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.

No armed forces = no country

You need to have something like a 100,000 person defense force, minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

No armed forces = no country

You need to have something like a 100,000 person defense force, minimum.

---

Plenty of places have low to no millitary forces, it depends on the strategic enviroment you find yourself in, or in some cases it's a purely mathmatical numbers calculation.(what the point of Monoco having a millitary??)

Ireland has a very small millitary because of low government spending and a need to ensure the the UK does not see a threat on the only land border it has.
The only possible nation who could or would invade Ireland is the UK, except the UK is a nuclearpower so bigger army does not defend Ireland from the UK.

Instead Ireland must balance a small enough millitary to quieten the UK while being big enough to hold the nation from non state actors like the IRA or UVF.

Since Ireland is most at threat by non state actors it is our intelligience and police capabilities that ironically protect us from UK invasion.

Also we have a history of secret treaties and informal agreements with WW2 Allies/NATO to maintain our security in the event say WW3

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. I'm not talking about 100,000 spec ops but something that's an internationally recognized sign of self-respect. Again, it's not supposed to be Marine Expeditionary Unit but a government needs to have enough people with guns under its control for when it needs them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

You have to achieve that first.

---

I think we can safely assume that in the case of hypothetical Russian invasion the outcome is certain, 200,000 or 300,000 Finnish soldiers, 2%,3% or 4% of GDP spending.

Quote:

---

Who you? Your dictator?

---

Dictator or not, facts are facts.

Quote:

---

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

---

You're right - planning wasn't the best word, since you want to take it so literally. There was never intention to perform a full scale offensive in Finland. After the territory lost in 1941 was recovered and a bit broadened, Soviets were happy to put their troops on the defence and fortify the position.

Planning is something that happens constantly in the army. US has a plan for an invasion of Canada but that doesn't mean that US army is going to invade Canada any minute now, or that they are afraid of mighty Canadian military.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Totally different demands and conditions. What was asked of Baltic states wasn't asked of Finland.

Quote:

---

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.

---

What do you mean my partisan position? Like taking a rifle and hiding in a heavily wooded area, attacking convoys?

Or are you just itsy-bitsy nervous that I'm not willing to accept your argument? What's the point of the Backroom then, if we're all gonna agree and sing Kumbaya together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. I'm not talking about 100,000 spec ops but something that's an internationally recognized sign of self-respect. Again, it's not supposed to be Marine Expeditionary Unit but a government needs to have enough people with guns under its control for when it needs them.

---

There are literally dozens of armies in the world less than 100,000 strong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I think we can safely assume that in the case of hypothetical Russian invasion the outcome is certain, 200,000 or 300,000 Finnish soldiers, 2%,3% or 4% of GDP spending.

---

You still dont get the idea.With what cost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Dictator or not, facts are facts.

---

Soviet Union surely had lot to worry from Communist dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You're right - planning wasn't the best word, since you want to take it so literally. There was never intention to perform a full scale offensive in Finland. After the territory lost in 1941 was recovered and a bit broadened, Soviets were happy to put their troops on the defence and fortify the position.

Planning is something that happens constantly in the army. US has a plan for an invasion of Canada but that doesn't mean that US army is going to invade Canada any minute now, or that they are afraid of mighty Canadian military.

---

Oh are you saying that you are familiar with fourth Strategic offensive? Let me first tell you that it was launched after German forces were cleared from the vicinity of Leningrad and the initial goals were Kotka, Lappeenranta, Kouvola. About 100 kilometers further the offensive reached. But surely you knew that already. At the same time Soviet Union attacked with large forces also North of Lake Ladoga just like in Winter war. But i am sure you knew that already as you have travelled from Stalin wanting only some small pieces from Filand back in 1939 into Finland being spared from occupation as they did not help the Germans after Winter War and arriving into the one Soviet Strategic offenisive after 1943 that did not reach its goals, but instead the peace was made in negotiations unlike how the Soviet Union had demanded for unconditional surrender before it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Totally different demands and conditions. What was asked of Baltic states wasn't asked of Finland.

---

Please elaborate.What were the terms. Do you know them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

What do you mean my partisan position? Like taking a rifle and hiding in a heavily wooded area, attacking convoys?

Or are you just itsy-bitsy nervous that I'm not willing to accept your argument? What's the point of the Backroom then, if we're all gonna agree and sing Kumbaya together?

---

I am just growing tired that after i debunk one myth about WWII you throw another one in the air. Maybe just pick a book about it and get into the subject?

Also i explained at my very first reply to you the same thing Panzer already agreed upon. The function of the army is to make the enemy bleed so badly that even totalitarian regimes like Soviet Union understood the gain was not in balance with the sacrifice. You on the other hand seem to think that we live in some total war world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

There are literally dozens of armies in the world less than 100,000 strong...

---

Name them. It will amuse me.

Let me start: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Lesotho, Swaziland...

102 countries according to wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Name them. It will amuse me.

Let me start: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Lesotho, Swaziland...

---

The Netherlands, I think. Belgium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

You still dont get the idea.With what cost?

---

I do get it. I just believe that denying a reason for attack is much better guarantee of Finnish independence.

Quote:

---

Soviet Union surely had lot to worry from Communist dictatorship.

---

In this case, I'll pull a Kagemusha and tell you to brush up your history.

Quote:

---

Oh are you saying that you are familiar with fourth Strategic offensive? Let me first tell you that it was launched after German forces were cleared from the vicinity of Leningrad and the initial goals were Kotka, Lappeenranta, Kouvola. About 100 kilometers further the offensive reached. But surely you knew that already. At the same time Soviet Union attacked with large forces also North of Lake Ladoga just like in Winter war. But i am sure you knew that already as you have travelled from Stalin wanting only some small pieces from Filand back in 1939 into Finland being spared from occupation as they did not help the Germans after Winter War and arriving into the one Soviet Strategic offenisive after 1943 that did not reach its goals, but instead the peace was made in negotiations unlike how the Soviet Union had demanded for unconditional surrender before it.

---

I'm not really familiar with the term Fourth Strategic offensive. Are you referring to the Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive? Either way, yes, I maintain that overall goal of any Soviet action in the north was to secure Leningrad and northern lend-lease route, and maybe later to deprive Germany of iron and nickel from Sweden.

Quote:

---

Please elaborate.What were the terms. Do you know them?

---

Finland was asked to surrender territory in the immediate vicinity of Leningrad (thus dismantling a part of Mannerheim line) and a 30 year lease on Hango peninsula and in return it was offered land north of Ladoga.

In the case of the Baltic states, SU wanted (and got) a right to station and move army, ships, planes and artillery on their territory, to use and to build military bases, ports, airfields, ports and other military installations. Under the letter of agreement, Baltic states also promised to help each other and SU in the case of attack and to refrain from being a part of any alliance that might endanger USSR.

Quote:

---

I am just growing tired that after i debunk one myth about WWII you throw another one in the air. Maybe just pick a book about it and get into the subject?

---

Yes, massuh, tenk you massuh...

Quote:

---

Also i explained at my very first reply to you the same thing Panzer already agreed upon. The function of the army is to make the enemy bleed so badly that even totalitarian regimes like Soviet Union understood the gain was not in balance with the sacrifice. You on the other hand seem to think that we live in some total war world.

---

If it comes to Russia invading Finland, it will probably be very close to a total war. In that case you're screwed with or without and army, but, more importantly, I believe it won't come to that in the foreseeable future, in which case, you're fine with or without an army.

Just my opinion, don't hang me for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Name them. It will amuse me.

Let me start: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Lesotho, Swaziland...

---

There's, what, 192 countries in the UN? 102 with armies less than 100,000 makes it more than 50%. Writing 102 countries is a chore, don't make me do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The Netherlands, I think. Belgium.

---

The UK...

Switzerland...

Norway...

100,000 soldiers would have to depend on the able body adult population.

Very few nations have in the event of war been able to send away 10% of their total population.

As such that means any nation of one million or less is not going to have 100,000 battle ready soldiers.

The standing army of China is 2.2 million or 1/50 of their population.

So based on that most nations with less then 5 million people are not going to have 100,000 soldiers/sailors and air men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The UK...

Switzerland...

Norway...

---

Uh not true. UK army alone is 145k total military is around 225k.

that being said i dont think you need 100000 troops for a respectable armed forces. quality of gear and training is of far greater importance in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I do get it. I just believe that denying a reason for attack is much better guarantee of Finnish independence.

---

Like time and time again i have told you. For independent politics you have to back it up some way. I would love to move Finland into Western Europe, but if you have longest border with Russia of any European country and 7th largest land area of European country with bit over five million people. You need to spend some on your defense.

Maybe you remember that you dont need to look far to witness Russia using armed forces as continuity of their politics. Was it a year a go.When Russia defeated Georgia´s small US trained military with not much of an effort. We cant just put rose coloured glasses on and think nothing could ever happen. Wise man hope´s for the best and prepares for the worst.

Your vision of independence seems to be go along with Russia. Why not ask Russia to protect Finland at the same note with their military?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

In this case, I'll pull a Kagemusha and tell you to brush up your history.

---

Yugoslavia wasnt a communist dictatorship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I'm not really familiar with the term Fourth Strategic offensive. Are you referring to the Petsamo-Kirkenes offensive? Either way, yes, I maintain that overall goal of any Soviet action in the north was to secure Leningrad and northern lend-lease route, and maybe later to deprive Germany of iron and nickel from Sweden.

---

That just shows that apparently you rely on wikipedia concerning with information about the affair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Finland was asked to surrender territory in the immediate vicinity of Leningrad (thus dismantling a part of Mannerheim line) and a 30 year lease on Hango peninsula and in return it was offered land north of Ladoga.

In the case of the Baltic states, SU wanted (and got) a right to station and move army, ships, planes and artillery on their territory, to use and to build military bases, ports, airfields, ports and other military installations. Under the letter of agreement, Baltic states also promised to help each other and SU in the case of attack and to refrain from being a part of any alliance that might endanger USSR.

---

Yes. Very different terms. Do you know where Hanko peninsula is situated? Right next to Helsinki and into what lead the Baltic states acceptance of the Soviet terms? Their occupation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

If it comes to Russia invading Finland, it will probably be very close to a total war. In that case you're screwed with or without and army, but, more importantly, I believe it won't come to that in the foreseeable future, in which case, you're fine with or without an army.

---

I just have to agree to disagree with you in this whole affair as you cant set your defense policies in maybe´s. They are for situations when things turn from bad to worse. If Finland would not be a neighbour of Russia. I would agree with no need for much of a military, but the reality is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Just my opinion, don't hang me for it.

---

I just completely disagree with you in this, but it seems neither can convince the other in the issue, so maybe debating this further is useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The UK...

Switzerland...

Norway...

---

You are forgetting the reserves. Switzerland has akin to 200k reserve army with its tiny size. Its not that we have 350k in standing army, but most are in reserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Uh not true. UK army alone is 145k total military is around 225k.

that being said i dont think you need 100000 troops for a respectable armed forces. quality of gear and training is of far greater importance in my eyes.

---

Ten years ago.

By 2018 the British Army will number just 82,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves.

We are, however, an Island and our defensive posture is based on blocakading the channel for six months in order to mobalise our reserves, TA units and produce a Home Guard. That's the real reason the UK needs carrier battlegroups and AA destroyers.

With a few easy mods the Netherlands is an island, too. However our defensive posture relies since about 17th century or so on making sure that none of France, Germany or UK is powerful enough to contemplate invading us. This is why the EU is a good thing. People are too busy to be angry with Paris or Berlin to notice the Dutch and Belgians quietly egging them on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ten years ago.

By 2018 the British Army will number just 82,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves.

We are, however, an Island and our defensive posture is based on blocakading the channel for six months in order to mobalise our reserves, TA units and produce a Home Guard. That's the real reason the UK needs carrier battlegroups and AA destroyers.

---

you guys are talking at cross purposes by talking about armies and armed forces as if they were the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

With a few easy mods the Netherlands is an island, too.

---

Or a submarine country. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Or a submarine country. ~;)

---

Yes. Excellent location for a subterranean lair. -- I mean the cabling and utilities have all been taken care of, and nobody suspects you when you build it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The Netherlands, I think. Belgium.

---

Well there you go. We all know what happens to Belgium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you guys are talking at cross purposes by talking about armies and armed forces as if they were the same thing.

---

No we aren't, according to Centurion the "army alone" is 145 thousand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Well there you go. We all know what happens to Belgium.

---

Excellent food, beer, years without government, and other delights for mankind. What's not to like?

And when you are caught speeding on the highway, you just claim the French speaking cops are probably too thick to read the manual for the camera properly and get acquitted in court. In the USA you'd be lucky if said cops didn't tazer you to death! Ergo, Belgium wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Excellent food, beer, years without government, and other delights for mankind. What's not to like?

And when you are caught speeding on the highway, you just claim the French speaking cops are probably too thick to read the manual for the camera properly and get acquitted in court. In the USA you'd be lucky if said cops didn't tazer you to death! Ergo, Belgium wins.

---

You've just been trolled.

That's just a poke in the ribs to those getting stuck on the 100,000 number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5xd...layer_embedded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No we aren't, according to Centurion the "army alone" is 145 thousand.

---

people are talking at cross purposes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You need to have something like a 100,000 person defense force, minimum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

There are literally dozens of armies in the world less than 100,000 strong...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

100,000 soldiers would have to depend on the able body adult population.

---

all i am suggesting is that a little more precision would aid debate immensely. :)

No, no. As you can see, we're refining the argument. The next progression is 100,000 guns. Bullets then follow the guns.

That's a good direction because I remember certain countries ran out of laser guided bombs during the Libya bombings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

No, no. As you can see, we're refining the argument. The next progression is 100,000 guns. Bullets then follow the guns.

---

I thought guns fired shells and rifles fired bullets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I thought guns fired shells and rifles fired bullets.

---

:inquisitive: :wall: :australia: :thumbsup:

I was once fired by my boss, so there's no rule there...

If you had to discard your work clothing on the way out, wouldn't that make you some kind of sabot shell?
Especially if your boss was the son of a gun... :creep: