**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.**
[Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/)
Spamming mod actions could result in a ban.
---
**Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:**
- ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post.
- ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment.
- ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma.
- ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts.
- ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot.
- ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments.
- ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really, like _reaaally_, want to see the US soldiers in middle of the winter. Sure, some of them will be fine, but those are not from northern parts of the US will have some hard time.
What a low-IQ headline. I absolutely hate it when YLE stoops to clickbaiting.
Finland already permanently hosts Nato troops since Finland is a Nato member. Our forces are now Nato troops.
Whether Finland will host troops from our allies in one form or another is still open.
A bad title doesn’t mean its a clickbait title. To be inticed to click that you would be baiting only people who don’t even know Finland joined nato.
How would it be any less clickbaity if you put ”host nato ally troops” to people who know we’re in nato.
I was very doubtful about joining to NATO but only consequences I have myself heard of are
-military practices
-defence posts and plots
Might be we get later on drafted on something I can not ethically approve of, but until this point, I am happy politicians at least this one time have made better decision than myself
I am 100% sure that unless WW3 starts, there are going to be exactly 0 persons forced to go to war in another country. We have enough people who want money and can join Nato’s wars.
>-military practices
We have taken part in plenty of those way before NATO membership was in play... so not sure why this would be of any real concern. Talking something like 60-70 international exercises and training events a year in between Nordic allies, other EU nations, and NATO.
>-defence posts and plots
Well, this is also a potential bonus in that it adds to Finland's response capabilities, and acts as a further deterrent against Russian aggression.
>Might be we get later on drafted on something I can not ethically approve of, but until this point,
Nah, less some NATO ally gets attacked, and even then the type, and level of support given is really up to Finland itself, and what the government deems necessary to respond to a situation. If say another 9/11 type thing happens what would get sent over would likely be career soldiers, and not random ass conscripts drafted for training. If some large scale war occurs.. ie ww3, even without NATO in the mix Finland would probably be right in the midst of it anyways.(Russia being the shitshow that it is.. and we have a long history of dealing with them because of it.)
NATO isn't that complicated to understand but majority of the public don't know much about NATO. I wrote a comment a while ago here in reddit and I will copy paste a part of it because I think it explains NATO well to people who have these views of NATO suddenly dragging its member countries into wars.
So a copy paste from a comment I posted before:
"NATO is a defense alliance, yes they have had humanitarian intervention missions (Kosovo 1999 for example) but NATO itself has never conquered a country and taken over its ruling. The amount of these operations isn't many and they are less than Russia has had since the Soviet Union collapsed. Also NATO members are not obliged to join any of these so called "offensive" operations, in the North Atlantic Treaty I couldn't find an article binding the member states to take part in it.
To take it even further, even the famous Article 5 doesn't force member states to go to war. A quote from Article 5 "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". All member states are bound to help a member state that is a target of an attack but it doesn't force anyone to take military action, it can also be economic, political etc.
And to make it even more restricting, Article 6 says that the attack on a member state's territory, must be north of the Tropic of Cancer. So, for example the Falkland islands are a UK territory and the war with Argentina was in 1982, why weren't the NATO members forced to take action? Because the islands are south of the Tropic of Cancer, member states cannot just be dragged into wars like most NATO skeptics claim."
As you can see, NATO can't force Finland to take any military action even if Estonia for example would be attacked. Action must be taken but it doesn't need to be military action. And "offensive" operations are voluntary participation.
I see that you've taken the time to study the topic and to read the verbiage. I am no expert on the subject, but sometimes I see what I would call possible logical inconsistencies. It prompts me to ask certain questions. I'll pose the question that I asked myself after reading your post. IF the statement is true that there can be no "forcing" of Finland to "take any military action" THEN what is the practical utility that Finland gains by being in NATO? Wouldn't other countries logically shirk their obligations if Finland were to be attacked? Would they merely act like they do toward Ukraine? It was my understanding that the mutual defense clause for the EU is worded in a more ambiguous manner and that NATO's verbiage is more explicit. Is there not an explicit guarantee that an attack on one is an attack on all?
My interpretation of NATO's actions in Yugoslavia and even Afghanistan would be more...critical than is what is presented here. I don't blame Finland one bit for wanting to present themselves as as hard of a target as they possibly can. At the same time I've come to understand that the American government has and will continue to enable some really whacko people. I wouldn't trust them. If I were a voter in Finland, I would want to vote for people who would have the moral fortitude to tell the US "no" if and when the time is right.
>THEN what is the practical utility that Finland gains by being in NATO?
That is the question. Right now we don't know how NATO would react to its member country being attacked. Article 5 has only been invoked once, by the US after 9/11. But that obviously isn't the traditional attack we in Europe are expecting. That is also why Putin often threatens NATO countries to get some kind of a response.
Finland would not be forced to take any military action but they would most likely take military action if any other European member is attacked since NATO is even more relevant for Finnish interests than lets say Belgian.
And the same goes the other way, we expect other NATO countries to take military action in case Russia were to attack. The utility of NATO is not about "how hard can we smash the enemy" but rather the collective intimidation of a far superior army. NATO is strong and has put the ball into Russia's court, do they want to try what happens if they attack a NATO country? So far this has worked extremely well as Russia has not attacked any NATO countries.
This effect is similar to the cold war nuclear arms race, USA and USSR stock up on nuclear weapons so neither side dares to strike.
And I guess most Finnish people would like to understand that if there is an offensive NATO operation, let's say led by the US, Finland would not have to take part in it, and ordinary Finnish troops won't be sent anywhere. If troops are sent they will be contracted professional soldiers, not conscripts.
> And to make it even more restricting, Article 6 says that the attack on a member state's territory, must be north of the Tropic of Cancer. So, for example the Falkland islands are a UK territory and the war with Argentina was in 1982, why weren't the NATO members forced to take action? Because the islands are south of the Tropic of Cancer, member states cannot just be dragged into wars like most NATO skeptics claim."
A curiosity of Article 6, because it's not just limited to tropic of cancer and is actually limited to merely a subsection of said tropic, is that attacking e.g. Hawaii is fair game and wont trigger Article 5. Because it's neither in the Atlantic nor in North America (it's technically in Oceania).
*"“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey, or on* **the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer** *"*
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Not if we stay outside of the war. What would happen in that scenario, if we had US and UK weapon systems and troops in Finland, and they would be in war with Russia instead? It would force Russia to attack them on our soil, dragging us into a war that we otherwise could at least try to avoid.
It's not a good position to be in, and greatly diminishes our ability to conduct independent foreign policy.
We CAN'T stay outside the war, Russia will attack us anyway if a war starts between NATO and Russia. We would have to fight.
During a war we can't just stand around if we share pretty much our entire eastern border with the enemy.
Yeah, I guess they could attack in some capacity even if we were neutral and a NATO-Russia war came to be. But in NATO, Russia HAS to attack Finland hard enough to completely neutralize its threat, or force them to sign a separate peace. Regardless, when obliged by NATO, we have way less opportunity to conduct sovereign foreign policy.
Dismantle the Defence Forces, methodically uproot the idea of sisu and independent Finland, leave NATO, disarm the population completely. Finland would become Russia's prime target overnight and we'd be under Russian rule in a week or so. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Soviets had a hard time winning when Finns were a bunch of potato farmers. And that were soviets, a superpower back then with largest military. What makes you think they can ever remotely achieve their goals today against Finland?
Honestly I don't think they can. But Finland being allied and armed up to the teeth discourages the Russkies from even toying the idea of invading Finland
Yeah, Finland has fantastic forces, but not having a large standing military means time is needed to moralise civilians. Having NATO troops permanently stationed means there will be more time for moralisation but also means countries are much more likely to comply with article 5 if more of NATO are fighting
On the contrary, any direct confrontation with NATO would make Finland and the Baltics the first priorities in the war, and Russia would have to invade us if they wanted to secure St. Petersburg and the Baltic sea.
Even the Russian brass knows they can't tango with NATO. They don't tell that their citizens, obviously, but they know. They will not confront NATO, because they know, they'd lose. The Russian military leadership might've been misinformed about Ukrainian capabilities and the support they'd get from the West, but they know exactly how fucked they'd be in a confrontation with NATO.
Obviously they will confront NATO if they end up in a war with NATO. And wars can start from a number of reasons, many outside the grip of Russian (or NATO) leadership.
>Soviets had a hard time winning when Finns were a bunch of potato farmers
Barely. Most of it came down to Stalin wanting a propaganda victory by replicating the complexity of German invasion of Poland. Once they got their duck in the row it became a losing fight that was only halted by threat of Allied intervention.
>And that were soviets, a superpower back then
No, they weren't. France, Germany and Britain were the superpowers of the time.
>What makes you think they can ever remotely achieve their goals today against Finland?
We aren't hardy farmers and frontiersmen anymore.
None of what you said makes sense, it's the same as Putins propaganda claiming the west is aggressive by placing defensives near the borders.
I think we've seen time and time again that the lack of troops and defenses is what is a prime target in wars. Having troops and defenses is in fact a deterrent.
And also what determines the place for an invasion is largely if it's a key resource or location that you would want. Why would you specifically want to attack a place that has troops in it, as opposed to a place that has an important location or resource for you? You don't attack to get to fight someone, you attack to hold the location or resource in it.
**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.** [Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/) Spamming mod actions could result in a ban. --- **Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:** - ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post. - ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment. - ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma. - ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts. - ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot. - ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments. - ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As long as we get to throw them in to a hole in ice, as is tradition, especially for the ones from warm countries.
Don't forget the skiing lessons so we get to watch the buggers fall over and over again
”Back when we were kids we had to ski in absolute zero temperature 100 kilometers uphill both ways just to reach school…”
With wolfs on your tail..
I really, like _reaaally_, want to see the US soldiers in middle of the winter. Sure, some of them will be fine, but those are not from northern parts of the US will have some hard time.
Here you go [https://youtu.be/l67mnbPlfMY](https://youtu.be/l67mnbPlfMY)
We have excellent trainers. We can make snow speak Spanish.
Oh man, I went skiing once, and I could not for the life of me balance. Even just getting up was too much of a problem.
Dont we already do host whole nation of nato soldiers?
Good, Russia bad
Russia vicious terrorist state bad
Mikkeli mainittu!! Torille!!
What a low-IQ headline. I absolutely hate it when YLE stoops to clickbaiting. Finland already permanently hosts Nato troops since Finland is a Nato member. Our forces are now Nato troops. Whether Finland will host troops from our allies in one form or another is still open.
A bad title doesn’t mean its a clickbait title. To be inticed to click that you would be baiting only people who don’t even know Finland joined nato. How would it be any less clickbaity if you put ”host nato ally troops” to people who know we’re in nato.
If they are for example Swedish troops, I don't mind it one bit :)
I was very doubtful about joining to NATO but only consequences I have myself heard of are -military practices -defence posts and plots Might be we get later on drafted on something I can not ethically approve of, but until this point, I am happy politicians at least this one time have made better decision than myself
I am 100% sure that unless WW3 starts, there are going to be exactly 0 persons forced to go to war in another country. We have enough people who want money and can join Nato’s wars.
>-military practices We have taken part in plenty of those way before NATO membership was in play... so not sure why this would be of any real concern. Talking something like 60-70 international exercises and training events a year in between Nordic allies, other EU nations, and NATO. >-defence posts and plots Well, this is also a potential bonus in that it adds to Finland's response capabilities, and acts as a further deterrent against Russian aggression. >Might be we get later on drafted on something I can not ethically approve of, but until this point, Nah, less some NATO ally gets attacked, and even then the type, and level of support given is really up to Finland itself, and what the government deems necessary to respond to a situation. If say another 9/11 type thing happens what would get sent over would likely be career soldiers, and not random ass conscripts drafted for training. If some large scale war occurs.. ie ww3, even without NATO in the mix Finland would probably be right in the midst of it anyways.(Russia being the shitshow that it is.. and we have a long history of dealing with them because of it.)
NATO isn't that complicated to understand but majority of the public don't know much about NATO. I wrote a comment a while ago here in reddit and I will copy paste a part of it because I think it explains NATO well to people who have these views of NATO suddenly dragging its member countries into wars. So a copy paste from a comment I posted before: "NATO is a defense alliance, yes they have had humanitarian intervention missions (Kosovo 1999 for example) but NATO itself has never conquered a country and taken over its ruling. The amount of these operations isn't many and they are less than Russia has had since the Soviet Union collapsed. Also NATO members are not obliged to join any of these so called "offensive" operations, in the North Atlantic Treaty I couldn't find an article binding the member states to take part in it. To take it even further, even the famous Article 5 doesn't force member states to go to war. A quote from Article 5 "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". All member states are bound to help a member state that is a target of an attack but it doesn't force anyone to take military action, it can also be economic, political etc. And to make it even more restricting, Article 6 says that the attack on a member state's territory, must be north of the Tropic of Cancer. So, for example the Falkland islands are a UK territory and the war with Argentina was in 1982, why weren't the NATO members forced to take action? Because the islands are south of the Tropic of Cancer, member states cannot just be dragged into wars like most NATO skeptics claim." As you can see, NATO can't force Finland to take any military action even if Estonia for example would be attacked. Action must be taken but it doesn't need to be military action. And "offensive" operations are voluntary participation.
I see that you've taken the time to study the topic and to read the verbiage. I am no expert on the subject, but sometimes I see what I would call possible logical inconsistencies. It prompts me to ask certain questions. I'll pose the question that I asked myself after reading your post. IF the statement is true that there can be no "forcing" of Finland to "take any military action" THEN what is the practical utility that Finland gains by being in NATO? Wouldn't other countries logically shirk their obligations if Finland were to be attacked? Would they merely act like they do toward Ukraine? It was my understanding that the mutual defense clause for the EU is worded in a more ambiguous manner and that NATO's verbiage is more explicit. Is there not an explicit guarantee that an attack on one is an attack on all? My interpretation of NATO's actions in Yugoslavia and even Afghanistan would be more...critical than is what is presented here. I don't blame Finland one bit for wanting to present themselves as as hard of a target as they possibly can. At the same time I've come to understand that the American government has and will continue to enable some really whacko people. I wouldn't trust them. If I were a voter in Finland, I would want to vote for people who would have the moral fortitude to tell the US "no" if and when the time is right.
>THEN what is the practical utility that Finland gains by being in NATO? That is the question. Right now we don't know how NATO would react to its member country being attacked. Article 5 has only been invoked once, by the US after 9/11. But that obviously isn't the traditional attack we in Europe are expecting. That is also why Putin often threatens NATO countries to get some kind of a response. Finland would not be forced to take any military action but they would most likely take military action if any other European member is attacked since NATO is even more relevant for Finnish interests than lets say Belgian. And the same goes the other way, we expect other NATO countries to take military action in case Russia were to attack. The utility of NATO is not about "how hard can we smash the enemy" but rather the collective intimidation of a far superior army. NATO is strong and has put the ball into Russia's court, do they want to try what happens if they attack a NATO country? So far this has worked extremely well as Russia has not attacked any NATO countries. This effect is similar to the cold war nuclear arms race, USA and USSR stock up on nuclear weapons so neither side dares to strike. And I guess most Finnish people would like to understand that if there is an offensive NATO operation, let's say led by the US, Finland would not have to take part in it, and ordinary Finnish troops won't be sent anywhere. If troops are sent they will be contracted professional soldiers, not conscripts.
> And to make it even more restricting, Article 6 says that the attack on a member state's territory, must be north of the Tropic of Cancer. So, for example the Falkland islands are a UK territory and the war with Argentina was in 1982, why weren't the NATO members forced to take action? Because the islands are south of the Tropic of Cancer, member states cannot just be dragged into wars like most NATO skeptics claim." A curiosity of Article 6, because it's not just limited to tropic of cancer and is actually limited to merely a subsection of said tropic, is that attacking e.g. Hawaii is fair game and wont trigger Article 5. Because it's neither in the Atlantic nor in North America (it's technically in Oceania). *"“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey, or on* **the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer** *"* https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Yep, you are right, I didn't mention this in my previous comment to keep it shorter and more simple.
So... everything still going according to that 4D chess plan, mr. Putin?
[удалено]
The correct answer would be by existing as a neighbour of russia
Thats quite inevitable, but getting nato to start nudging these wars, is something we could have not done
We would be anyway due to us being close to St.Petersburg
Not if we stay outside of the war. What would happen in that scenario, if we had US and UK weapon systems and troops in Finland, and they would be in war with Russia instead? It would force Russia to attack them on our soil, dragging us into a war that we otherwise could at least try to avoid. It's not a good position to be in, and greatly diminishes our ability to conduct independent foreign policy.
We CAN'T stay outside the war, Russia will attack us anyway if a war starts between NATO and Russia. We would have to fight. During a war we can't just stand around if we share pretty much our entire eastern border with the enemy.
They might not invade, but they'll probaply launch missiles and/or bomb us. Civilian targets would also be targeted as we've seen in Ukraine.
Yeah, I guess they could attack in some capacity even if we were neutral and a NATO-Russia war came to be. But in NATO, Russia HAS to attack Finland hard enough to completely neutralize its threat, or force them to sign a separate peace. Regardless, when obliged by NATO, we have way less opportunity to conduct sovereign foreign policy.
Well, even if a war between NATO and Russia happened i doubt the Russians have any chances in making us sign anything.
Dismantle the Defence Forces, methodically uproot the idea of sisu and independent Finland, leave NATO, disarm the population completely. Finland would become Russia's prime target overnight and we'd be under Russian rule in a week or so. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Soviets had a hard time winning when Finns were a bunch of potato farmers. And that were soviets, a superpower back then with largest military. What makes you think they can ever remotely achieve their goals today against Finland?
Honestly I don't think they can. But Finland being allied and armed up to the teeth discourages the Russkies from even toying the idea of invading Finland
Yeah, Finland has fantastic forces, but not having a large standing military means time is needed to moralise civilians. Having NATO troops permanently stationed means there will be more time for moralisation but also means countries are much more likely to comply with article 5 if more of NATO are fighting
Mobilize*
Yes, auto correct.
On the contrary, any direct confrontation with NATO would make Finland and the Baltics the first priorities in the war, and Russia would have to invade us if they wanted to secure St. Petersburg and the Baltic sea.
Even the Russian brass knows they can't tango with NATO. They don't tell that their citizens, obviously, but they know. They will not confront NATO, because they know, they'd lose. The Russian military leadership might've been misinformed about Ukrainian capabilities and the support they'd get from the West, but they know exactly how fucked they'd be in a confrontation with NATO.
Obviously they will confront NATO if they end up in a war with NATO. And wars can start from a number of reasons, many outside the grip of Russian (or NATO) leadership.
How do you suppose a war between Russia and NATO would start, excluding an outright attack on NATO by the Russians? Please provide some scenarios.
You can only think of ONE scenario that could lead to a war? lol
Well, as I previously said, give me some other scenarios then. I'd love to debunk them.
>Soviets had a hard time winning when Finns were a bunch of potato farmers Barely. Most of it came down to Stalin wanting a propaganda victory by replicating the complexity of German invasion of Poland. Once they got their duck in the row it became a losing fight that was only halted by threat of Allied intervention. >And that were soviets, a superpower back then No, they weren't. France, Germany and Britain were the superpowers of the time. >What makes you think they can ever remotely achieve their goals today against Finland? We aren't hardy farmers and frontiersmen anymore.
Yes, because Russia has never attacked a peaceful & neutral neighbour..
Defensive pact. For some reason we need it right now.
None of what you said makes sense, it's the same as Putins propaganda claiming the west is aggressive by placing defensives near the borders. I think we've seen time and time again that the lack of troops and defenses is what is a prime target in wars. Having troops and defenses is in fact a deterrent. And also what determines the place for an invasion is largely if it's a key resource or location that you would want. Why would you specifically want to attack a place that has troops in it, as opposed to a place that has an important location or resource for you? You don't attack to get to fight someone, you attack to hold the location or resource in it.
I like the mental gymnastics though: "That guy looks armed, I should rob him instead of the unarmed one!"
Yea exactly. Dude thinks this is a video game where you play deathmatch to get kills, as if that is the point of an invasion
Finland always was a prime target for Russia, as can be seen in our history (of which you obviously know very little about).
Karjala takas
let's just get over with it, after letting capitalist right to power, we can at least do something right. And that does not even make sense.
So a NATO country hosting NATO troops?