Worse than NHS, USSR GUM department store. DOD is in truth the Chancery Courts of Dickens.
The difference being… the Chancery Courts knew they were engaged in internal Champerty , Maintenance, internal Barratry.
Chancery knew they were Leeches. DC and DOD largely don’t- they think they are the Paladins of Democracy ™️.
“Our Democracy” ®️
The answer is we must in America clear away a century of bureaucracy. To absolute bedrock, which means even the foundations must be razed.
Of course that’s just an American problem. “The West” ™️ should look after itself now, because we aren’t coming, and whoever wins here is not anything you want near you, or to Draw Its Gaze.
You see, democracy is indeed mobilized here 🇺🇸.
Trump remains just The Usher.
Someone put a bug in his ear 🩸concerning his mortality.
Hearing this, he is the first leader since FDR to raise a Cadre of young and aggressive men and soldiers- some women- to ensure the Legacy of Revolution.
No American Leader since FDR has raised a stable of young Colts and Fillies, few did before.
A good example of same is George Washington.
…and to an extent, Wilson, and FDR finished his work.
It’s very dangerous for a leader to have a strong stable. He does anyway, almost as if he’s really determined the Cause wins.
So are the Stable.
…worst of all, so are we.
The rest of the West would be well warned to get away from America for several decades.
How so. It was 86 years ago, no one is alive on either side from those times, they lost after 3 months and enjoyed 70 years of prosperity through neutrality. Now they made their bed and will have to sleep in it. No one wants to invade Finland - Finns leave it in droves. It’s time to realize it’s 2024 and world moved on.
I think you miss the point. Jaakkola wasn't asking for help, rather warning others that they should be as prepared as Finland is to face Russian aggression.
Finns were able to survive with their own independence, something that much of Eastern Europe was unable to do. They did that by becoming a porcupine- meaning that although the Bear could eat them, it would not want to. Finland maintained 100% male conscription and mandatory reserve service until age 50- focused solely on defending against Russia. Meanwhile, Europe and the USA took a peace dividend and shifted their armed forces from fighting a major war to more limited engagements far from home.
Too many in the West don't take the Russian threat seriously. Jaakkola (and Cavoli, also mentioned in my article) provide a different perspective.
Respectfully, you’re repeating a pleasant national mythology. Finns were crushed in 3 months, surrendered, accepted the offer that existed before the war - exchanging territories around then Leningrad and leasing Hanko. They then sided with Nazis, helped to starve about a million in Leningrad, were smashed again and exited the war. They conceded Porkkala region for 50 years (but it was returned in 1956 - why? for what reason the aggressive Soviet Union so hungry for territory returned it early?), Finland agreed to limit its armed forces (no submarines, for example) but most importantly, it declared its neutrality. They could have maintained 500% conscription readiness - what a wet dream! - the result would have been the same. They profited immensely from neutral stance which was beneficial for both sides.
Now they decided to sleep with dogs, have fleas and need to start painting the picture of imminent aggression to get money from EU.
I don't think you have all of the facts here- and I question some that you state.
The Soviet Union had been trying for some time to place a Communist government in Helsinki. They failed during Finland's Civil War, in which the Whites defeated the Reds. According to many sources, this was also a goal of the Soviet invasion of Finland.
Regardless, the fight was a mismatch. The Soviets should have won quickly. Indeed, many historians credit Finland's performance (or more accurately, the poor Russian performance) for Germany's later invasion of the USSR.
Despite the overwhelming difference in military forces- initially about 450,000 Soviet soldiers, with one million committed before the end- Finland was able to survive as a sovereign nation.
Yes, they ceded land. Other nations- like the Baltics and Poland- did not fare as well, losing their independence either at the hand of earlier Soviet-induced 'revolutions' or to a joint USSR-German invasion in the case of Poland.
The continuation war changed nothing in the end, except pissing off the allies for cooperating with the Germans. And in the end, resulting in more destruction of Finland as they had to forcibly remove Germans from Lapland. And the final treaty kept Finland from having any 'offensive' military capabilities.
The terms of the Russia-Finland peace agreement were later added to the Paris Peace treaties. The territorial changes were then 'approved' by the allies. With no friends to the West, Finland had little choice but to choose neutrality.
Despite the limits regarding weapons, Finland maintained readiness to repulse an invasion. Although in the exercises, the enemy always came from the West because of the sensitivity of the 'dear neighbor.'
Today, Finland has one of the most capable citizen armies in the world. They're not asking Europe for help. Rather telling other Europeans to wake up and get ready. The Russians are coming out of the Ukraine War with larger, more capable forces.
That’s fine. If you cannot see the reality behind the narrative, I cannot help you with that. You just restated my points - that USSR crushed Finland in 3 months, it could have taken it after the war - but chose not to. Neutrality was enjoyed by both sides but Finland chose to break agreements of Paris Accord. Now it’s in their interest to play up “the threat of Russian aggression”. Oldest game in the book.
For which year? Finland is spending 2.4% in FY 2024, 7th overall. Spent 2.1% in 2023, and continues to be one of the few NATO nations to exceed the 20% target for equipment spending (45% of the budget).
Before 2022 spending was below 2%. This was for a couple of reasons- they need a few lean years to support the larger procurement projects that were coming up (64 F-35s, 4 new warships). And Finland, of course, was not yet in NATO. Their manpower costs are lower than many others because of the reliance on a citizen soldiers. When you only have 5.5 million people, the bulk of your fighting forces need to be reservists in order to have a force of the required size.
Sure, and during the quarter century prior to the years you cite, their defense spending was 1.3%. That wasn’t due to a planned purchase of new jets. Finland, though not a member of NATO during that time frame, was like the rest of Europe; preferring to spend on social welfare programs and let America shoulder the defense duties. Now, Finland and the rest of Europe are like Florida homeowners trying to get an insurance policy two days before a hurricane hits.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, because if anyone know the Russians, it’s the Finns. But this is a hole that Europe has dug for themselves.
To some degree, yes. The Finns suffered from declining budgets like everyone else. But, they didn't make the mistake that NATO did during the same time frame. By this I mean the shift to supporting capabilities designed for expeditionary operations.
With the exception of some small peacekeeping operations, Finland keeps defense at home. Knowing that they can never rely on allies to show up in a timeframe that matters, they kept up the structure of comprehensive defense throughout. But when their only threat- Russia- was becoming less of a threat, politicians found room to cut as Finland strove to keep a relatively balanced budget. The Russian invasion of Crimea came during a five-year 'efficiency' period where the total defense budget was in decline. Yet Finland still has 1 million military aged men (out of a total population of 5.5 million) with military training, and equipment (some old) ready to defend the land.
There are also some accounting differences. I believe they try and account for them now, but they may not have in older days. For example, peacekeeping ops were in the Foreign Affairs budget, not the Defense Budget. And military retirements and medical care are not in the Defense Budget at all, as they are paid for out of the broader welfare state (and they are quite modest.)
Neither really is advanced training. Since they are a 100% male conscript and reserve model, whatever skills you learn in the civilian world are then used by the Defense Forces. So much here is dual use, too. Especially in the logistics sector.
Have a look at PPBE and tell us what…
… how? 6 years to get a penny paid for contracts.
Planning, Procurement, Budgeting, Execution.
https://acquisitiontalk.com/
The worst bureaucracy in history.
Worse than NHS, USSR GUM department store. DOD is in truth the Chancery Courts of Dickens.
The difference being… the Chancery Courts knew they were engaged in internal Champerty , Maintenance, internal Barratry.
Chancery knew they were Leeches. DC and DOD largely don’t- they think they are the Paladins of Democracy ™️.
“Our Democracy” ®️
The answer is we must in America clear away a century of bureaucracy. To absolute bedrock, which means even the foundations must be razed.
Of course that’s just an American problem. “The West” ™️ should look after itself now, because we aren’t coming, and whoever wins here is not anything you want near you, or to Draw Its Gaze.
You see, democracy is indeed mobilized here 🇺🇸.
Trump remains just The Usher.
Someone put a bug in his ear 🩸concerning his mortality.
Hearing this, he is the first leader since FDR to raise a Cadre of young and aggressive men and soldiers- some women- to ensure the Legacy of Revolution.
No American Leader since FDR has raised a stable of young Colts and Fillies, few did before.
A good example of same is George Washington.
…and to an extent, Wilson, and FDR finished his work.
It’s very dangerous for a leader to have a strong stable. He does anyway, almost as if he’s really determined the Cause wins.
So are the Stable.
…worst of all, so are we.
The rest of the West would be well warned to get away from America for several decades.
Good luck.
The Finns know full well what fighting the Russians look like and are worth listening to.
https://open.substack.com/pub/mercenarydiplomat/p/when-finland-had-an-autocrat?r=2bjurm&utm_medium=ios
Just stumbled upon this long read on post-war Finland you might find interesting.
How so. It was 86 years ago, no one is alive on either side from those times, they lost after 3 months and enjoyed 70 years of prosperity through neutrality. Now they made their bed and will have to sleep in it. No one wants to invade Finland - Finns leave it in droves. It’s time to realize it’s 2024 and world moved on.
I think you miss the point. Jaakkola wasn't asking for help, rather warning others that they should be as prepared as Finland is to face Russian aggression.
Finns were able to survive with their own independence, something that much of Eastern Europe was unable to do. They did that by becoming a porcupine- meaning that although the Bear could eat them, it would not want to. Finland maintained 100% male conscription and mandatory reserve service until age 50- focused solely on defending against Russia. Meanwhile, Europe and the USA took a peace dividend and shifted their armed forces from fighting a major war to more limited engagements far from home.
Too many in the West don't take the Russian threat seriously. Jaakkola (and Cavoli, also mentioned in my article) provide a different perspective.
Respectfully, you’re repeating a pleasant national mythology. Finns were crushed in 3 months, surrendered, accepted the offer that existed before the war - exchanging territories around then Leningrad and leasing Hanko. They then sided with Nazis, helped to starve about a million in Leningrad, were smashed again and exited the war. They conceded Porkkala region for 50 years (but it was returned in 1956 - why? for what reason the aggressive Soviet Union so hungry for territory returned it early?), Finland agreed to limit its armed forces (no submarines, for example) but most importantly, it declared its neutrality. They could have maintained 500% conscription readiness - what a wet dream! - the result would have been the same. They profited immensely from neutral stance which was beneficial for both sides.
Now they decided to sleep with dogs, have fleas and need to start painting the picture of imminent aggression to get money from EU.
I don't think you have all of the facts here- and I question some that you state.
The Soviet Union had been trying for some time to place a Communist government in Helsinki. They failed during Finland's Civil War, in which the Whites defeated the Reds. According to many sources, this was also a goal of the Soviet invasion of Finland.
Regardless, the fight was a mismatch. The Soviets should have won quickly. Indeed, many historians credit Finland's performance (or more accurately, the poor Russian performance) for Germany's later invasion of the USSR.
Despite the overwhelming difference in military forces- initially about 450,000 Soviet soldiers, with one million committed before the end- Finland was able to survive as a sovereign nation.
Yes, they ceded land. Other nations- like the Baltics and Poland- did not fare as well, losing their independence either at the hand of earlier Soviet-induced 'revolutions' or to a joint USSR-German invasion in the case of Poland.
The continuation war changed nothing in the end, except pissing off the allies for cooperating with the Germans. And in the end, resulting in more destruction of Finland as they had to forcibly remove Germans from Lapland. And the final treaty kept Finland from having any 'offensive' military capabilities.
The terms of the Russia-Finland peace agreement were later added to the Paris Peace treaties. The territorial changes were then 'approved' by the allies. With no friends to the West, Finland had little choice but to choose neutrality.
Despite the limits regarding weapons, Finland maintained readiness to repulse an invasion. Although in the exercises, the enemy always came from the West because of the sensitivity of the 'dear neighbor.'
Today, Finland has one of the most capable citizen armies in the world. They're not asking Europe for help. Rather telling other Europeans to wake up and get ready. The Russians are coming out of the Ukraine War with larger, more capable forces.
Sorry, I just don't understand your point.
That’s fine. If you cannot see the reality behind the narrative, I cannot help you with that. You just restated my points - that USSR crushed Finland in 3 months, it could have taken it after the war - but chose not to. Neutrality was enjoyed by both sides but Finland chose to break agreements of Paris Accord. Now it’s in their interest to play up “the threat of Russian aggression”. Oldest game in the book.
As long as the US and its European lackeys continue with their plans of regime change and balkanisation of russia things will escalate.
I would take him seriously if Finland had been spending more than 1.5% of it’s GDP on defense.
For which year? Finland is spending 2.4% in FY 2024, 7th overall. Spent 2.1% in 2023, and continues to be one of the few NATO nations to exceed the 20% target for equipment spending (45% of the budget).
Before 2022 spending was below 2%. This was for a couple of reasons- they need a few lean years to support the larger procurement projects that were coming up (64 F-35s, 4 new warships). And Finland, of course, was not yet in NATO. Their manpower costs are lower than many others because of the reliance on a citizen soldiers. When you only have 5.5 million people, the bulk of your fighting forces need to be reservists in order to have a force of the required size.
Sure, and during the quarter century prior to the years you cite, their defense spending was 1.3%. That wasn’t due to a planned purchase of new jets. Finland, though not a member of NATO during that time frame, was like the rest of Europe; preferring to spend on social welfare programs and let America shoulder the defense duties. Now, Finland and the rest of Europe are like Florida homeowners trying to get an insurance policy two days before a hurricane hits.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, because if anyone know the Russians, it’s the Finns. But this is a hole that Europe has dug for themselves.
To some degree, yes. The Finns suffered from declining budgets like everyone else. But, they didn't make the mistake that NATO did during the same time frame. By this I mean the shift to supporting capabilities designed for expeditionary operations.
With the exception of some small peacekeeping operations, Finland keeps defense at home. Knowing that they can never rely on allies to show up in a timeframe that matters, they kept up the structure of comprehensive defense throughout. But when their only threat- Russia- was becoming less of a threat, politicians found room to cut as Finland strove to keep a relatively balanced budget. The Russian invasion of Crimea came during a five-year 'efficiency' period where the total defense budget was in decline. Yet Finland still has 1 million military aged men (out of a total population of 5.5 million) with military training, and equipment (some old) ready to defend the land.
There are also some accounting differences. I believe they try and account for them now, but they may not have in older days. For example, peacekeeping ops were in the Foreign Affairs budget, not the Defense Budget. And military retirements and medical care are not in the Defense Budget at all, as they are paid for out of the broader welfare state (and they are quite modest.)
Neither really is advanced training. Since they are a 100% male conscript and reserve model, whatever skills you learn in the civilian world are then used by the Defense Forces. So much here is dual use, too. Especially in the logistics sector.