Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
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.