Finnish Government cripples Finnish Defense Force with cost cut´s.

Today a large scale spending cut program aimed towards Finnish Defense Force was laid out by the Government. Garrisons aimed to be eliminated include:

Training Air Wing, Aircraft and Weapon Systems Training Wing of Finnish Air Force.

North Karelia Brigade, the Engineer Regiment in Keuruu, the Häme Regiment and the Kotka Coastal Battalion of Finnish Army

A large number of brigades and regiments are to be merged by the end of 2014 which will hamper the FDF further. The entire reserve component of FDF will shrink from 350 000 men to 230 000 men, so one third of wartime troops will evaporate.

These cuts will effectively cripple the training and maintaining of Finnish Air Force and cutting off vital parts of the entire FDF.
Also these almost 1 billion initial cuts will lower the Finnish military spending to less then 2% of GDP, which is the limit for NATO members. So while we are practically loosing our ability to defend our own area thus rendering our neutrality into nothing. We will not be viable for NATO membership either.

To me this is beyond idiotic and i would be very interested to know. What kind of vision the Government has to Defend our area. We can use billions to support Greece while they use billions to buy new armour for their Army, while we cant maintain our own armed defence forces anymore.:juggle:

Here is an article concerning the affair in English from Helsingin Sanomat:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Sig.../1135270359160

Pssst. Don't tell the Russians.

I was about to write a smartass reply about European militaries but loosing NATO membership is a serious concern. Is this a policy ploy from an anti-NATO faction in Helsinki? Russia is always looking to expand its sphere of influence and Finland's always been a prime target. I think it's less about self defense and more about realigning strategic partnerships.

Bears make awesome cavalry but they're horrible friends.

This isn't law yet, is it?

Let us hope it doesn’t get approved.

The first and primary reason for government is to defend the nation.

If your government abdicates that then they are abdicating their own reason for existing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I was about to write a smartass reply about European militaries but loosing NATO membership is a serious concern. Is this a policy ploy from an anti-NATO faction in Helsinki? Russia is always looking to expand its sphere of influence and Finland's always been a prime target. I think it's less about self defense and more about realigning strategic partnerships.

Bears make awesome cavalry but they're horrible friends.

This isn't law yet, is it?

---

No it is a proposal but as we have a new liberal right wing majority Government. I am afraid there is nothing to stop this from materializing.

To your question.I dont think there are pro Russian element´s behind this, as our new government is if anything pro EU and ready to do anything for The Union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Let us hope it doesn’t get approved.

The first and primary reason for government is to defend the nation.

If your government abdicates that then they are abdicating their own reason for existing.

---

The way cut´s are happening in all sectors of public spending. It almost seems as if the new government would like to dismantle the whole country and sell it to the highest bidder. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

To your question.I dont think there are pro Russian element´s behind this, as our new government is if anything pro EU and ready to do anything for The Union.

---

Isn't the plan to have the Turks fight for Europe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Isn't the plan to have the Turks fight for Europe?

---

I am starting to think there is no plan to begin with. Modern politicians are so out of touch with reality that i bet their ultimate goal is that in 10 years from now we have a Battalion sized professional force which can be deployed anywhere around the World in 48 hours, so we can be modern and hip, while we will be practically defenseless.

Like i said i cant find any sense of it all.

it is a shame in and of itself, but particularly so if it jepardises an ambition for finland to join NATO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Today a large scale spending cut program aimed towards Finnish Defense Force was laid out by the Government. Garrisons aimed to be eliminated include:

Training Air Wing, Aircraft and Weapon Systems Training Wing of Finnish Air Force.

North Karelia Brigade, the Engineer Regiment in Keuruu, the Häme Regiment and the Kotka Coastal Battalion of Finnish Army

A large number of brigades and regiments are to be merged by the end of 2014 which will hamper the FDF further. The entire reserve component of FDF will shrink from 350 000 men to 230 000 men, so one third of wartime troops will evaporate.

These cuts will effectively cripple the training and maintaining of Finnish Air Force and cutting off vital parts of the entire FDF.
Also these almost 1 billion initial cuts will lower the Finnish military spending to less then 2% of GDP, which is the limit for NATO members. So while we are practically loosing our ability to defend our own area thus rendering our neutrality into nothing. We will not be viable for NATO membership either.

To me this is beyond idiotic and i would be very interested to know. What kind of vision the Government has to Defend our area. We can use billions to support Greece while they use billions to buy new armour for their Army, while we cant maintain our own armed defence forces anymore.:juggle:

Here is an article concerning the affair in English from Helsingin Sanomat:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Sig.../1135270359160

---

O tempora! O mores!

In other words, Finnish army has gone from completely useless to... completely useless. There's a few countries that need to worry about defence spending, for the rest of us - the smaller the better. Less money down the drain.

NATO would be a bad move for Finland anyway and judging by the polls, your countrymen aren't exactly keen on the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

...NATO would be a bad move for Finland anyway and judging by the polls, your countrymen aren't exactly keen on the idea.

---

It's either NATO or Vladimir Putin as the new Grand Duke of Finland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It's either NATO or Vladimir Putin as the new Grand Duke of Finland.

---

My money is on Mao Zedong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I am starting to think there is no plan to begin with. Modern politicians are so out of touch with reality that i bet their ultimate goal is that in 10 years from now we have a Battalion sized professional force which can be deployed anywhere around the World in 48 hours, so we can be modern and hip, while we will be practically defenseless.

Like i said i cant find any sense of it all.

---

That information of our defense is supposed to be classified. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

O tempora! O mores!

In other words, Finnish army has gone from completely useless to... completely useless. There's a few countries that need to worry about defence spending, for the rest of us - the smaller the better. Less money down the drain.

NATO would be a bad move for Finland anyway and judging by the polls, your countrymen aren't exactly keen on the idea.

---

And what you might base that statement? Before this crap. We had a large reserve with modern weapons, Armored forces with Leopard 2´s and CV 90´s. World´s most modern Mortar system AMOS, up to date air force od F/A 18 Hornet´s and largest field artillery in Europe Russia excluded. Maybe it would be best to join Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

O tempora! O mores!

In other words, Finnish army has gone from completely useless to... completely useless. There's a few countries that need to worry about defence spending, for the rest of us - the smaller the better. Less money down the drain.

NATO would be a bad move for Finland anyway and judging by the polls, your countrymen aren't exactly keen on the idea.

---

The Finnish Army is designed to make it too expensive for Russia or Sweden to invade, nothing more, nothing less.

Comparing it to the US, or even the UK, is to piss the point entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

And what you might base that statement? Before this crap. We had a large reserve with modern weapons, Armored forces with Leopard 2´s and CV 90´s. World´s most modern Mortar system AMOS, up to date air force od F/A 18 Hornet´s and largest field artillery in Europe Russia excluded. Maybe it would be best to join Russia?

---

I'm basing it on the fact that if Finland performs a thousand times better and Russia a thousand times worse than in Winter War, the result would still be the same.

Finland on its own is of no threat to Russia, Finland as a staging ground for more powerful enemies is.

Ergo:
1) size of Finnish peni... err, army is of no consequence
2) neutrality is better defence than any army Finland could possibly field, for the foreseeable future...
...which makes your worries about army size and joining NATO meaningless.

This is a good policy, IMHO, for all small countries - keep a small, highly trained, equipped army to deal with security, terrorism and the likes. If it comes to a serious war, it will again be decided by the big boys and all we would achieve is spending more money in the meantime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I'm basing it on the fact that if Finland performs a thousand times better and Russia a thousand times worse than in Winter War, the result would still be the same.

Finland on its own is of no threat to Russia, Finland as a staging ground for more powerful enemies is.

Ergo:
1) size of Finnish peni... err, army is of no consequence
2) neutrality is better defence than any army Finland could possibly field, for the foreseeable future...
...which makes your worries about army size and joining NATO meaningless.

This is a good policy, IMHO, for all small countries - keep a small, highly trained, equipped army to deal with security, terrorism and the likes. If it comes to a serious war, it will again be decided by the big boys and all we would achieve is spending more money in the meantime.

---

If you would have any glue why we do have a army in first place would help you comment further. Like Philips told you in the previous post. Finnish army can be over run, but the cost to do it will hamper down the attacker so much that it will not be worth to do it in the first place. For that purpose the army was good enough before this turn of events.

I suggest for you to study Winter War bit more if you are using it as example, as in Winter War with crappy resources Finnish army did what it´s job is. Make it too costly for the attacker to take the whole country as happened in reality. Finland was not occupied and it retained its independency.

For neutrality.You have to back up that neutrality with something. To remain neutral you have to have an army that will not make ones country a stagin area for larger powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

If you would have any glue why we do have a army in first place would help you comment further. Like Philips told you in the previous post. Finnish army can be over run, but the cost to do it will hamper down the attacker so much that it will not be worth to do it in the first place. For that purpose the army was good enough before this turn of events.

---

Cost is relative to gain - if by invading, Russia can stop NATO tanks from rolling out of Finland (in this hypothetical case), no cost is too great. If there is absolutely nothing to gain, 1$ is too much.

Quote:

---

I suggest for you to study Winter War bit more if you are using it as example, as in Winter War with crappy resources Finnish army did what it´s job is. Make it too costly for the attacker to take the whole country as happened in reality. Finland was not occupied and it retained its independency.

---

The prime reason for invading Finland was potential for the Wehrmacht to get within striking distance of Leningrad without much hassle. Finland retained its independence after the war for not aiding the Germans during the war, or do you really believe that the Red Army of 1945 couldn't walk over Finland or that someone might have stopped them if they truly wanted to?

Quote:

---

For neutrality.You have to back up that neutrality with something. To remain neutral you have to have an army that will not make ones country a stagin area for larger powers.

---

This makes sense somewhat but I still believe it's basically just a drain on the budget in the current scheme of things. If things change, upping the spending is easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Cost is relative to gain - if by invading, Russia can stop NATO tanks from rolling out of Finland (in this hypothetical case), no cost is too great. If there is absolutely nothing to gain, 1$ is too much.

---

Only way Russia can deny Finland as staging area towards an hypothetical invasion towards Russia would be to Nuke Finland completely and because of the relative distances it would mean destroying the second largest population center of Russia aka Leningrad in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The prime reason for invading Finland was potential for the Wehrmacht to get within striking distance of Leningrad without much hassle. Finland retained its independence after the war for not aiding the Germans during the war, or do you really believe that the Red Army of 1945 couldn't walk over Finland or that someone might have stopped them if they truly wanted to?

---

Please. :laugh4: As a Serbian i know you have certain bias towards Russia, but that is just funny. It was Molotov Ribbentrop pact between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that divided Eastern Europe for them to occupy. Unfortunately for Soviet´s. They lost more then 300 000 men taking the first 50 kilometers of Finland and decided to negotiate.

Also havent you heard of Continuation War? Finland attacked Soviet Union 1941 in cooperation with Germany and made a separate peace with Soviet Union fall 1944. And the Soviet Army could not afford to use more resources in taking the whole country that time either as their Summer offensive of 1944 didnt gain any more ground then compared to Winter War, before ground to halt. As they were busy to go Berlin. Finland yet again retained its independency and was not occupied again thanks to Finnish Army.

I suggest to study bit of history before using it as example. Otherwise it might only damage your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

This makes sense somewhat but I still believe it's basically just a drain on the budget in the current scheme of things. If things change, upping the spending is easy.

---

If you think you can summon an capable army out from thin air in short amount of time. You are dead wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Cost is relative to gain - if by invading, Russia can stop NATO tanks from rolling out of Finland (in this hypothetical case), no cost is too great. If there is absolutely nothing to gain, 1$ is too much.


The prime reason for invading Finland was potential for the Wehrmacht to get within striking distance of Leningrad without much hassle. Finland retained its independence after the war for not aiding the Germans during the war, or do you really believe that the Red Army of 1945 couldn't walk over Finland or that someone might have stopped them if they truly wanted to?



This makes sense somewhat but I still believe it's basically just a drain on the budget in the current scheme of things. If things change, upping the spending is easy.

---

To what Kage says, I will add this:

You are a Serb, you live in the Balkans, you have no idea what it is to fight a war in Northern Europe. Fighting the Fins is like fighting the Bedoin in the Sahara, just going there can get you killed - even if you're a Russian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Finland yet again retained its independency and was not occupied again thanks to Finnish Army.

---

Well, that and a significant shift toward the Soviet Union, known in the West as Finlandization. For all intents and purposes, Finland had to become a Soviet satellite in its foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

To what Kage says, I will add this:

You are a Serb, you live in the Balkans, you have no idea what it is to fight a war in Northern Europe. Fighting the Fins is like fighting the Bedoin in the Sahara, just going there can get you killed - even if you're a Russian.

---

I don't think that's fair. Sarmation knows his military history, and he's right. The Soviets could have defeated Finland in '45. In fact, the Soviets could have beaten the Finns in '40. The Finnish military certainly presented a speedbump to Soviet plans, but the real reason Finland remained independent in both instances was because it gave Stalin what he wanted at the same time that he had more pressing priorites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Today a large scale spending cut program aimed towards Finnish Defense Force was laid out by the Government. Garrisons aimed to be eliminated include:

Training Air Wing, Aircraft and Weapon Systems Training Wing of Finnish Air Force.

North Karelia Brigade, the Engineer Regiment in Keuruu, the Häme Regiment and the Kotka Coastal Battalion of Finnish Army

A large number of brigades and regiments are to be merged by the end of 2014 which will hamper the FDF further. The entire reserve component of FDF will shrink from 350 000 men to 230 000 men, so one third of wartime troops will evaporate.

These cuts will effectively cripple the training and maintaining of Finnish Air Force and cutting off vital parts of the entire FDF.
Also these almost 1 billion initial cuts will lower the Finnish military spending to less then 2% of GDP, which is the limit for NATO members. So while we are practically loosing our ability to defend our own area thus rendering our neutrality into nothing. We will not be viable for NATO membership either.

To me this is beyond idiotic and i would be very interested to know. What kind of vision the Government has to Defend our area. We can use billions to support Greece while they use billions to buy new armour for their Army, while we cant maintain our own armed defence forces anymore.:juggle:

Here is an article concerning the affair in English from Helsingin Sanomat:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Sig.../1135270359160

---

For us, Estonians, this is bad news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Well, that and a significant shift toward the Soviet Union, known in the West as Finlandization. For all intents and purposes, Finland had to become a Soviet satellite in its foreign policy.

---

Finlandization was a cold war process. Bit different then direct occupation and placing a puppet regime in place like happened in most of Eastern Europe. Finnish foreign policies of cold war were necessity in order to survive, but still Finland during cold war remained a democracy and for example communist party never even made to government in Finland. Maybe you would like to point out what other way Finland could have taken?

It was the Allies that left Finland in Soviet sphere of influence. The same allies that promised help during Winter War which never materialized. Finland had to pay huge war compensations to Soviet Union and did not even gain Marshall Aid. Still strange enough.Here we are still and relatively well off.

Still for some odd reason Finland never joined the Warsaw pact and even transmitted intelligence information to West trough out the cold war. If there is any lesson learnt from History is that only ones who will take care of us will be us and todays proposal of the Government is not making it any easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't think that's fair. Sarmation knows his military history, and he's right. The Soviets could have defeated Finland in '45. In fact, the Soviets could have beaten the Finns in '40. The Finnish military certainly presented a speedbump to Soviet plans, but the real reason Finland remained independent in both instances was because it gave Stalin what he wanted at the same time that he had more pressing priorites.

---

And just how do you arrive to that conclusion? If Sarmatian dos not even know that Continuation War happened. How can he know his military history? Also what does 1945 has to do with anything as Finland was not at war with Soviet Union durig 45? If Soviet Plan was to take Finland in three weeks during 1939. How did Stalin get what he wanted and what more pressing priorities Soviet Union had at 1940 as they were not at war with any other country aside Finland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Finlandization was a cold war process. Bit different then direct occupation and placing a puppet regime in place like happened in most of Eastern Europe. Finnish foreign policies of cold war were necessity in order to survive, but still Finland during cold war remained a democracy and for example communist party never even made to government in Finland. Maybe you would like to point out what other way Finland could have taken?

---

I'm not faulting Finland. The nation's leadership did what had to be done to remain internally independent. I'm simply disputing the notion that Finland remained fully independent due to its vaunted military. The country had to cede quite a lot to keep Russia out.

A lot of people seem to think Finland won those wars when, in fact, they only lost them less severely than they could have. There's this idea that the Finns gloriously routed the Soviets with impunity during the Winter War, and while they did perform well and certainly stymied the Russian plans, their position became increasingly precarious as the conflict dragged on. They were on a slow path to defeat simply do to resource constraints.

Quote:

---

Still for some odd reason Finland never joined the Warsaw pact and even transmitted intelligence information to West trough out the cold war. If there is any lesson learnt from History is that only ones who will take care of us will be us and todays proposal of the Government is not making it any easier.

---

I completely agree, and I disagree with Sarmation's conclusion about small countries and military expenditure. A capable military certainly does not guarantee a small nation security against a superpower, but it does give it options. In 1940, Finland's military could not have held out against Russia, but it did extract enough blood to bring Russia to the negotiating table. Instead of annexation, Russia settled on only 10% of the nation.

There is a definite value in a strong national defense for small nations. Even authoritarian regimes face wartime pressures. A nation that can exacerbate those pressures is much better off than one that cannot.

Quote:

---

And just how do you arrive to that conclusion? If Sarmatian dos not even know that Continuation War happened. How can he know his military history? Also what does 1945 has to do with anything as Finland was not at war with Soviet Union durig 45? If Soviet Plan was to take Finland in three weeks during 1939. How did Stalin get what he wanted and what more pressing priorities Soviet Union had at 1940 as they were not at war with any other country aside Finland?

---

-I'm sure that he knows what the Continuation War was. I think that may have been a misstatement.

-1945 was , of course, the end of WW2, when Russia created the various Eastern European satellites. With Germany defeated, Russia could have easily defeated Finland if Finland had not acceded to all of Russia's demands.

-I'm sure that Stalin would have loved to have conquered all of Finland during the Winter War, but the main goal of the effort was to create a buffer for Leningrad. This was accomplished through the negotiations. If Finland hadn't agreed, Russia would have eventually defeated her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm not faulting Finland. The nation's leadership did what had to be done to remain internally independent. I'm simply disputing the notion that Finland remained fully independent due to its vaunted military. The country had to cede quite a lot to keep Russia out.

A lot of people seem to think Finland won those wars when, in fact, they only lost them less severely than they could have. There's this idea that the Finns gloriously routed the Soviets with impunity during the Winter War, and while they did perform well and certainly stymied the Russian plans, their position became increasingly precarious as the conflict dragged on. They were on a slow path to defeat simply do to resource constraints.






I completely agree, and I disagree with Sarmation's conclusion about small countries and military expenditure. A capable military certainly does not guarantee a small nation security against a superpower, but it does give it options. In 1940, Finland's military could not have held out against Russia, but it did extract enough blood to bring Russia to the negotiating table. Instead of annexation, Russia settled on only 10% of the nation.

There is a definite value in a strong national defense for small nations. Even authoritarian regimes face wartime pressures. A nation that can exacerbate those pressures is much better off than one that cannot.





-I'm sure that he knows what the Continuation War was. I think that may have been a misstatement.

-1945 was , of course, the end of WW2, when Russia created the various Eastern European satellites. With Germany defeated, Russia could have easily defeated Finland if Finland had not acceded to all of Russia's demands.

-I'm sure that Stalin would have loved to have conquered all of Finland during the Winter War, but the main goal of the effort was to create a buffer for Leningrad. This was accomplished through the negotiations. If Finland hadn't agreed, Russia would have eventually defeated her.

---

Maybe there is such idea about Finland winning, but to me there was and never will be a realistic way for Finland to defeat Russia in open war. All that Finnish army could and can do is to make the enemy bleed enough to have second thoughts about taking possession of this piece of Frozen forest. As a small country.You cant defeat and conquer someone 20 times larger then you.It is simply impossible.

All a small country with it´s military can do is to show to any aggressor that the investment of casualties and resources to conquer that land is not of comparative worth to the gain you would be making. There is no victory in such sense, but that does not stop one for fighting what is his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Maybe there is such idea about Finland winning, but to me there was and never will be a realistic way for Finland to defeat Russia in open war. All that Finnish army could and can do is to make the enemy bleed enough to have second thoughts about taking possession of this piece of Frozen forest. As a small country.You cant defeat and conquer someone 20 times larger then you.It is simply impossible.

All a small country with it´s military can do is to show to any aggressor that the investment of casualties and resources to conquer that land is not of comparative worth to the gain you would be making. There is no victory in such sense, but that does not stop one for fighting what is his.

---

We are in complete agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Only way Russia can deny Finland as staging area towards an hypothetical invasion towards Russia would be to Nuke Finland completely and because of the relative distances it would mean destroying the second largest population center of Russia aka Leningrad in the process.

---

Actually, military occupation is just as effective.

Quote:

---

Please. :laugh4: As a Serbian i know you have certain bias towards Russia, but that is just funny.

---

Oh, the insolence :bulb:. When you were kissing Russian butt during the cold war, we were telling them where to stick it.

Quote:

---

It was Molotov Ribbentrop pact between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that divided Eastern Europe for them to occupy. Unfortunately for Soviet´s. They lost more then 300 000 men taking the first 50 kilometers of Finland and decided to negotiate.
Also havent you heard of Continuation War? Finland attacked Soviet Union 1941 in cooperation with Germany and made a separate peace with Soviet Union fall 1944. And the Soviet Army could not afford to use more resources in taking the whole country that time either as their Summer offensive of 1944 didnt gain any more ground then compared to Winter War, before ground to halt. As they were busy to go Berlin. Finland yet again retained its independency and was not occupied again thanks to Finnish Army.

---

This is the key part. Soviet offensive in Finland was never planned, the goal was to push the enemy from Leningrad, so that they can fry the bigger fish in the south unconcerned.

Quote:

---

I suggest to study bit of history before using it as example. Otherwise it might only damage your point.

---

Yes, history has a way of coming up and biting you on the behind - number of concessions asked for by the Soviet Union from Finland during the negotiations in October 1939 was less then what they got in March 1940, and Finland also didn't get what was offered in return (as pathetic as the offer was) for those concessions.

So, here, in reality, the outcome of the winter war for Finland - we lost men, equipment, money and more territory than we were asked for if we didn't fight.

Quote:

---

If you think you can summon an capable army out from thin air in short amount of time. You are dead wrong.

---

Who said anything about short time??? As the things are now, Finland has nothing to fear from either Sweden or Russia. If that changes, it won't change overnight, so downsizing military spending right now, in the time of recession, is a prudent choice, IMHO.

And if you do it right you can get to wield the downsizing rod to get rid of the old cruft, which is notoriously difficult in any bureaucracy let alone that institutionalised tribal turf war fest known as armed forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Actually, military occupation is just as effective.

---

You have to achieve that first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Oh, the insolence :bulb:. When you were kissing Russian butt during the cold war, we were telling them where to stick it.

---

Who you? Your dictator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

This is the key part. Soviet offensive in Finland was never planned, the goal was to push the enemy from Leningrad, so that they can fry the bigger fish in the south unconcerned.

---

Oh, the fourth Strategic offensive was never planned? Please elaborate further.I am all ears.:bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yes, history has a way of coming up and biting you on the behind - number of concessions asked for by the Soviet Union from Finland during the negotiations in October 1939 was less then what they got in March 1940, and Finland also didn't get what was offered in return (as pathetic as the offer was) for those concessions.

So, here, in reality, the outcome of the winter war for Finland - we lost men, equipment, money and more territory than we were asked for if we didn't fight.

---

You are sure a funny one. Do you have the slightest glue what happened to Baltic countries that accepted the Soviet negotiation terms autumn 1939? What they were asked and what was the outcome? Like i suggested before, please read your history before making such nonsense arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Who said anything about short time??? As the things are now, Finland has nothing to fear from either Sweden or Russia. If that changes, it won't change overnight, so downsizing military spending right now, in the time of recession, is a prudent choice, IMHO.

---

It is easy to make such remark´s. When you dont have a glue what the effect of these cuts will be. I am becoming tired of your partisan position, neglecting to understand anything you are being said, rather just sticking with your argument no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

And if you do it right you can get to wield the downsizing rod to get rid of the old cruft, which is notoriously difficult in any bureaucracy let alone that institutionalised tribal turf war fest known as armed forces.

---

If both Nato and Russia will give safety guarantees to Finland.I am ready to dismantle the Armed forces the same minute. It is not s if this would be first cut towards the FDF. During last ten years.Our Army have shrinked into half of what it was. What is bugging me that now they are thinking off shutting down vital parts like Pilot training Air Wing.