Miscellaneous News

Lethe

Captain
Second, from the Russian perspective, having Finland join NATO is nothing compared to losing Ukraine.

I disagree; from Russia's perspective having Finland join NATO is a catastrophe, but it is embedded within the larger catastrophe of Moscow's failure in Ukraine. Being powerless to prevent it, the next best thing is to pretend that it is somehow not particularly important.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
First of all, this is the SINO defence forum. People naturally look at things from the Chinese perspective, and from that perspective, Finland joining NATO isn't very newsworthy.

Second, from the Russian perspective, having Finland join NATO is nothing compared to losing Ukraine.
I was curious how Russians would feel about it and have been observing them in Telegram. It's certainly discussed a lot but I think the best analogy is it's similar to how Chinese feel regarding the recent movement towards more pro-US by South Korea under Yoon. It's certainly a negative but they kind of just shrug and say well it has to be factored into future geopolitical calculation.

It's very different from intense emotion that Ukraine/Taiwan elicits.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
I disagree; from Russia's perspective having Finland join NATO is a catastrophe, but it is embedded within the larger catastrophe of Moscow's failure in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian war was unavoidable. However the performance of the Russian military was for sure entirely avoidable and fixable if a certain person was paying attention to see its weaknesses
 

CMP

Captain
Registered Member
Ukraine has tons of Russian speakers and ethnic Russians, so it's a different case compared to Finland.

In contrast, Northern Europe has never been part of Greater Russia. Northern Europeans were always going to be with NATO in general and the US in particular, even if only informally. Now they're just making it official.
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
I disagree; from Russia's perspective having Finland join NATO is a catastrophe, but it is embedded within the larger catastrophe of Moscow's failure in Ukraine. Being powerless to prevent it, the next best thing is to pretend that it is somehow not particularly important.
Finlands accession was a slow-moving train and had mostly happened practically long ago. Starting in 1991, Finland has increased its cooperation with NATO. In 2014, it even allowed the temporary hosting of NATO forces.

It is even more true for "neutral" Sweden. Even during the 1970s Sweden was flying recon missions on the Soviet border and was sharing their findings to the USA.
 

Lethe

Captain
And what is your suggestion? Invade Ukraine in 2014 instead with a much weaker economy? That coup was going to happen no matter what.

I don't know if there were alternate courses of action available that could have better secured Russia's interests at lower cost. But certainly I think that if you are going to make the decision to go to war, you should not half-ass the enterprise as they have done and are still doing. Russia should have at least two million troops in Ukraine right now, rotating from armed forces numbering at least ten million. The only compelling explanation I can see for Moscow's failure to mobilise resources to match their rhetoric is that the current regime in Moscow does not believe that it would survive the attempt, which is to say that they have failed to sell the citizenry on the importance of the enterprise, which is itself suggestive. Moscow is still trying to run this war like one of the west's "wars of convenience", with little impact on the home front. The only works when the power disparities are much greater than the (at best) 4:1 ratio Russia enjoys over Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Top