Finland will send about 20 trainers, compared to 120 sent by neighbouring Sweden.
  • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
    248·
    2 years ago

    NATO is gonna fail as hard as the nazis did when they tried to advance eastward. Sorry europe, not gonna work this time either.

    • vitaminka@lemmy.ml
      8·
      2 years ago

      i’m legitimately curious about this one, i always thought that finland aligned with nazi germany in order to help defend them in the winter war, but finland itself never really helped nazism or nazi germany in any capacity 🤔

      (though i never really delved into this topic, so i’m not sure)

      • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
        163·
        2 years ago

        No probs! This is a very detailed account of the history, negotiations and details around the winter war. Remember also that Finland crushed their own workers revolts in 1919, and were part of the alliance attacking the USSR in the russian civil war / revolution, as they were to do again in ww2 alongside nazi germany.

        The safety of Leningrad (which was within artillery range of Finland, and which had been attacked in the previous decades by Finland, Britain and Germany, and which Finland later assisted nazi germany in nearly starving leningrad’s people to death), was the primary issue of the winter war.

          • Catraism-Stalinism@lemmy.ml
            73·
            2 years ago

            Well their military and government was chock full of it, which is why Finland was so eager to help germany:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-11/report-finds-finnish-soldiers-were-complicit-in-wwii-atrocities/10798222

            German influence in the government and many other aspect was apparent in the buildup of the Lapua movement in the early 30s. It was crushed, but the fact a fascist revolution even could happen is indicative of its popularity.

            I hate to use wikipedia, but this article I had in my drives has been checked to be found pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics_in_Finland

            It specifically highlights the existence of heightened fascist power from 1929 on to the early 40s. That is why it so eagerly sided with Nazis, took part in miniature holocausts, and participated in an idea of expansionism into soviet territory. It wanted land it lost in 1940 due to losing the winter war, even though the Soviets signed a large truce and guaranteed their independence as a country moving forward. Fascism heightens imperialist ambitions of capitalism, causing them to side with the barbaric nazis as they tore through the USSR’s countryside in Barbarossa.

            The Soviets though, again, started kicking their ass back into their lands, and killing their fascist elements. I said Finland had adapted Fascism, not become it, so they just needed to be entirely threatened to be shown the error of such ways, and then turned against fascism.

            Sadly since the fall of the soviets they have slowly started up “Finland First” fascist movements. They’ve regressed on taking care of their school system, which is at risk of quickly falling in quality.

              • Catraism-Stalinism@lemmy.ml
                44·
                2 years ago

                they actually have a lot contacts to Russia

                Reliable source?

                Not sure what you mean about the school system, but that sounds like a total BS.

                Many have been falling victim to mold infestations, a serious problem that isn’t being dealt with.

                There are some far-right movements in Finland today, but those are really small minority

                Nordic countries have been showing a huge overall increased in elected far right individuals, and decrease in far left.

          • Catraism-Stalinism@lemmy.ml
            226·
            2 years ago

            That’s not gonna happen.

            victory is fucking impossible, this isn’t some western movie, or some fantasy novel! This is reality! Wet dreams? Neither of us give that much of a shit, we’re just stating the obvious. Ukraine has been burning through troops and supplies faster than russia is by a large margin. Even western sources are beginning to report negatively, which is a huge fuckin change from their ‘propaganda every day every hour’ tactic. the Ukrainian conflict does not matter, Russian victory was decided the moment they committed troops, it is what happens after that does.

            honestly why are you so happy for the side with the Neo-nazi brigades

              • Catraism-Stalinism@lemmy.ml
                156·
                2 years ago

                Yale report says the sanctions are actually working

                reading through that one, and I don’t doubt the Modern Russian government could be covering it up

                Ukraine burning troops, neo-nazis

                this is fairly well known to be true by those who aren’t stupid. At this point it is just being stupid. I would be stunned if you actually learned about this crisis before this whole thing popped off, because I did, and everyone agreed, even the western media, that there were fucking nazis in ukraine, most of it actually. But now since they needed people to put through a meatgrinder so they can offset a rival imperialist power, they have to pretend everyone is a LGBTQ supporting little angel. Its laughable how stupid you are being.

                In the meanwhile reports say Russia is burning troops in huge amounts

                1. I do not trust those usual reports and neither should you, especially from corporate media. 2. Russia really can afford burning through troops if they were, so it doesn’t even matter.

                The only wet dream is you rationalizing that this:

                medium country, with half decent post soviet military, mostly in a militia mode of deployment before the invasion. Who can only use post-soviet military tech for any of their war methodology (which is why the NATO aid is useless)

                Is currently beating this:

                1 medium country with a decent and maintained post soviet military, and the other is the largest and most resource filled country on the planet with large post soviet military industry networks. The army planning for this defensive move for years, and the only massive military on earth besides India and China who operate on a mass battle plan, and not the sort of scattered guerrilla fighting the western countries developed their military to combat. They currently have the lower ukraine up to nearly moldova. THEIR MAIN ARMY ISN’T EVEN ENGAGED, THEY JUST ARMED THE MILITIAS AND LEFT TO REARM FOR ANOTHER OFFENSIVE! Spirit does not win a fight, this isn’t a movie.

                I have very little stake in this matter, and I am stunned at how deluded some people are. I believe the Soviet Union’s collapse was a disaster and this is just further proof of it. Do not give yourself… “wet dreams” as you put it, that you are fighting some putinite radical and doing your duty for “democracy” or “ukraine” or somes shit.

                You’ve done totally and absolutely nothing

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              414·
              2 years ago

              That NATO map is perplexing. If it’s trying to show Russia vs NATO, why doesn’t it show Russian allies as well? Also, it’s worth pointing out that it can also be interpreted as countries being afraid of Russia? After all, NATO has not actually started a war with Russia post-Soviet Union, but Russia has invaded both Georgia and Ukraine.

              • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
                111·
                2 years ago

                Nato has started (or been involved in establishing US dominance in) 5 wars just in the past 30 years: attacking / overthrowing Iraq (twice), overthrowing Yugoslavia, overthrowing Libya, overthrowing Afghanistan, attacking Syria.

            • kujaw@lemmy.ml
              515·
              2 years ago

              Don’t draw alt history. Countries wanted to join NATO cause they were afraid of and disgusted by Russia. There’s nothing good in Russia that would make any civilised country happy to befriend Russia.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      612·
      2 years ago

      It’s almost like they just got invaded by the Soviet Union. Yep, checks out.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          413·
          2 years ago

          Finland had just ceded 9% of its territory to end Soviet aggression against it. Germany was useful in getting that territory back.

          This is one of those “play stupid games get stupid prizes” things. The Soviet Union invaded a smaller country. Don’t blame Finland when it allied itself with a more powerful country. It’s silly to act the victim when the Soviet Union picked a fight to begin with.

          • gun@lemmy.ml
            113·
            2 years ago

            Don’t blame Finland when it allied itself with a more powerful country.

            I think I will blame Finland for fighting with the Nazis actually. Don’t tell me what to do.

            It’s silly to act the victim when the Soviet Union picked a fight to begin with.

            25 million people of the USSR died, that does sort of make them a victim. Taking a piece of Finland that was a part of Russia in 1917, like 20 years earlier, that is to this day recognized by Finland as Russian territory, this justifies that for you?

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              46·
              2 years ago

              25 million people of the USSR died, that does sort of make them a victim.

              Of Nazi Germany, sure. Not of Finland. Not when the Soviet Union invaded first. It’s also worth noting that

              that is to this day recognized by Finland as Russian territory

              You say that like they were okay with it. From what I hear, it’s a source of considerable bitterness, especially given that all the Finnish people in the area were forced out.

              • gun@lemmy.ml
                52·
                2 years ago

                Of Nazi Germany, sure. Not of Finland.

                What a pointless distinction. It’s not like they contributed to Operation Barbarossa or anything and that a number of those 25 million deaths came at the hands of Finish troops.

                You say that like they were okay with it.

                No, I say that like it is an objective fact.

              • Catraism-Stalinism@lemmy.ml
                65·
                2 years ago

                Soviet Union invaded first

                Finland took soviet territory, Soviets wanted the unjustly occupied territory back. I say its fair. They didn’t invade all of finland.

                You say that like they were okay with it. From what I hear, it’s a source of considerable bitterness, especially given that all the Finnish people in the area were forced out.

                good for them, its war, they lost. Finland shouldn’t have gone for a greedy land grab.

          • gun@lemmy.ml
            131·
            2 years ago

            The alternative was the Nazis getting 100% of Poland

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              411·
              2 years ago

              It doesn’t change that Stalin was perfect fine being… what do they call it, a Nazi collaborator?

              • gun@lemmy.ml
                101·
                2 years ago

                Stalin is the reason we don’t live under a flag with a swastika under it today. Perhaps you would not even be alive typing this if it weren’t for Stalin. The war industry of the USSR in this time is well understood. The USSR was not ready for a war with Germany, but they could be in a few years time. This is evidenced by the fact that the Nazis made it all the way to Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad, before the growing war industry of the Soviet Union was able to catch up and supercede the Nazis’.

                Without the M-R pact, Barbarossa would have begun much more to the east. Perhaps that would have given the Nazis the upper hand enough to have defeated the USSR. With hindsight, the M-R pact was strategically the right decision.

                So do we call this Nazi collaboration? That would be narrow-sighted, because they took the correct strategy to beat the Nazis. In Finland’s case, they never had the goal of defeating the Nazis. Even after signing a peace with the USSR, they never turned on the Nazis like other eastern european countries did.

                No, Finland’s goals were to take territory, and not just the territory they had lost, they wanted to annex all of Karelia we know. A Finish historian even, Lauri Hannikainen writes:

                Finnish forces did not stop at the old border but occupied Eastern (Soviet) Karelia with a desire eventually to annex it. By that measure, Finland joined as Germany’s ally in its war of aggression against the Soviet Union in violation of international law. In their strong reliance on Germany, the Finnish leaders made some very questionable decisions without listening to warnings from Western States about possible negative consequences.

                So the viewpoint you are espousing in this thread is historical revisionism even by western academic standards.

  • IngrownMink4@lemmy.ml
    76·
    2 years ago

    And wouldn’t it be better to negotiate a surrender by having China as an intermediary?

    I mean, too much innocent blood has already been shed and World War III is about to break out. Besides, Ukraine is not militarily prepared to contain Russia.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      74·
      2 years ago

      Peace was negotiated 8 years ago with Russia, France and Germany as intermediaries, but Ukraine ignored it. Multiple attempts of peace talks since the beginning of current phase of the conflict were also completely fizzled because Ukraine was not attempting to negotiate in good faith. We can only speculte the reason but most likely this is the outcome of combined NATO pressure and neonazi influence in their military and government.