The legacy of death and destruction of the USSR is very real for these places. Don't forget the jew media hid that side of WW2 (and still actively does). So while we may cheer on Russia now, the reality these people lived through is still real. Also bear in mind the USSR didn't collapse until the 1990s which means many of the people alive under it are still alive today.
Just guessing here but it might also have something to do with the neighbour to their south that was invaded by Russia last year which NATO was created to defend against.
Small Arms did a number on the US (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) and the Fins used small arms to tear up the Soviets. When you have highly defensible terrain and firearms, there is little an invading force can do to take the land.
The Soviet plan for Afghanistan was to take the children away and turn them into communists. They could not get a majority of the children and they failed and failed hard.
Finland is slated to join NATO so they will also get a nuclear umbrella, they aren't going to get invaded.
I'm going off history when a much larger and better equipped Soviet Union Army went after Finland and the the Russians were turned into frozen corpses.
The Russian Army today has had their equipment degraded due to war and sanctions. They are having to use T55's essentially as direct fire gun platforms not tanks due to age to use their ammo due to their own ammo shortages. Meanwhile,
Finland has free access to buy arms. We've already seen what a determined opponent could do to Russians with flat open and indefensible terrain, now see what happens with the Fins that have highly defensible terrain.
During the Winter War, the Fins had 340K troops vs Russian 760K troops. Final results 26K dead Fins to 168K dead Russians. For every dead Fin, the Russians lost 6.5.
Tactically Russia is clownshoes. They can't fight, they are bloody incompetent. You can watch ambush after ambush of a Russian armored convoy and they get devastated. They don't dispatch their mounted infantry and have them aggress the ambushers. They sit there and lose a fair bit before they can get out of the kill zone. Herringbone anyone? Their logistics was non-existent and their graft for military spending is believed to be 66% going to graft which is why Russia fell on their face. Ukraine has a much higher kill rate to loss than they should and its due again to Russian incompetence. They have no NCO core and they lack the ability to operate a modern combined combat arms combat force. They are having to rely on artillery strikes to slowly move up, meaning whatever land they capture, it's going to have little strategic value after being leveled.
No, the Russians aren't the end all be all. They are down now to using T55's as mobile gun batteries to launch 1940's era HE shell's down range.
Now, give Russia 5 to 10 years to rebuild after the graft has been uprooted preferably by public executions and for them to adopt Western tactics and drop Warsaw pact they might be able to do something.
Remember Iraq, they were a solid warsaw pact nation for tactics and they were destroyed. You can look at Israel US doctrine vs arabs Warsaw pact doctrine and time after time they got wiped the fuck out.
Finland has only very tiny & pathetically weak military and indefensible territory
Funny, people were saying similar things about Ukraine before it handed Russia its ass. What's sad is that Finland already did that and yet Russia bootlickers like you still delude yourselves. Pathetic.
The legacy of death and destruction of the USSR is very real for these places. Don't forget the jew media hid that side of WW2 (and still actively does). So while we may cheer on Russia now, the reality these people lived through is still real. Also bear in mind the USSR didn't collapse until the 1990s which means many of the people alive under it are still alive today.
Okay but so what? They bring nothing to the table.
If it was just fear of Russia I would be whole for NATO expanding. But this is clearly not just an old toothless lion roaring again.
Just guessing here but it might also have something to do with the neighbour to their south that was invaded by Russia last year which NATO was created to defend against.
Uh, sure, you could use any excuse. Doesn't change their economy is falling apart and they're in no position to defend themselves.
Their land is heavily wooded and they fought the Soviets to a negotiated peace. Their land is defensible.
If they had the weapons in the army to stand against an invasion. But that costs money.
Small Arms did a number on the US (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) and the Fins used small arms to tear up the Soviets. When you have highly defensible terrain and firearms, there is little an invading force can do to take the land.
The Soviet plan for Afghanistan was to take the children away and turn them into communists. They could not get a majority of the children and they failed and failed hard.
Finland is slated to join NATO so they will also get a nuclear umbrella, they aren't going to get invaded.
I'm going off history when a much larger and better equipped Soviet Union Army went after Finland and the the Russians were turned into frozen corpses.
The Russian Army today has had their equipment degraded due to war and sanctions. They are having to use T55's essentially as direct fire gun platforms not tanks due to age to use their ammo due to their own ammo shortages. Meanwhile,
Finland has free access to buy arms. We've already seen what a determined opponent could do to Russians with flat open and indefensible terrain, now see what happens with the Fins that have highly defensible terrain.
During the Winter War, the Fins had 340K troops vs Russian 760K troops. Final results 26K dead Fins to 168K dead Russians. For every dead Fin, the Russians lost 6.5.
Tactically Russia is clownshoes. They can't fight, they are bloody incompetent. You can watch ambush after ambush of a Russian armored convoy and they get devastated. They don't dispatch their mounted infantry and have them aggress the ambushers. They sit there and lose a fair bit before they can get out of the kill zone. Herringbone anyone? Their logistics was non-existent and their graft for military spending is believed to be 66% going to graft which is why Russia fell on their face. Ukraine has a much higher kill rate to loss than they should and its due again to Russian incompetence. They have no NCO core and they lack the ability to operate a modern combined combat arms combat force. They are having to rely on artillery strikes to slowly move up, meaning whatever land they capture, it's going to have little strategic value after being leveled.
No, the Russians aren't the end all be all. They are down now to using T55's as mobile gun batteries to launch 1940's era HE shell's down range.
Now, give Russia 5 to 10 years to rebuild after the graft has been uprooted preferably by public executions and for them to adopt Western tactics and drop Warsaw pact they might be able to do something.
Remember Iraq, they were a solid warsaw pact nation for tactics and they were destroyed. You can look at Israel US doctrine vs arabs Warsaw pact doctrine and time after time they got wiped the fuck out.
Funny, people were saying similar things about Ukraine before it handed Russia its ass. What's sad is that Finland already did that and yet Russia bootlickers like you still delude yourselves. Pathetic.
A neighbour to their south? You mean the Baltic Sea?
Words, how do they work?!