I’m pretty sure that sometime in the last 80 years, Finland has gotten totally over Russia’s shit. There hasn’t been a new, interesting, or particularly shocking threat to the Finns since the days of Mannerheim and Molotov.
Trying to find some parallels, to see if the ratio seems reasonable, brings me to this page:
Pre-WWI wars are probably fought too differently to tell us much. Afghanistan probably doesn’t count because, for most of the time that we were there, we were mostly just acting like a policing force not an invading force. I suspect that Iraq is the same.
Looking at what remains, the ratio from deaths to wounded seems to be pretty steady around 2.8ish. So if there have been 26,000 deaths, we would expect about 72,800 wounded. The given number of 79,000 is close enough to that to seem plausible. So the question would purely come down to the original number of deaths.
That number isn’t implausible: Russia invades Ukraine {2022-02-24} (Part 1) - #2933 by Sage_Rat
We are doing nowhere near enough for Ukraine to get the decisive victory it needs, per this DefenseOne article.
IMHO the implausible part is the 99% loss rate for tanks and armored vehicles. If Russia was really running that low, they would probably doing even worse than they already are.
That article seems to use a definition of victory that isn’t realistic. The writer of that article mentions Ukraine invading Russia. That’s a whole different ballgame than pushing Russia out of Ukraine, and probably not something we should be working towards, other than the limited role of preventing Russia from launching direct attacks across the border. Negotiating from a position of strength means Ukrainian forces occupying all of the Donbas region and maybe Crimea. Not Ukrainian forces being capable of sending an expeditionary force to lay siege to Moscow.
Google Vsevolod Bobrov. There’s several sources. Still waiting for any photos.
Towed back to port.
I fail to see any support for your apparent belief that Ukraine would say, “Our actions are tied to Russian actions, and therefore if they stop fighting we must stop fighting as well.”
Everything that I see in the news, especially from the last couple weeks, indicates that that author is an idiot. Does he want us to completely denude ourselves of advanced weaponry?
Not owning again, but at least having it align with Russia so they can be sure nobody will come at them from that direction. As mentioned in the thread, Putin is no longer satisfied with neighbors being “Finlandized”. He wants them picking sides and now has proven he is willing to “make you pay” for not taking his.
What’s he going to do, send his mighty army to attack Finland?
I was referring to support for the war within Ukraine. All the death and destruction stops if Russia withdraws and declares victory. A Ukrainian counter offensive would be met with a new round of missiles on Ukraine’s cities. Popular support for continuing the war might drop.
It’s a decision Ukraine will face whenever Putin decides to pause operations. It’s very frustrating that Russia started this war and I think it’ll end on their terms.
Do US soldiers ever have this choice?
This will change if Putin declares the conflict a war. ‘They were furious’: the Russian soldiers refusing to fight in Ukraine | Russia | The Guardian
I’m not aware of any signs that Finland has been anything but a West-aligned, successful, democratic state on Russia’s border. Nor am I aware of any movement away from that, nor does it seem like Russia has been working against it, nor felt like it was worth trying, nor likely to try anytime under Putin’s watch.
The whole country hates Russia and reveres their Russia-killing snipers of yesteryear. Up until they joined NATO, there was a non-zero chance that they would have used the current situation to claim some land.
Finland has them outgunned.
Speaking as a Finn, I don’t think there’s any serious discussion on government/military level or even on populace level of us “claiming some land” except maybe at the very fringes. Even the idea of a peaceful return of territories lost in WW2 often have had >50% of the polls in opposition. You might see some Russian propaganda claiming that Finland might threaten to attack them, but they have very little basis in reality.
Finlandization largely ended in Finland after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the last 32 years after the Cold War as Finland has leaned heavily into the West. There were probably some traces left of finlandization even up to this year, but I think those are largely gone after 24th of February. You could mainly see it in how some politicians talked about Russia before, and how they are talking more openly now.
Finland’s relationship of Russia has been an odd mix of appeasement during the cold war, trying to build real friendship and trade relations (in hindsight too optimistically), and at the same time building a strong military to make any potential invasion too costly and difficult compared to the benefits. When I did my mandatory military training, it was always obvious but never directly said that we were training to fight off an invasion from Russia. “Unknown enemy attacks from the East,” unless they’ve made a flanking maneuver and are attacking from the West instead.
Thank you for your insight. Is it your general feeling that the Russian objections about Finland joining NATO are bluster? Or is there real concern?
I think our president said it well that Russia should look in the mirror to see why Finland wants to join NATO. Support for joining NATO was 20% for / 50% against last year, and 76% for / 12% against last week. I don’t think Russia’s objections are genuine, and I don’t think there’s any real concern from Russia about NATO attacking Russia. I think Russia is concerned about NATO limiting Russia’s ability to exert power over it’s neighbors. Finland’s decision is more about our own security as a nation
I think there is very real concern among the Finns about Russia as a nation, though. The general feel I get is that we tried to make genuine attempts at building friendly relations with Russia in the hope they might eventually become a better and more free nation, but that they’ve showed their true colors. Our Southern neighbors in Estonia seemed to have a more realistic view of Russia.
Memes about Finnish snipers aside, we are still a nation of 5 million people with a neighbor with 29 times the population. From my understanding our defense strategy has largely been focused on deterring invasion by making us a target that’s too difficult and costly to invade. We now realize we have a neighbor who might invade even if it is not to their benefit. There’s also been talk in the media in past years that the Foundations of Geopolitics - Wikipedia has been used in Russia’s general staff training and may have influenced Putin. It calls for the annexation of Ukraine and Finland among other things that Russia has already been doing.
There’s also some national trauma over having been left largely alone in the Winter War to defend against Russia. We received a significant number of volunteers from some countries (mainly Sweden) but very little official military support otherwise. People wonder what level of support we would have if we were in the same situation as Ukraine.
Something that is often left unsaid when celebrating the war heroics of Ukraine now or Finns in the Winter War is the terrible cost of war to the population. Even though Ukraine may be hurting the Russian army more than the Russians are hurting them, it’s still largely the Ukraine cities that are getting bombed to ruins, and Ukrainian civilians that are the target of war crimes. I sometimes hear non-Finns on the internet say that we Finns would kick Russia’s asses if they attacked. I’m sure we would do that too, but the cost to us would be enormous as it is to Ukraine. We are a peace loving nation, and we would like to stay that way.
This pretty much sums the situation up as well as anything could. A Russia that is acting rationally would not invade Finland, because it is not in their best interest, A Russia that isn’t acting rationally, though…
But that leads to another, more troublesome issue. The point of having NATO is to change Russia’s calculus based on the assumption they are rational. The idea is that if all these rich countries, three of whom have nuclear weapons, collectively say “we are going psycho if you attack even one of us,” it will be in Russia’s rational self interest to not attack. But if Russia is irrational, doesn’t that mean the threat of NATO going to war may not dissuade them?
Nail on the head
Thank you. Actually I came from there to here. The article you cited does not meet my need.
(Somehow I feel a need to cite the punchline to a forgotten joke, “Hey Sarge, how many human waves in a horde?”)
Well, there’s irrational and then there’s irrational.
The invasion of Ukraine sure looks irrational from the outside, but if you swallow a bunch of Russian propaganda and squint a little it is perhaps not entirely unreasonable. If the Russian Army really were as powerful as Russia said it was, if Ukraine really was full of nazis, if many Ukrainian civilians really would have preferred to live under Russian rule, etc. And if the West really is weak and indecisive as shown by the lack of response to the annexation of Crimea in 2014? Perhaps the calculus of invading Ukraine is not so horrible after all.
One of the pitfalls of authoritarian dictators is that they start believing their own press.
But it’s a little more difficult, believing your own propaganda or not, to come to the conclusion that a significant chance of large-scale nuclear exchange is to your own benefit.