points, but it's a smidge too over the top
Must be a new guy on the shill farm. Pretty sure you’re paid per post, not per word m800.
something tells me Biden wont send us billions tho
brb electing a garden gnome as president
Finland will fall in two weeks!
kek what the fuck is it with Russians and two weeks
I’d imagine that while Finland can’t sustain massive losses as such a small nation, the terrain and armaments give them such an edge in defence that it would be insanely costly for Russians to advance and Finns could survive with an acceptable casualty rate for pretty long.
The logistics would be utterly nightmarish for ziggers when they have only couple of large roads to use, and Finland has a pretty good stash of precision munitions to blast any supply depot close to front lines, especially assuming that they get access to USA military intelligence. It would have a pretty good chance of begoming the convoy of doom 2.0, if the Russians haven’t learnt their lessons.
Do it, gay.
no, finland has too many neekeri unlike ukraine
>finland has too many cannon fodder unlike ukraine
>finland has too many neekeri
They'll immediately leave the country if a war starts.
EU does actually have a mutual defense clause as well even if it's considerably weaker than the NATO "musketeer" commitment in its wording so western involvement would have been much more direct and no doubt included a coalition of *very* willing from among NATO countries.
ukraine has a million troops with the best equipment the west has to offer. and they're still getting stomped by russian conscripts with rusty AK's.
yeah im thinking finland would be fucked.
En ota kantaa
>No direct NATO involvement
So Russia gets fucked by the entirety of the EU armed forces without any help from the US or UK?
>All this Finland sucking off in this thread
Finland has a worse military than Ukraine. If Russia attacked they would've won against Finland and Sweden.
Finland has more trained troops than Ukraine has currently.
>Finland has more trained troops than Ukraine has currently.
Those are conscripts who did their national service 10 years ago.
How trained do you think they are?
Better than russians or ukrainians
No, NATO cannot download Finland t. Pekka from Vaasa oblast
Please everybody pray that Russia invades Finland. Maybe with enough meme magic, it will happen..
Imagine the shitfest of Russia going against an actually competent military. Without having every advantage imaginable? I would be sneedin' and a feedin'
>modern air force
>navy specializing in defence of the Baltic
>huge artillery force
>MLRS and GMLRS
>mobile mortar teams
>effective armored corps
>bridges and tunnels designed to be rigged to blow fast
>endless woodlands, bogs and lakes
and in OP's scenario, they have western support
>reservists regularly fuck up NATO forces in wargames
how the fuck can you think that they wouldn't throw the russhits out?
While I agree with you overall that Finns would have a lot of force multipliers and Russian logistics isn't up to it my autism compels me to push back on this one bit of stuff that floats around PrepHole a lot:
regularly fuck up NATO forces in wargames
Anon in most NATO wargames the point is for the Americans to lose. They're excersises designs to give everyone training and teach lessons, not PR. A big difference between the West overall vs elsewhere is that militaries tend to have a tiny PR role and not something people think about much in their day to day lives, no big military parade retard events, any "bragging" is specific to the industry or making sales to other countries or sabre rattling aimed at other countries. The job of exercises is to actually improve militarily.
Nobody would get anything out of it if Americans just threw their entire weight into it and curb stomped. Including the Americans. So if you actually dig into the exercises often it's something like
>US Marines butt naked besides boots and solely armed with shovels and M1s and no support vs equal numbers of fully mechanized infantry
or whatever to weight things heavily. Each side needs to be stressed in some way for it to be real training.
This doesn't mean the finn reservests are bad, just don't look at some high level "winning" in wargames and think that directly translates to a real conflict.
FINLAND BTFO'S RUSSIA/thread
When Pootine is dead Finland should reclaim at least Kola peninsula.
land border with Japan or bust
That's a lot of snow, ice and pine trees.
is the destructive legacy of Finno-Corean hyperwars not the reason why hyperborean buffer was allowed to exist in the first place?
Treaty of Thule was a mistake
Finland would utterly crush ruskies, not even a question. Even if they nuke Helsinki which is something that Fins take into account.
The question isn't "can Finland resist a Russian invasion". It's "can Finland resist invading Russia"
>russia chimps out twice
>not expecting every NATO country to jump in
OP is a vatnik shill presenting a retarded made-up scenario. If invaded, Finland would at the very least be assisted by all neighboring nations since it would be proven that Russia's morony would not be contained to Ukraine.
Finland on its own would probably be fine tbphwyf
Be that was it may, it is irrelevant to the discussion. In reality any country being invaded by Russia after this Ukraine debacle would not be on their own.
Be cool if the UN interfered with police action kinda like Korea in the 50's. Not gonna happen, but still.
NATO for sure would get involved, at that point it'd be painfully obvious that they're not stopping probably until they reach Vienna, possibly Berlin.
I think we can
And if we can't, we'll fuck off inna woods and lakes to continue sissi warfare
>No direct NATO involvement
257 post and nobody has mentioned Treaty on European Union Article 42(7). Half the NATO members are affected anyway.
Because it's irrelevant. Whether Finland is formally part of NATO or not, NATO is going to get stuck in all the same. Ditto EU.
Quit thinking of treaties as binding, and more as very strongly-worded MOUs.
They will zergrush Vaalimaa - Hamina - Kotka - Loviisa - Porvoo - Helsinki with their usual VDV and Marine forward deployments, hoping to end the war before anyone in Finland is ready, with secondary lines towards Lappeenranta and Kouvola. If it fails their columns are destroyed and the war will devolve into retarded meatgrinders here and there. Russians will likely occupy the northern half of the country that we probably cant defend, just as a bargaining chip because its kinda irrelevant to the outcome of the war anyway.
Not like Russia has any reason to invade. Other than taking out a NATO base. Thanks NATO
>Not like Russia has any reason to invade
Russia does not need a reason to invade
>i take hollywood movies at face value please rape my face
>I take videogames at the face value please rape my face
>They will zergrush Vaalimaa - Hamina - Kotka - Loviisa - Porvoo - Helsinki
They will stop before Hamina because they will have to clear 2 tunnels and fix 3 bridges before they get there
You cannot invade Finland from the east.
Look at a map. It is straight up not possible.
Unless Russia fully mobilizes a year in advance, no.
Russia is a joke, it disgust me how my country is on it's knees begging and doing anything to get into NATO as if Russia is even a threat from what we have seen in Ukraine
Even a failed invasion on your countries soil is a terrible. Being in an alliance that deters it is still valuable tbh.
NATO is strictly making new military contracts and business deals between countries, i wouldn't mind if they were honest about it but masking it all as coming to save your country if you join and trumming up the scare tactics where they paint Russia as competent threat specifically out to get just YOU is what grinds my gears.
Yes because as soon as Russia attacks it, the entirety of the EU declares war on Russia.
Anons seem to have forgotten that the EU has a defensive pact much like NATO.
Nato is a suicide pact
What appears to be a coalition of dozens of nations
is in reality a dysfunctional web of quasi-territories
which all have a non-functional economic structure
propping up the entire rotten house of cards.
europeans are clinically retarded.
NATO is a network of expendable goylem states to be used up and disposed by USA.
Americans will never fight for you, because it's YOUR job to fight for them.
If you don't understand that, then you deserve what's coming to you.
International law and agreements only exist to further interests of the US democrat party
The moment they don't they will be disposed of, just like Minsk 2 agreements.
the 'rules-based-liberal-world-order' are irredeemable sociopaths
and they are absolutely prepared to take each and every one of us "with them",
make no mistake about it
the US is literally baiting any nation that will bite to launch off total war,
The US isn't your "friend". Not even an ally.
NATO isn't there to guarantee your security, it's there to secure the US' dominance over Europe.
The US/NATO is unironically the worst enemy of Europe today.
Nato is LITERALLY an extra-national expeditionary force the US masquerades as on European soil for 'taste' and 'optics' purposes, nothing more.
Europe literally cant do anything.
they are the US's battered wife
>military bases all over your continent
>all of you use our weapons we could *brick* at any moment.
>no European nation even has an extant modern military
>the average European nation is less equipped than the Texas national guard
Europe CAN.DO.NOTHING. about this.
the US took "peace" off the table, all defenseless Euro's can do is cower in the corner untill the beating of the century comes for them
all day, every day another escalation
nato escalates, escalates, escalates
Russia is being very careful to not beat the homosexual-handicapped-wheelchair bound nato vassals
with the atomic stick they rightly deserve
Spurdo from ebin oblast here, berry cool message :-DDDDDDdddd, am spooked
You're right about the part whereevery European state should acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrence
That’s a lot of projection typed out in painstaking effort.
I’m sorry that you’re so hurt, unironically, Anon.
Lets have a quick look on south eastern Finland. Here is rough location of forces.
Here is locations of bridges around Lappeenranta
And here is Hamina-Virolahti bridges