No direct NATO involvement, but NATO supports the way it did Ukraine. Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?

No direct NATO involvement, but NATO supports the way it did Ukraine. Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the swiss were the ones with the bridges rigged to blow

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They have tunnels ready to blow.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        Russians are always ready to blow

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, doubly so since 1991

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Russians might as well drop their pants an walk backwards cause they would get frickin raw dogged hard. Like they are in Ukraine

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Where do they find people this fricking dumb to shill for them?

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 frick ton of lakes

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      God damn, and I thought Minnesota had a lot of lakes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Something like so

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >How TF are they going to invade a country that is 75% forests and covered in an absolute metric frick ton of lakes
      By exploiting the wider ridges that offer room to maneuver.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Seems like an easy to ambush / mine path

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        aka deathtraps. I would not want to see the carnage.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I would

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >I would not want to see the carnage
          Are thy gay?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Oh, so the few specific areas that Finland's military has had 80 fricking 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 fricking 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 frick out of the Muscovites. Finland's entire defense outlook and mindset has been preparing for 80+ years to make Muscovites suffer.

        https://i.imgur.com/gmTJSpI.png

        About as well as the last 2 times they fought Russia

        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?

        https://i.imgur.com/lSnWVro.gif

        >not realizing that Finland has the most artillery emplacements out of all the EU countries

        Ngmi

        Devon was my favorite LightspeedGirl.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You dont have to be a tactical genius to see that is a rape funnel.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          when you use weapons to kill russians they win

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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
        hnnnngggh

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >you'll never wage naval warfare against panicking Russkie IFVs and APCs swimming in every direction
          why even live

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Just tanks and ifvs alone firing from the other shore would be absolute killers, nevermind what arty, mines and planes could do.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/MAcAEU4.jpg

      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

      Anons... They have the VDV, Their best amphibian units.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >1300 km border
      >only 13 isolated border crossings
      based

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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?

        https://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/a/201701232200057953

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Posts like these are slowly turning me into a moderate

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            From which direction?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          its funny because we are going to use the same roads to invade Russia instead

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The rusBlack folk 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.

          https://i.imgur.com/4TItCb4.png

          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.

          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.

          https://i.imgur.com/ppR6Khl.jpg

          >russia chimps out twice
          >not expecting every NATO country to jump in
          OP is a vatnik shill presenting a moronic 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 Black persony would not be contained to Ukraine.

          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 frick off back to their hole.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        cope and sneed

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Are you moronic? Do you realize that they share a land border with an allied Nordic country?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    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.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Id45vRK.jpg

      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 frick ton of lakes

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      God I'm imagining the Russian fleet trying to run the gauntlet between Finland and Estonia on their way out of St Petersburg. Imagine...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Drowing vatnig gif would of been out 2 hours after invasion.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What I wouldn't give to see a mobik column get swallowed by Saimaa during the heart of winter

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They’ve been preparing for a long time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm American and even I don't have a swimming pool in my bunker.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the opening Blyatskreig
      See

      https://i.imgur.com/Id45vRK.jpg

      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 frick ton of lakes

      and

      https://i.imgur.com/MAcAEU4.jpg

      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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Finlands population: 5.5m

        Russias population: 140m

        Russia can afford to take horrendous losses and still win a war of attrition against Finland.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Not anymore.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Lol they couldn’t even do that during the 40s. Twice in fact

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              And yet Russia couldn’t do shit. The casualty rates are severely lopsided on Russia’s side

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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. 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.

        >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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >the war isn't intense enough to ramp up to war time production
          More vatnik fantasy gotcha

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >call up 800k reservists
          >don't increase tank production
          what did they mean by this

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Dude, Finland has JASSMs and JDAMs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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. Frick. Even if they wrap up the current moronation, 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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.
        >https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html
        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

          Call it 2k tanks then, that's still significantly more than what Finland has at 250.

          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 year ago
      Anonymous

      >1/7th the population
      It's 1/28th the population

      Finland doesn't have the sheer amount of manpower and equipment to brawl with the Russians like the Ukranians do.

      Ukraine
      >44 million population
      >2500 tanks
      Finland
      >5 million population
      >250 tanks

      >2500 tanks
      Vatnik figure to save face
      UA had ~850 tanks active, and received ~750 more from NATO

      https://i.imgur.com/lSnWVro.gif

      >not realizing that Finland has the most artillery emplacements out of all the EU countries

      Ngmi

      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?

      https://i.imgur.com/arLY2dQ.jpg

      Granted, I'm guessing prob 50% of those tanks were in storage prior to the Russians invading.

      >Global Firepower
      please.

      >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.

      >870,000 trained reservists
      That number would necessarily include all reservists up to about 40+ years of age
      trained, yes, a long time ago

      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.

      >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >trained, yes, a long time ago
        that's better than the russian counterpart, where they aren't trained at all.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The Russians get the same deal. Finnish conscripts get only about a year plus of training and service.

          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

          Oh my god, that's terrible! Is there video evidence?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >the quality of training absolutely is not
              True
              But still... that is something to be borne in mind regarding the training status of
              >870,000 trained reservists

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              see

              >the quality of training absolutely is not
              True
              But still... that is something to be borne in mind regarding the training status of
              >870,000 trained reservists

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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 Black folk get so emotionally attached to shit you can't even think intelligently.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >1 year of assrape
                Imagine

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              see

              >the quality of training absolutely is not
              True
              But still... that is something to be borne in mind regarding the training status of
              >870,000 trained reservists

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Vatnik figure to save face
        >UA had ~850 tanks active, and received ~750 more from NATO
        Ah yes Global Firepower is vatnik propaganda. You homosexuals are so damn annoying jfc

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >thinks Global Firepower is anything other than a meaningless turdie numbers game
          You have to be 18 to post here.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >source doesn't support my argument so its Vatnik propaganda
            Back to plebbit

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >all sources must certainly be accurate, they're sources
              Back to elementary school.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I wonder if pic rel is something that pajeets really believe in. Their army cannot fricking do peacetime exercises without falling apart and without crippling corruption that tops that of russians and chineese.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sirs, we're eating golgappa tonight

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >we should invest in AA, stat
        It's called sixty-four F-35As

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >planes for anti-helo work
          I'm talking missile and possibly AAA installations

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            https://i.imgur.com/NPXawhD.jpg

            you know you want her

            If she'd actually worn that and if she'd actually done a stint in the infantry, yes, I would.

            I wonder if pic rel is something that pajeets really believe in. Their army cannot fricking do peacetime exercises without falling apart and without crippling corruption that tops that of russians and chineese.

            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.

            >It's called sixty-four F-35As
            >In service 2026

            >be Russia
            >having a hope of attacking anybody else at all in the next 10 years

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >It's called sixty-four F-35As
          >In service 2026

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Just what the living frick do (You) think is going to happen before 2026? pozzniya is dead in the water and probably won't even exist in 5 years.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/DDMgys8.jpg

      No direct NATO involvement, but NATO supports the way it did Ukraine. Can Finland resist a Russian invasion?

      Chucklefricks always forget Finland LOST the winter war

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And chucklefricks 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 fricking equipment even before soviets invaded.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Can you tell us what was the Red Army's objective, anon.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 moron unsupported zerg rushes, but not great when complex offensive operations are needed.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If they want to open up a second front, the least moronic option (which would still be monumentally moronic) might be Kazakhstan.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        this. kazakstahn would also create a land bridge to China.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      >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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They have 3 years until Finland gets all the F-35s they paid for.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    About as well as the last 2 times they fought Russia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Finland doesn't have the sheer amount of manpower and equipment to brawl with the Russians like the Ukranians do.

        Ukraine
        >44 million population
        >2500 tanks
        Finland
        >5 million population
        >250 tanks

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >not realizing that Finland has the most artillery emplacements out of all the EU countries

          Ngmi

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Just wait until you learn how many rockets Finland has.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              What do mailmen have to do with this?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Things are about to go postal.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                maa=ground
                ilma=air
                maailma=groundair=world

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >2500 tanks
          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Granted, I'm guessing prob 50% of those tanks were in storage prior to the Russians invading.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I don’t think that chart takes into account losses in the Donbas from 2014-2021. Forbes before the war began has
              >410 T-64BVs
              >210 T-64BV mod 2017s
              >100 T-64BM Bulats
              >130 T-72s
              With another thousand in “storage”, which could mean anything from old but functional to rusted out hulk.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Call it 2k tanks then, that's still significantly more than what Finland has at 250.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Are you really telling me the baltics have ZERO (0) tanks? And Belgium?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                unlike rest of ex ussr we were only left with 3 btr 80's. early militia units had a clusterfrick of equipment, i remember seeing some footage and frickers had stens. we only recently got IFV's. basically started with frick all

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                correction
                the 21 BTR 80 were confiscated in 1992 because they were marked as agricultural machines for angola

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Wtf Iceland
              You can't keep trying to sneak up on us like that.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I don’t think that chart takes into account losses in the Donbas from 2014-2021. Forbes before the war began has
              >410 T-64BVs
              >210 T-64BV mod 2017s
              >100 T-64BM Bulats
              >130 T-72s
              With another thousand in “storage”, which could mean anything from old but functional to rusted out hulk.

              The map is moronic 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

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          So Finland has more tanks than Russia right now?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The Soviet Union is not Russia

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Relatively speaking Swedish support was quite huge, comparable to Estonian support for Ukraine novadays.
        Of course Swedes simply did not have enough to give.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >not enough equipment

        https://www-iltalehti-fi.translate.goog/kotimaa/a/7b4df6b7-cb77-4af7-bd97-80bd2c109f5b?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fr&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000009404610.html

          I don't remember if this one touched on loopholes but it does tell about the changes in how much artillery there is.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Those artillery figures are about half of what they really are
            But enough about Russia.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Thank you for proving my point.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I remember there being some finger waggling when chunk of the artillery equipment was listed under the navy and thus weren't reported

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What's the point of under reporting your artillery. isnt deterrence it's first use case?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              International treaties that limit the amount of artillery. Silly I know.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >International treaties that limit the amount of artillery
                spare parts obviously don't count as artillery

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >700 howitzers
          Bruh

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Most of them are 122mm so the ammo won't hold out for long unfortunately.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Finland
          > "WESTERN" Europe
          Holy fricking shit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >> "WESTERN" Europe
            well, yes, we are not orthodox

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Northern Europe is Western Europe

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            "Western" and "eastern" in Europe's case have a cultural and political dimension as well as a geographical one.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Germans had their own problems in the continuation war.
          Germany had 250k troops in Finland homies, not sure what you're implying

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 moronic

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They weren't decently equipped what the frick 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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >notably one of the largest artillery forces in western Europe
          That's not exactly a high bar lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Russian performance doesn't either

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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 frick 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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >provided the Finns with a frick ton of equipment during WW2.
                What's the definition of frick ton of equipment? They certainly didn't provide frickton of planes or tanks

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That was in the 1940s you stupid FRICK. Now they've got ATGM and MANPADS teams in the goddamn trees!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >That was in the 1940s you stupid FRICK. Now they've got ATGM and MANPADS teams in the goddamn trees!
          And Russia has ballistic missiles and laser guided artillery.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >laser guided artillery
            Why aren't they using it?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              They did, they just run out of it quickly

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So they don’t have it any more? Got it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It sounds like they SHOT their shot too early!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And TIGERS

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        finland was a backwater 20 years removed from russian rule then, they've spent all of the interim modernizing and preparing for another invasion

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Finland in 1939 was poorer than Ukraine in 2014 minus the corruption but also being 1/10 the population.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Finland is also about 10 times harder for invader to assault

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And modern weapons would turn that advantance into Finnish victory of unforeseen scale.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Does that allow for NATO members to act on their EU obligations to help defend Finland?

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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?

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >muh NATO
    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.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >That prostitute of a politician
      Absolute state of Finland

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        gonnna vote for her simply because she's sexy

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Frick 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 fricking prostitute. Thank God we have elections in 4 weeks and this bawd gets voted out.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Thank God we have elections in 4 weeks and this bawd 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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/A68CXoc.jpg

              Frick 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 fricking prostitute. Thank God we have elections in 4 weeks and this bawd gets voted out.

              Oh and I forgot to say, I'm going to be voting Kokoomus because I'm a highly educated and make good money. Frick commies

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                kokoomus is a cuck party

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Let me guess, you're voting for PS?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Eh, still better than leftist parties. PS are right about few important things and then pantsu on head moronic about few other important things.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                let's keep the discussion weapons related (christ is my shield)

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Just vote for anyone who doesnt have 'socialist' in their political alignment, its not hard.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              There's no way she isn't re-elected.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Your military is astoundingly small
                First, examine their demographics and other key national statistics

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Your military is astoundingly small

                I wouldn't call it small by European standards and because of how small our population is

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Your military is astoundingly small

                I wouldn't call it small by European standards and because of how small our population is

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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 fricked

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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
            >import nogs
            >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 c**ts

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >with sugar and cardammon on top

              You monster.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Karjalanpiirakka

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Trust me bro my c**ttree 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.
            t. German

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Oh man, that's crazy. Got any sources?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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 prostitute if you're the PM of Finland

              I'm fricking fed up with this stupid b***h and the media building a fricking cult following around her.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                that whole video thing felt fabricated to me

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                As far as AI generated sannas go I give this a 4/10

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                She was dancing with someone, they weren't kissing or anything

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          shes a borderline traitorous c**t. better than Rinne, "Lavrov is my friend" Stubb or the cult nut from Kempele? maybe but the bar is not set high

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Fricking how? Literally the entire establishment since the war has worshipped Russian wiener with her as the sole exception. She's an anti-gun commie but literally the only person to shit on Russia openly since Koivisto

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Any friendship disappeared immediately one year ago

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Any friendship disappeared immediately one year ago
              > sauce: crickets

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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 israelite like Zelensky.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The president is the head of state and the supreme commander of the armed forces and he is a man.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >/k/oper sees perhaps the most competent PM in decades
        >gets mad, 'cause she's a woman
        ngmi

        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

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you know you want her

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >prostitute of a politician

        First, thats an oxymoron.

        Secondly, Finns are the most promiscuous peoples in the world.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >First, thats an oxymoron.
          don't you mean redundancy?
          oxymoron would suggest it's contradictory

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      i wonder if she has an only fans where she sells her used panties

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The geography of the border is totally different. The war would be fought in a different way.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >are defined by electronics and air power
      Russia has none of this so Finland wins automatically?

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You mean if Russia never invaded Ukraine and decided to invade Finland instead?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Russia isn't the USSR

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The forrest Fins would carve vatnik buttholes up like jack-o-lanterns.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So how much Finland
    1. Air defense
    2. Long range rockets
    3. Artillery
    4. Artillery ammunition
    5. Modern tanks, IFVs and AFVs
    6. Aircrafts
    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Artillery
      >he doesn't know

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >No direct NATO involvement
    What about defence pacts outside of NATO?

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      President is the wartime commander of the FDF. Not the PM.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No he's indeed the CIC

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.presidentti.fi/en/presidency/duties/#Commander-in-Chief%20of%20the%20Defence%20Forces

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think we're living in bizarro Finland, because our right wing largely sucks Russian wiener while our lefties cast off the Russian yoke we'd been carrying since 1944.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >our right wing largely sucks Russian wiener

        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 frick lmao those groups have no power or relevance.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I'm talking about the neoliberal cucks, PS is much better about Russia now that Soini fricked off

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Bro Russia can't even conquer the poorest nation in Europe, let alone fricking Finland.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Thread is a bunch of video game morons 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 fricked 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 morons. Try not to let the prostitute in charge of Finland start WW3 for real.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, homo
      Post ur gun

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      "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"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >ackshually we don't want to really win yeah....

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      sneed

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      8/10 bait

      hit all of the right points, but it's a smidge too over the top

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Must be a new guy on the shill farm. Pretty sure you’re paid per post, not per word m800.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    something tells me Biden wont send us billions tho
    brb electing a israelite as president

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Finland will fall in two weeks!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      kek what the frick is it with Russians and two weeks

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Do it, homosexual.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    no, finland has too many neekeri unlike ukraine

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >finland has too many cannon fodder unlike ukraine

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >finland has too many neekeri
      They'll immediately leave the country if a war starts.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 fricked.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    En ota kantaa

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >No direct NATO involvement
    So Russia gets fricked by the entirety of the EU armed forces without any help from the US or UK?

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Finland has more trained troops than Ukraine has currently.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Finland has more trained troops than Ukraine has currently.
        Those are conscripts who did their national service 10 years ago.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          So?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How trained do you think they are?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Better than russians or ukrainians

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No, NATO cannot download Finland t. Pekka from Vaasa oblast

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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'

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >JASSMs
    >JDAMs
    >modern air force
    >navy specializing in defence of the Baltic
    >huge artillery force
    >MLRS and GMLRS
    >K9
    >AMOS
    >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 frick up NATO forces in wargames
    how the frick can you think that they wouldn't throw the russhits out?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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 /k/ a lot:
      regularly frick 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 moron 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.

  45. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    FINLAND BTFO'S RUSSIA/thread
    Also........... Benis

  46. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    When Pootine is dead Finland should reclaim at least Kola peninsula.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      land border with Japan or bust

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That's a lot of snow, ice and pine trees.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        is the destructive legacy of Finno-Corean hyperwars not the reason why hyperborean buffer was allowed to exist in the first place?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Treaty of Thule was a mistake

  47. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Finland would utterly crush ruskies, not even a question. Even if they nuke Helsinki which is something that Fins take into account.

  48. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The question isn't "can Finland resist a Russian invasion". It's "can Finland resist invading Russia"

  49. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >russia chimps out twice
    >not expecting every NATO country to jump in
    OP is a vatnik shill presenting a moronic 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 Black persony would not be contained to Ukraine.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Finland on its own would probably be fine tbphwyf

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  50. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think we can
    And if we can't, we'll frick off inna woods and lakes to continue sissi warfare

  51. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >No direct NATO involvement
    257 post and nobody has mentioned Treaty on European Union Article 42(7). Half the NATO members are affected anyway.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  52. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 moronic 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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Not like Russia has any reason to invade
      Russia does not need a reason to invade

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >i take hollywood movies at face value please rape my face

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >I take videogames at the face value please rape my face

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

  53. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You cannot invade Finland from the east.
    Look at a map. It is straight up not possible.

  54. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Unless Russia fully mobilizes a year in advance, no.

  55. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
  56. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Even a failed invasion on your countries soil is a terrible. Being in an alliance that deters it is still valuable tbh.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  57. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  58. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 moronic.
    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Spurdo from ebin oblast here, berry cool message :-DDDDDDdddd, am spooked

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You're right about the part whereevery European state should acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrence

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That’s a lot of projection typed out in painstaking effort.
      I’m sorry that you’re so hurt, unironically, Anon.

  59. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Lets have a quick look on south eastern Finland. Here is rough location of forces.

  60. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Here is locations of bridges around Lappeenranta

  61. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    And here is Hamina-Virolahti bridges

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *