I ran an ultra marathon in Lapland last winter and it's an incredible, surreal place.
Also, it was very interesting to see the pseudo-paranoia some of our hosts (here and in Estonia) had about Russia. One made the point to me that "your paranoia is justified when you've been occupied on and off so many times over the last century."
> Also, it was very interesting to see the pseudo-paranoia some of our hosts (here and in Estonia) had about Russia.
All of the Baltics have this, not without reason. Keep in mind too that Kaliningrad is Russian and that the shortest path between Russia major and Kaliningrad runs right through Lithuania, just a little bit North of the Polish border.
With what happened in Ukraine in recent memory you can't really fault the people there for being paranoid.
Paranoia implies delusion, but just because delusion has some anchor in reality doesn't mean that there aren't delusional aspects to it.
"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not after you", and it's corollary "just because they're after you doesn't mean that you can't be paranoid". ;)
The paranoia is real. I'm of Swedish-Baltic descent and since a very early age was taught that Russians are not to be trusted, for the very reason you mention (occupation.) This paranoia runs very deep in Baltic culture, in my experience, however in Swedish culture much less so – presumably because we don't share a border with Russia.
Not gonna lie, when Russia entered Crimea I got a pit in my stomach.
Dont know if your old enough to done military service in Sweden, but as the saying goes, all guns points the east. There is no confusion about why we are rebuilding our defense for in Sweden. We have +3000 KM coast line in Sweden, large part in the Baltics, so we too share a border with Russia.
Fair enough, but no land border, which significantly simplifies the logistics of an attack.
My point about the nonchalance in Swedish culture towards Russian aggression however is less about those involved or otherwise supportive of the military – they are all but certain to keep it top of mind – but with the rest who seem to either actively campaign against the military under some naive assumption that "surely not here, we're friends!" or simply don't care.
Swedes simply don't have that deep rooted paranoia (for lack of better word – strong worry perhaps) that you'll see in for instance the Baltic states. Quite possibly because while we may have had incidents, there have been no occupation or all out conflict for so long while with the Baltic states, and indeed Finland, it's still fresh in mind.
@PeopleOfFinland, one of those Twitter accounts that is run by a different person every week, was ran by a Saami indigenous person native to Lapland last week and they had some criticism of this style of article where Lapland is portrayed as wilderness without reference to the Saami, who've lived there for 10k years.
Coincidentally, in looking for Christmas movies for the holidays, I stumbled across "Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale[1]". I won't go into spoilers, but a) it was an unexpectedly smart horror film , and b) seemed to be rooted in actual mythology. Of course, as I knew nothing of the Saami people of Lapland, I started delving into them, their associations with Santa and Christmas, etc., and learned that they've been treated with a great deal of disrespect[2], which actually help to put some parts of the movie in context.
Particularly disturbing to me was this passage in the Wiki:
The genetic makeup of Sami people has been extensively studied for as
long as such research has been in existence. Ethnographic photography
of the Sami began with the invention of the camera in the 19th century.[137]
This continued on into the 1920s and 1930s, when Sami were photographed
naked and anatomically measured by scientists, with the help of the
local police—sometimes at gunpoint—to collect data that would justify
their own racial theories.
It doesn't really make sense to claim the Saami have lived there for 10k years. Samic language(s) arrived in that area more like 1.5k years ago.[1] Sure, there were people there before that, but they were not "Saami" in any meaningful sense. But yeah, it's before the Finns, anyway.
While I do understand (and mostly approve) the general criticism, I'm not sure if it really applies to this article specifically. Mostly because the article discusses the operation of Finnish defense forces and the overall military situation in the area, a topic of I feel Sámi are of little relevance. Also I don't see significant unfair characterization of Lapland (as "uninhabited, uncivilized wilderness") in the article.
I think self-sufficiency is also worth mentioning. The state owns a monopoly in railways and a stake in a national airline. Also, most equipment is produced within Finland (Nokia even made assault rifle ammunition at one point), supposedly to minimize shortage in case of war.
Moreover, about survival, I recall tactics for nuclear war. The instructions were to take cover and use spruce branches to shake off the fallout, and then continue fighting.
I seem to remember something about fireplaces or wood stoves being required in new construction, as well, in order to maintain energy independence on an individual-house basis if necessary.
It is not so uncommon to have problems with electricity distribution during heavy snow fall in the country side. Especially when the temperature is close to zero, the snow is heavy and may cause the trees to bend on power lines causing power outages.
In the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact [0], the USSR cozied up to the Nazis with a plan for dividing up the countries unfortunate enough to be located in between them. In 1939, the USSR launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Finland.
The question of how Finland should have responded, especially from 1941 on, is a valid topic of discussion, but this discussion must be based on fact, taking into account the context of Soviet aggression and the lack of options available to Finland. Limiting yourself to what was known at the time, what would you have advised Finland to do?
Not until after they were rebuffed by Sweden and Great Britain, there was no way they were going to stand up to Russia in the longer term without outside help.
I would have done the same if it was about national survival. Nobody was coming to Finland's aid. They had run out of options. Nazi Germany was the last option.
Not exactly first or last time this has happened. Vietnam had been promised independence from the US after WWII, and tried to align with the US. When they US, renegaded on their promise and let France take Vietnam back, those fighting for Vietnamese independence ran out of options, and eventually allied with their last option, the Soviets.
Same with the founding of Israel. the UK and the US refused to take in jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. It left jews with the shitty option of declaring the state of Israel for their own survival.
People want to survive so they pick the options they have even if they aren't great. Then they get to listen to people from big countries moralize and criticize for the rest of their existence.
As an outsider who lived in Finland, I agree the paranoia about Russia is real and I disagree that it's justified. Unlike the Baltics, there is no sizeable Russian minority that "needs protection" nor is Finland in the way between a Russian exclave such as Kaliningrad.
There is no geopolitical reason to invade Finland and there is also no economical reason to do so. Most companies are foreign owned and would be pulled out of Finland the moment an invasion would start. The main natural resource of Finland is trees, which Russia has more than plenty of. Adding Finland to Russia simply solves no problem whatsoever, perceived or real.
Finns ignore this. They're paranoid because their parents taught them to, whose parents taught them to until you reach turtles.
Finns remember it happening before, for the reasons stated in the article:
> Finland mattered because of its perch above the Baltic Sea and because its southeastern border with the Soviet Union was less than 20 miles from Leningrad. If the Germans took Finland, they would be dangerously close to this Red Army stronghold.
Just substitute Russia for "the Soviet Union", NATO for "the Germans".
What T-A said. Moreover, Finland as a country exists because Czar Alexander I conquered some eastern provinces of Swedish Realm (as a weird fluke of Napoleonic wars), and then decided that they would be useful as a buffer zone for defense of St. Petersburg and also decided that it would convenient not to incorporate the government of the conquered area into Russian bureaucracy.
Meanwhile (because of another weird fluke of Napoleonic wars), soon after the loss of Finland, one of Napoleon's capable generals (Bernadotte) was given the crown of Sweden. As a Swedish monarch who had no attachments to the lost territory and possessed the strategic acumen to realize how awesome deal it was not to have Finland around, he did not contest the conquest (plus, he could use it as a point in Congress of Vienna to negotiate Norway to be given for Sweden as "reparations"). Why it was such an amazing deal? For several hundred years, area of Finland used to be a battlefield for numerous wars fought between Sweden and Russia. Ever since Napoleon and the establishment of the buffer country called "Finland", Sweden has enjoyed a remarkably long period of uninterrupted peace.
During same period of time, Finland's history could be summarized as "Finnish people not being fond of the Russian ideas how to deal with the defense of St. Petersburg". I don't foresee this state of affairs changing anytime soon.
Factoid: Large areas of both Finland and Sweden has been historically called Lapland, I never know which one they write about when you see it in a headline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sápmi
One thing to keep in mind is that Finland was a part of the Russian Empire from 1806 to 1917. It had a fair amount of autonomy, but it was a part of Russia still. The "Winter War" was in 1939, which puts it just 20 years after Fins used the post-revolution mess and declared their independence.
Fascinating article, but I wish it had also described what was happening on the Russian side of the border.
The Finns are not the only ones who've learned lessons from the Winter War. If Russia has any plans for another invasion, you can be sure they would be keen not to get humiliated a second time. No doubt the Russians are making their own contingency plans, and undergoing their own cold-weather training in freezing terrain that Russia itself has no shortage of. It's unlikely that they would go in to Finland unprepared again.
Times have changed. If Russia were to invade Finland today, they wouldn't do it in the midst of winter, with large armies along roads that can easily be cut off. I think the Fins are right in preparing for the worst, or as the department of Defense puts it "messaging about where the limits are". I am very curious about what kind of warfare they are expecting from the east though.
>I am very curious about what kind of warfare they are expecting from the east though.
What they're prepared for is a "strategic strike" and/or a limited scale invasion which is a part of a larger conflict in Europe. Combined arms and fast pace, but not a hybrid war like in Crimea or a separate war where Russia is only engaged in Finland. The Finnish Army reformed their doctrine quite recently [1] with the goal of ensuring adequate performance with lesser troops (war time strength has been reduced significantly in the 2000s).
I think you overestimate the Russians grossly. They screwed up in countless wars since then against small nations. They couldn't take out Czeczenia. They failed in Afghanistan. Why should they succeed in Finland.
Russia is capable of dealing with long drawn out battles on home turf. They have not displayed that great ability to invade. To be real, neither has really the US either.
You can't underestimate an opponent fighting on home turf for their own independence against an opponent, where the soldiers don't really see the reason why they are invading in the first place.
Also remember for whatever tech or equipment the Russians have. They have really shitty democratic traditions. They don't let their men work independently. History has shown again and again that top heavy armies are ineffective.
It is how Israel beat 3x bigger Arab armies, even when the Arabs had better tech.
You need two for peace. Only one is enough to start a war.
Finland has done everything it can to be friendly with Russia but Russia want's to play the role of a bully. Just few years ago Russia started to intentionally violate Finnish airspace. Finnish Air Force had to increase preparedness to the level where drivers sit in the cockpit and scramble to intercept.
Today Russia is fighting constant propaganda war against Finland within Russia and inside Finland.
When has friendliness and diplomacy ever mitigated a threat from an invasive or expansionist neighbor? I hear this refrain quite often, but people who say it are usually referring to some glorious future event wherein two or more belligerents come to the table as equals, share some tea, then discuss what's really going on. To my understanding of history (limited though it may be) this has never happened unless both parties are capable of destroying each other. If there is any imbalance in the capabilities, diplomacy is a facade used to wrangle for time and optimum position. The concept of diplomacy in lieu of conflict is an interesting theory that has never really been borne out in practice. As Thucydides so elegantly put it, "the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."
You're buying into the media narrative which paints Russia as the devil.
Russia is not a dictatorship, Putin has overwhelming support from the population but could be ousted by elections quite easily.
The Ukraine conflict is far more complex than you see on the news. I have family in Ukraine and know that Russia actually had some good reasons to take Krimea back (it was Russia for hundreds of years and most people living there are ethnic Russians), most of the population there is happy about it (not comparable to Finland at all).
As long as you consider it possible for Russia to have a 'good reason' to take land by force, it makes your comments on the article about 'war preparations' a farce.
Obviously peace is the ideal, but it's clear who the more agressive party is, the article is not about them, peace is also always bilateral. For Finland this is not about ignoring diplomacy, they don't ignore it, because they can't.
I got to agree with brabel. The Ukranian invasion did not come out of the blue. If you think that, then you simply have not paid attention to politics and history.
Crimea was Russian originally not Ukrainian. Of course they stole it from somebody else before that.
The Ukraine has a long history with Russia, and when the Soviet Union split up the west agreed to not try to get the Ukraine into NATO, EU or other western organizations. Russia sees the Ukraine as a buffer state and don't want the west on their doorstep.
The west broke all those promises it had given Russia. Naturally they are pissed from feeling ignored. Russia is a bit childish, but it is simple. They just want to feel respected. That is all we got to give them. When they don't feel respected. They start acting like dicks. Sure it is not fair or warranted, but we could totally avoided this if we had been smarter.
It is hard to measure popular support for a guy that controls the state apparatuses for secret policing and surveillance. I actually like Putin, but i am an authoritarian hawk, so that is no ringing endorsement. I studied under Alex Moytle, a Ukrainian Specialist, and a day didn't go by that Putin wasn't discussed. The joke was always about the official government pollster calling the average Russian and asking them who they support... on their landline which was set up by the official government supported telecom. "Da tovarisch, of course i fully support Putin!" Even funnier is when RF supporters say that the Crimean population supported the invasion. "hello citizen, i am man in unmarked tactical gear with totally Hungarian rifle! Do you support the side with a full air wing of Hind Ds flying over you at this moment?" The argument for majority support is pointless if there is no way to accurately gauge true sentiment. Best to leave the argument out when justifying an illegal invasion of sovereign territory.
But much earlier than the Russian annexation happened, there was plenty of evidence of Krimea wanting to leave Ukraine... You can travel there right now and talk to people! Almost no one wants to be part of Ukraine!
This highlights a fundamental disagreement when it comes to establishing sovereignty. "Self determination" is the casus belli du jour (my god english is a roller coaster) of the post-cold war period. Kosovo gets to pretend to be a nation, and Transnistria gets 5+ official names and zero recognition. If you make it an Enlightenment style argument and arrive at sovereignty from some kind of expression of individuality, then you are inviting a world of endless Balkanization. If you look at sovereignty as a state at which societies within a hierarchy of civilization can arrive at, you create the necessary environment for an equilibrium of a sort, which is objectively more peaceful than fractured democracy. All this is to say that just because Chinatowns across the US decide to declare their allegiance to China does not mean the US has a moral obligation to recognize them OR that China can send soldiers on "working vacations" to the US front while supplying the dissidents via most likely San Francisco.
That is a long story, and i am in no way trying to imply that i have settled on that viewpoint and never expect to change. To shorten the narrative and save myself from bird hops/rabbit trails, i believe that an objective assessment of combined human history shows that if a nation/entity has decided that they are justified in using violence then all entities involved must act accordingly. This appears to create a punctuated equilibrium of peace and violence. Given the state of the planet at this moment in terms of geopolitics, combined with the size of the population and the growing probability of global climate shift, i see know better human construct for governance than a strong, centralized authority bound by principle and precedent with the capability to do tragic evil for the sake of long term good. To put it another way, i am one of those historians* that feels that dark ages, unlike Rome, can be built in a day. I am horrified of a history recounting that the brightest minds plunged the world into oblivion so that everybody's opinion could be registered every time a decision needs to get made. This is a temporary position given the constraints of our reality. Certain technologies and other cataclysms could make my assessment bullshit. I guess I just think Putin is better equipped to deal with global disaster than any of the democratically elected leaders of the so called West. Xi is somewhat in the same position, but their population, in terms of both density and total, is a severe limiting factor. I'd love to discuss this at length in a less showy forum or format if you would be so inclined, but the tl;dr is i think Democracy is like high heels: they may look good but they are usually worthless shoes.
I doubt nukes are a good idea for a small country, but you need a high threshold for the aggressor, I.e “we know you’ll defeat us in a week if you try, but it will always cost more than you are willing to pay”. A good second strike capability is key. Sadly both Finland and Sweden reduced that capability in the last 20 years (see e.g Sweden’s road airbase System). Defense is only a four now after Crimea - and a proper invasion defense might never exist again. A more reasonable defense than both nukes and a defense against a massive invasion would be a second strike ability through sub launched (conventional) cruise missiles or similar. Something that hurts and also is guaranteed to last a week.
I ran an ultra marathon in Lapland last winter and it's an incredible, surreal place.
Also, it was very interesting to see the pseudo-paranoia some of our hosts (here and in Estonia) had about Russia. One made the point to me that "your paranoia is justified when you've been occupied on and off so many times over the last century."