quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
None of this is going to end well...

For Putin, namely.

^^^How so...What's our next step?

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^How so...What's our next step?

Bring Sweden and the rest on board.

^^^OK, then what? You indicate this won't end well 'for Putin' specifically. That would seem to indicate you've got something in mind...

I get what’s in it for Finland but what’s in it for us taking on another 832 mile border?

quote:

“There will be no NATO troops in Finland without the consent of Finland,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels a few hours before the country joins.

That consent better resemble a rubber stamp.

^^ We don't take on an 832 mile border. We help the Finns do it, as they're already doing it.

Which, incidentally, gives Putin a longer border to defend and reduces Putin's ability to intimidate Finland (and the rest of Europe) into quietly going along with whatever Putin wants. That, in turn, visibly weakens Russia's ability to dominate Europe, which weakens Putin's ability to dominate other political players in Russia, which (in turn) reduces Putin's domestic political support and any incentives he has to invade - or sustain invasions of - foreign countries.

Why would this necessarily weaken Putin? Putin's claim to authority in Russia is that he makes Russia strong on the international scene. Finland's accession to NATO is driven by Putin's aggression elsewhere and in the face of direct Russian threats against Finland should it join NATO. This reveals Putin to be weak since there's nothing he can do to prevent Finland joining NATO or to punish Finland for joining NATO, and shows other countries that there's only so much to be feared when Putin makes threats which means that Putin doesn't have to be accommodated just because he makes threats. The way "strong man" politics works, if Putin becomes weaker in perception then he becomes weaker in fact.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^OK, then what? You indicate this won't end well 'for Putin' specifically. That would seem to indicate you've got something in mind...

For one, it would deter Russia from potential further aggressions to neighboring countries, remember the reason Putin felt so confident about invading Ukraine is because in 2014 we literally let him do it without consequences. That negative reinforcement lead to where we are today. The smart thing to do is to keep the war between Russia and Ukraine and not let it spread. Finland joining NATO HELPS with that.

On the other hand, Russia has since exposed itself to be incapable monetarily and militarily. It would be dumb to give them any breathing room and opportunity to rebuild/strategize. This is a rare opportunity where the U.S. and the majority of EU and other western nations are united and on the same page.

This ultimately sends a message to China (our actual geopolitical opponent here) whom touts the idea of invading Taiwan on a daily basis. That is the real threat posed to the U.S. and I guarantee will affect all of us on a personal level if allowed to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
The way "strong man" politics works, if Putin becomes weaker in perception then he becomes weaker in fact.

I have been trying to avoid exposure to inanity by limiting my participation in threads unrelated to guns and shooting, but this deserves a thumbs-up. Thanks for outlining what should be obvious so clearly, not to mention succinctly.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
^^ We don't take on an 832 mile border. We help the Finns do it, as they're already doing it.

Which, incidentally, gives Putin a longer border to defend and reduces Putin's ability to intimidate Finland (and the rest of Europe) into quietly going along with whatever Putin wants. That, in turn, visibly weakens Russia's ability to dominate Europe, which weakens Putin's ability to dominate other political players in Russia, which (in turn) reduces Putin's domestic political support and any incentives he has to invade - or sustain invasions of - foreign countries.

Why would this necessarily weaken Putin? Putin's claim to authority in Russia is that he makes Russia strong on the international scene. Finland's accession to NATO is driven by Putin's aggression elsewhere and in the face of direct Russian threats against Finland should it join NATO. This reveals Putin to be weak since there's nothing he can do to prevent Finland joining NATO or to punish Finland for joining NATO, and shows other countries that there's only so much to be feared when Putin makes threats which means that Putin doesn't have to be accommodated just because he makes threats. The way "strong man" politics works, if Putin becomes weaker in perception then he becomes weaker in fact.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I have been trying to avoid exposure to inanity by limiting my participation in threads unrelated to guns and shooting...

What an odd and seemingly snobbish thing to say. Would you care to explain this remark? Do we peasants bore you, Your Excellency?

Glad to see the Finns onboard with NATO. Should have been a long time coming, but there was a forced neutrality after WW2. Putin's actions are reminding the world why NATO was formed. And it wasn't the big, bad USA forcing nations to join, but nations knowing a collective defense with the big bad USA as the quarterback is in their interest.

The Finns kicked the Rooskis asses in the Winter War. I wonder if they remember that?

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
The Finns kicked the Rooskis asses in the Winter War. I wonder if they remember that?

The fun starts at the 0:55 mark..

Looks like a bunch of rag tag dirt farmers are slaughtering the Russian army that can only progress inches a day.

By the time they reach Kiev, they will only have old women marching in and China will just go ahead and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact Putin.

There is disputed territory China wants that Russia claims.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
The Finns kicked the Rooskis asses in the Winter War. I wonder if they remember that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

This one man accounted for over 500 "Rooskis." He mostly used an iron-sighted Mosin-Nagant. After being shot in the face, which disfigured him for life, he wanted to keep fighting, but they said he had done enough. And he not only survived the war, but lived to 96 years old. An amazing story.

Anybody know the energy and velocity of a 9mm Makarov when somebody sticks it in your ear?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
The way "strong man" politics works, if Putin becomes weaker in perception then he becomes weaker in fact.

I have been trying to avoid exposure to inanity by limiting my participation in threads unrelated to guns and shooting, but this deserves a thumbs-up. Thanks for outlining what should be obvious so clearly, not to mention succinctly.

"Fact" derived from perception is great and all, until fact derived from reality hits you in the face. It happens sometimes, you know.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
The Finns kicked the Rooskis asses in the Winter War.

No, not really.

Yes, the underdog Finns managed to badly maul the overconfident and underprepared Soviet forces at the start of the Winter War, held out far longer than anyone had anticipated, and showed how severely lacking the tactics and leadership of the Red Army of the late 1930s was.

But even then, the Russians managed to come out on top within a short time, after changing tactics, throwing even more troops at the rapidly dwindling Finnish defenders, and breaking through the main Finnish defensive line within a few months, resulting in the Finns suing for peace. After 3 months of war, the outnumbered, ill-equipped, and exhausted Finnish defenders were basically kaput, and the Soviets were then eager for a quick resolution, so both sides were willing to negotiate at that point.

But in the resulting peace treaty, the Soviet Union managed to bully Finland into giving them even more than they had initially demanded, with the Finns giving up ~10% of their country's territory and ~15% of their country's assets to Russia. Not exactly an "ass-kicking victory" for the Finns, although they did manage to avoid being totally annexed.

1.5 years later, the Finns would join the Germans in attacking the Soviet Union in June 1941, setting off the subsequent Continuation War. But similar to the Winter War, despite early victories against the initially unprepared Red Army, the Finns would eventually lose (again) to the Soviets, eventually capitulating and switching sides to aid the Soviets in fighting the remaining German forces in Finland during the Lapland War from late 1944 to mid-1945.

So it's a stretch to say that the Finns "kicked the [Russians'] asses", other than through the narrow lens of their early victories during the initial periods of both the Winter War and the later Continuation War.

The Finns certainly bloodied the Red Army's nose twice, putting up a better showing than expected during the Winter War in particular, but the bottom line is that in the end, Finland lost to the Russians twice in 5 years. They just managed through diplomatic maneuvering to stave off complete conquest and reannexation by Russia both times.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Would you care to explain this remark?

It has nothing to do with boredom: on the contrary, in fact.

When I read comments that seem to be founded on inexplicable ignorance or rank stupidity, then it has a tendency to drive me further into an unhappy mindset. And as I’ve also mentioned before, when I say something that someone disagrees with, it’s not unusual to be challenged in ways that invite responses that simply perpetuate unpleasant discussions. That’s why I avoid participating in the discussions what used to consume a lot of my time. I feel strongly enough about this issue, however, to make the exception.

I realize now that my remark could be interpreted as a criticism of the forum in general, but that was not my intent. If I got nothing from the forum, including the useful discussions in threads not related to guns and shooting, I would simply go away. I intended it to be a vent/complaint about the remarks of certain specific individuals—which is evidently acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Finland did some of that, too - about 2,500 of their troops served in Afghanistan - but they never lost sight of their border with Russia. Joining NATO earlier might have led to the same sense of false security and loss of capabilities as in much of the rest of Europe.

Finland has been involved with UN & EU 'peacekeeping' duties for quite a long time, low-level infantry and simple vehicle presence missions.

Like the three Baltics, Finland has always known whom their principal threat is. While the Dutch sold-off their Leopard tanks believing the Cold War dividend has arrived, the Fins continued to upgrade and fortify their armed forces with F/A-18's, Leopard tanks and a variety of Swedish and German technology, along with their own indigenous platforms. Russia's invasion merely pushed all the moderates towards siding with NATO and updating to a Western standard.