• Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Here we go boys! WW3! Lets watch the destruction of the world order AGAIN. I wonder which side Trump will take? The allies he hates or the autocrat he adores?

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Nobody seems particularly alarmed by this, least of all Finland. I doubt Putin is going to go from losing a war against Ukraine to losing a war against Ukraine and Finland and the rest of NATO too. Seems like this “buildup” has been there for a while and is only growing presumably because Ukraine is getting really good at striking targets inside of Russian borders.

    • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Even when Finland was “neutral”, we always knew the enemy is in east, and if they were west, they were trying to flank.

      Whole Finnish infrastructure is build on expectation of Russia again attacking us. Hopefully we won’t forget that, now that we are part of NATO, because it makes us less easy target.

    • Zenith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      It’s being reported by the “Moscow Times” so that alone makes me dubious about this even being real

  • Cocopanda@futurology.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Just more money laundering by the Mob there. No actual plans to invade. they will use it as a way to cost Finland money.

  • caboose2006@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    22 hours ago

    So if the Russia sycophants use “NATO on their doorstep” as an excuse to forget Russia to invade ukraine wouldn’t this build-up on the border of a NATO country give NATO the same excuse? I’m sorry I have trouble keeping up with the “logic” of Russia apologists.

    • el_bhm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      17 hours ago

      You dont have to. It is all vibe based ideology. Like all good fascist propaganda.

  • Redex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    If they’re going to attack a NATO member (humongous if), it definitely isn’t going to be Finland. It’s gonna be one of the Baltic states.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I kinda hope they’d be dumb enough to get their shit kicked in by Finland AGAIN. Gonna find an entire nation of Simo Häyhä’s waiting, this time with javelins and drones.

      • Zealousideal_Fox_900@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yeah they are really forgetting how badly they’ll get their asses beat. Because not only do they have NATO, they have the EU, plus most of the british commonwealth, and so many more countries ready to come fuck their plans up incredibly hard.

  • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    1 day ago

    Their bases have been about where the tent villages now are for decades. They’re training grounds for new conscripts until they’re moved to die in some ditch in Ukraine. Who knows why they’re more active now, maybe Ukraine is getting pretty good to hit their targets deep in Russia so they need to move further away from the front line or whatever.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with Finland, beyond the fact that our border just happens to be nearby. And should they actually try start an active war with NATO from there, these grounds are mostly in reach of Finnish artillery and our artillery is pretty damn efficient on what they do.

    • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      I somewhat vaguely remember reports from the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine and talks about Finland joining NATO, that the region around Murmansk is a somewhat problematic spot for Russia. They have a huge military presence there and it’s also one of their bases equipped with atomic bombs that threaten the west/NATO. But on the other hand land based access is only possible along the long and thin stretch of land along the Finnish border in an area that presumably is hard to defend.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 day ago

        Right, it gets into Russia’s navy problem, which they’ve had for centuries and have never had a very good solution. Murmansk is one of the few (only?) ports they have that can reliably get ships out to the Atlantic. Black Sea ports have to go through the narrow channel at Istanbul (controlled by a NATO country, Turkey), and then you have to go through Gibraltar (England) or the Suez Canal (Egypt) (and you’d have to go around Africa if you go that way).

        St Petersburg and Kaliningrad are on the Baltic sea, which is surrounded by NATO countries now. Even before then, the narrow opening in the North Sea could be easily blockaded.

        Everything else is too far away. The sheer size of the country is both Russia’s greatest defense and their biggest headache.

        See also, this Drachinifel video about the Russian Baltic Fleet during the Russian Japanese War, where the fleet traveled the long way around, nearly starts a war with England, shoots up a bunch of civilian vessels and themselves, only to be curb stomped by the fledgling Japanese navy once they finally got there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mdi_Fh9_Ag

        Yeah, Czar Nicky Two was a bad ruler. Putin has made some boneheaded decisions, but he’s a political genius next to Nicky.

        I once told my wife “I love you more than Russia loves warm water ports” and they were absolutely smitten with the nerdiness. Which is why I married them.

        • sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          This is why they invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Their next step after what they thought would be a quick toodly-doo over the Afghanis was presumably to take a piece out of Pakistan in order to get a warm water port on the Arabian Sea.

          It’s also worth noting that you lumped St Petersburg and Kaliningrad together somewhat, but they are vastly different. While St Petersburg has challenges getting to open ocean, it’s not the full-on exclave that Kaliningrad is, completely surrounded on all sides by the baltic states. I’m sure you know all of this, so this is for folks that don’t. It wasn’t entirely clear from the way you worded it.

      • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Murmansk is few hundred kilometers from Finnish border and it’s been there for “a while”, it’s no more bigger problem now than it has ever been. And Norway border is slightly closer than ours and Norway has been a NATO country for quite a while.

        • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Yes, there’s the border to Norway (and thus NATO) nearby. But look at the map. There’s a small part of border with Norway and a huge border with Finland, which was a ‘neutral’ border back then. Now it’s all NATO.

          • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            which was a ‘neutral’ border back then

            There’s quite a few unmarked graves along that border and immense effort from my countrymen to keep the border where it is. It hasn’t been “neutral” for too long. And being prepared to keep that border where it is plays a part on why our president from a small country is on discussions with Ukraine, EU leaders and that orange clown across the pond today.

    • Deestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 day ago

      They are “fucking with” NATO, historically, but not attack. Lots of “im not touching you im not touching you” on the borders and north sea. Military submarines where they are not supposed to be. Sudden declarations of artillery practice in international waters causing ship travel to reroute, then not actually doing practice…

      • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        This needs to be said over and over - Russia is and has been at war with NATO for over a decade and NATO doesn’t seem to even realize it.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          At war for over a decade is a bit of a stretch.

          The most direct confrontation was Turkiye shooting down Russian jets that flew into their airspace when bombing in Syria about ten years ago. During Azerbaidschans attacks on Armenia both NATO and Russia made sure to not get into direct contact. Nothing came out of it directly. The sabotages in Europe that are organized by Russia have been a thing since 2022, maybe late 2021 unless i missed some.

          • sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Depends on your definition of ‘war’. They’ve definitely been in rightist America’s ear about abandoning NATO since 2016.

            • Saleh@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              So is the US in Europe, South America, Middle East, Israel in all of the West, EU countries in Africa, China all over the world…

              Trying to influence domestic policies in other countries is shitty, but it isnt war. Otherwise we are already in WW3 since many years.

      • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah no. Even if the United States sits out on it’s dumb fat orange ass, Russia is not likely looking to pick an active fight with all of Europe when it’s disinformation warfare can disassemble Europe from the inside out, given enough time.

        • einkorn@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          An active fight? Yeah, that’s not going to happen. A passive one, though? Might be an option. Carlo Masala recently published his new book If Russia wins: a scenario (No English translation yet). In it, he draws up a scenario where Russia, after defeating Ukraine, annexes a small Estonian town to test NATO’s resolve in the face of a limited Russian aggression. He bases this scenario on the German Re-occupation of the Rhineland, during which German troops had they faced any serious resistance by allied forces would have had to retreat. In the book NATO members are divided and dismiss the Estonians request for help under Article 5.

          • OutForARip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            If even a cm of NATO is invaded and not acted on the alliance is worthless. For each nations safety, they must act or be defenceless going forward.

            There is zero chance Russia is ever getting away with that, especially after burning all their bridges in Ukraine.

            • einkorn@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              There is zero chance Russia is ever getting away with that

              Is there? Given the rather reluctant support of Ukraine, which is about just enough to keep them in the fight, I’m afraid that at least some NATO members would rather give away a symbolic chunk of land than start a military confrontation. And yes, that would be the end of NATO.

              • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 day ago

                But Ukraine is not part of nato, so although nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The point of nato is that Russia risks it by doing the opposite. And it only works if they aren’t bluffing.

                • einkorn@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  But Ukraine is not part of nato

                  They had security guaranties from the US and UK after giving up their nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.

                  nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The

                  They did and do not risk anything.

                  It became very clear early on, that Russia was all bark and no bite. Russia couldn’t have escalated to an all out European war if they wanted to, while their main psuh was being shredded on a highway towards Kiv. The only option to do so would have been the nuclear one but Putin wants to be Tsar, not dead.

                  Also even by standards of international law (as if that would account to anything anymore) supplying all sorts of weapons to Ukraine is legal. Any so called red line Moscow drew in the sand has been crossed so far and nothing has happened.

                  Do you really expect Putin to pull the trigger if European troops enter the battle with the clear communication that they would restore Ukraine to its borders before 2014?

            • nesc@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 day ago

              Romania and Poland had multiple opportunities to show something when shahed drones fly and crash/explode over their territory, they chose to do nothing every time. When these nations are so afraid of even destroying drones over their own aerospace muscovytes will invade whoever they want and other nato countries will just cower and pretend that everything is fine.

          • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            An active fight? Yeah, that’s not going to happen.

            You don’t understand russian culture and mentality. Although in your defence, this is relatively common.

              • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                They would very much be willing to conquer the Baltic nations if the opportunity shows itself. The russians are obsessed with colonizing the baltics.

                The author that you referred to, does he speak russian? Estonian? Ukrainian? I am genuinely curious.

                • einkorn@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  They would very much be willing to conquer the Baltic nations if the opportunity shows itself.

                  I very much understand that but there is no such opportunity for an all out conquest until NATO is no more.

                  The author that you referred to, does he speak russian? Estonian? Ukrainian?

                  I don’t know.

          • jaybone@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Neither does getting their poor struggling asses handed to them. But I don’t know if Putin is sane enough still to know that.

        • nesc@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          They aren’t being run by rational people, so they probably will attack, and most of the europe will suck it up.

    • nesc@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is one of the least informed articles I’ve ever read. Phrases like “From Moscow’s perspective, the Russians need to bolster their defenses to protect themselves from NATO expansion” is just a cherry on top. Lmao.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Why? That is the stance Russia has been communicating for years.

        And when countries like Germany turn around and say they want the strongest army in Europe and support the idea of spending 200 Billion yearly on defense, that is perceived as a threat.

        It is classical security dilemma.

        • nesc@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Because they don’t care about NATO nor they fear any kind of invasion they’ve left borders with with countries in NATO empty for three years. Germany is in their right to spend however they want. r*ssia delenda est

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Again, this is the stance of Russia, as the NYT reported. Doesnt mean its true. But if the media would only report if politicians say true things, well the news would be rather short.