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.
What was one of the primary reasons for the Ukraine war, wasn't it NATO's intended expansion?
So then why didn't the Finns learn something from that, and Not join NATO???
I'm really sick and tired of listening to the "Russian Aggression" Fucking Bullshit always spewed by Liars and Warmongers.
The Russians have been warning the US led NATO alliance since 2008, about NATO expansion, which IS the Aggressive Action, but the Stupid Fuckers didn't listen and kept pushing the boundaries, thinking they would just overrun Russia, and the Russians couldn't do anything about it.
Well surprise, surprise, the Russians gave NATO fourteen years worth of rope, and NATO and Europe Hung Itself.
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.
Let's remove the conflated bullshit from the equation.
Lets also remember that all of the Balkan Chihuahua's, the Ukraine and eleven other now independent states were all part of the Soviet Union who fought the Finns.
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.
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.
The true losers of declining military budgets are American MIC companies - GD, Raytheon, Lockheed, etc. Anytime you hear that Europe must increase its spending think of how it should be spent.
Classic delusion of self-importance, so tipical for almost every US public voice. Begs the question - do you know anything about Finnish topography? At all…?!
Finish-Russian border is predominantly very well fortified with natural obstacles that prevents Russia's biggest advantage - it is very VERY difficult to mount swift incursion with massive armour over rugged hills and mountains whose foothills are drenched in marshlands. Finish coastline is almost as rugged as Norvegian so there goes the second Russian strategic initiative - maritime attack with eventual ground invasion. Finland is fine the way it is and no other country, especially the US has ever needed to arm Finland. Yet still, you did. By force, imposing NATO standards and strong-arming member states to purchase US manufactured weapons - very 'leaderly' of the US btw. What this man has tried to warn Europe is - you've pushed it too far so any attempt to rectify and de-escalate will be difficult. But, it has to be done - time to man up and own your mistakes. Or not - the choice is solely yours.
Would be a wet dream to have a border topography as rugged as Norwegian here in Finland. Rugged hills and mountains... have you ever been to Finland or even looked at a map of Finland?
Thanks for responding. Yes, I do know what the topography is like. If you didn't catch it, I live in Finland. I've been to the Finnish-Russian border several times. It doesn't look at all as you seem to describe it. I'd attach some pictures that I took, but replies here don't seem to allow it.
Up until last year, most of it was only marked with blue-and-white posts. Not even a fence on the Finnish side (although the Russian side is more fortified, with a large exclusion zone- to keep people from leaving Russia). The ground in the North is mostly, but not exclusively, forested. The forests taper off the further North you get.
Finland doesn't have mountains- at most some high fells, but they are located in the Northwest. It can get marshy, but the ground in the South often stays frozen well into spring. And I've watched Finnish tanks run through the mud on more than one occasion as part of military exercises near the eastern border.
Finland's main water feature is its archipelago- not necessarily its coastline. It can be hard to operate in the shallow, rocky waters that run through the Islands. But this arcipelago really only gets going to the West of Helsinki. Which is why there is a large fort off of Helsinki. Still, the Brits managed to sail up into the Gulf of Bothnia and shell some coastal forts during the Crimean War.
We don't give Finland anything- they buy what they want. And they buy the best. The F-35 won a public competition with the Saab Grippen and Eurofighter. The Finns also buy from Korea, Israel, Norway, and Sweden.
I'm confused as to your point. And I don't mind discussion, but there's not reason to be rude.
Good effort, but the general’s work to me sounds like just a lot of words… “we must this must that…they this they that…” “blah blah…” reminds me of “pork brigades” that made ex yu army an impotent force.
I mean I kind of understand. A general of Finnish army… how else to stay on top but to write A LOT of words. Useless.
(Not a critique of the author of this Substack, only the what’s-his-name general)
The only ones not taking Russia seriously is trump!! But then again he’s friends with our sworn enemy and is handing the USA on a silver platter to the Russian president Putin.and our congress judicial and military are doing nothing! People are rising up and protesting a few democrats are holding rallies in red states. It’s a start but we need to move in and remove the traitors before there isn’t a democracy left to save.
Any nation or assets involved in active warfare is to be taken seriously. No matter the outcome, any machine at war will improve and iterate to a point where most, if not all, excess fat is trimmed and the underlying military technology is developed up to speed to modern and future day warfare.
As long as the US and its European lackeys continue with their plans of regime change and balkanisation of russia things will escalate.
The Finns know full well what fighting the Russians look like and are worth listening to.
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.
What was one of the primary reasons for the Ukraine war, wasn't it NATO's intended expansion?
So then why didn't the Finns learn something from that, and Not join NATO???
I'm really sick and tired of listening to the "Russian Aggression" Fucking Bullshit always spewed by Liars and Warmongers.
The Russians have been warning the US led NATO alliance since 2008, about NATO expansion, which IS the Aggressive Action, but the Stupid Fuckers didn't listen and kept pushing the boundaries, thinking they would just overrun Russia, and the Russians couldn't do anything about it.
Well surprise, surprise, the Russians gave NATO fourteen years worth of rope, and NATO and Europe Hung Itself.
If the Finns can survive on their own, why did they join NATO???
The Bear, is still not interested in eating porcupine. This is a schilling quisling for NATO.
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.
Russians or Soviets???
Let's remove the conflated bullshit from the equation.
Lets also remember that all of the Balkan Chihuahua's, the Ukraine and eleven other now independent states were all part of the Soviet Union who fought the Finns.
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.
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.
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.
The true losers of declining military budgets are American MIC companies - GD, Raytheon, Lockheed, etc. Anytime you hear that Europe must increase its spending think of how it should be spent.
Classic delusion of self-importance, so tipical for almost every US public voice. Begs the question - do you know anything about Finnish topography? At all…?!
Finish-Russian border is predominantly very well fortified with natural obstacles that prevents Russia's biggest advantage - it is very VERY difficult to mount swift incursion with massive armour over rugged hills and mountains whose foothills are drenched in marshlands. Finish coastline is almost as rugged as Norvegian so there goes the second Russian strategic initiative - maritime attack with eventual ground invasion. Finland is fine the way it is and no other country, especially the US has ever needed to arm Finland. Yet still, you did. By force, imposing NATO standards and strong-arming member states to purchase US manufactured weapons - very 'leaderly' of the US btw. What this man has tried to warn Europe is - you've pushed it too far so any attempt to rectify and de-escalate will be difficult. But, it has to be done - time to man up and own your mistakes. Or not - the choice is solely yours.
Would be a wet dream to have a border topography as rugged as Norwegian here in Finland. Rugged hills and mountains... have you ever been to Finland or even looked at a map of Finland?
Thanks for responding. Yes, I do know what the topography is like. If you didn't catch it, I live in Finland. I've been to the Finnish-Russian border several times. It doesn't look at all as you seem to describe it. I'd attach some pictures that I took, but replies here don't seem to allow it.
Up until last year, most of it was only marked with blue-and-white posts. Not even a fence on the Finnish side (although the Russian side is more fortified, with a large exclusion zone- to keep people from leaving Russia). The ground in the North is mostly, but not exclusively, forested. The forests taper off the further North you get.
Finland doesn't have mountains- at most some high fells, but they are located in the Northwest. It can get marshy, but the ground in the South often stays frozen well into spring. And I've watched Finnish tanks run through the mud on more than one occasion as part of military exercises near the eastern border.
Finland's main water feature is its archipelago- not necessarily its coastline. It can be hard to operate in the shallow, rocky waters that run through the Islands. But this arcipelago really only gets going to the West of Helsinki. Which is why there is a large fort off of Helsinki. Still, the Brits managed to sail up into the Gulf of Bothnia and shell some coastal forts during the Crimean War.
We don't give Finland anything- they buy what they want. And they buy the best. The F-35 won a public competition with the Saab Grippen and Eurofighter. The Finns also buy from Korea, Israel, Norway, and Sweden.
I'm confused as to your point. And I don't mind discussion, but there's not reason to be rude.
Good effort, but the general’s work to me sounds like just a lot of words… “we must this must that…they this they that…” “blah blah…” reminds me of “pork brigades” that made ex yu army an impotent force.
I mean I kind of understand. A general of Finnish army… how else to stay on top but to write A LOT of words. Useless.
(Not a critique of the author of this Substack, only the what’s-his-name general)
The only ones not taking Russia seriously is trump!! But then again he’s friends with our sworn enemy and is handing the USA on a silver platter to the Russian president Putin.and our congress judicial and military are doing nothing! People are rising up and protesting a few democrats are holding rallies in red states. It’s a start but we need to move in and remove the traitors before there isn’t a democracy left to save.
He takes it by the cheek from morning to evening.
Any nation or assets involved in active warfare is to be taken seriously. No matter the outcome, any machine at war will improve and iterate to a point where most, if not all, excess fat is trimmed and the underlying military technology is developed up to speed to modern and future day warfare.
Another NATO puppet carrying the official NATO narrative and excuse for NATO's existence, and continued expansion.
Right now the Finns pose a threat to Russia having NATO weapons on Russia's doorstep.
It's such a pity that None of these Morons listened to Russia when the Russians said NO NATO!!!