Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[ssu]

Ironically, what you really need, is a bunch of S-400 systems. Perhaps you could get the Chinese HQ-9 instead, it's like an S-300+

Ah, this is my subject!

Actually no, and I'll have to say why.

Even if the S-400 is indeed very capable, what it lacks is simply combat survivability. It just like the S-300, that needs basically it's own air defence (which you can see from the photos in Syria). And with Finland starting from not having Air Superiority, combat survivability, mobility, the ability to hide the system when it is not operational and be quickly deployable is a necessity. One has to remember that in Finland, it's not only the aircraft that pose a threat to SAM systems, but also enemy rocket artillery. Hence the mobility of the system is a necessity. An S-400 system doesn't change it's place quickly. Then the S-400 extremely expensive and has a LOT of working parts. And with working S-400 system, you get a lot of other systems. Cost effect ratio isn't so good...

A lot of moving parts (plus satellites to operate the Anti-missile role...)


Hence the best system would have been perhaps the BUK-M2 (or the BUK-M3), which could have been totally possible with the BUK-M1 that now was in operation. Just renew the ageing missiles with the new M2 missiles and there's your solution. And the ludicrous idea that Russians would have some button that made the system inoperable was bullshit, the missile systems we got came from actual Russian stock and hence actually had IFF-equipment (!), which had to be handed back (somebody made a big mistake). And from war in Georgia and a downed Backfire, we know that button didn't exist.

The BUK-M3


But such sound military thinking wasn't politically possible. And some BUK equivalent simply doesn't exist in the West.

Hence we ended up with the fucking NASAMS, a ground based AMRAAM, which was actually on the line to replace the old SA-3 system as a "Poor mans" alternative. Hence the politicians DOWNGRADED the Air Defence of the country by getting a less capable system to replace the BUK-M1 (NATO codename SA-11). If the guys could have been more cooler, they simply would have gone to buy new rockets for the BUK-M1 system.

Let's have a less capable system to replace a more capable system!!!

[Smitty-48]

Yeah, BUK-M3, good idea, I don't think the Chinese make a knock off of those though. The Chinese version is the HQ-16, but it's not mounted on a tracked combat vehicle, it's vertical launch truck mounted like a mini S-300.

[ssu]

Realistically, the Russians were not really ever prepared to join NATO, there would be no joining NATO with the nuclear arsenal they were maintaining, and they were not in any way prepared to give it up, and America is the boss of NATO, NATO reports to SACEUR, and the Russians were in no way prepared to do that neither. - the Russians were in no way prepared to submit to NATO's terms, so NATO didn't say no to Russia, the Russians said no to NATO, when it was made clear to them that NATO was not going to bend to Russia's terms, which was Russia as equal partner to the Americans.

I would say that it would have been theoretically possible if you would have had truly visionary politicians of the Bismark-level on both sides. Yes, that's a lot to ask as neither side had those kind of visionaries. My point is that then the Russian people and perhaps even the Americans, would have been open to the idea. True leaders can make a difference. Basically in Russia there should have been a Putin-like person on the "Westernizer"-side, a Zapadnik, that would have made a similar cabal of zapadniks, who could have countered the communists and the slavophiles. Yeltsin wasn't that kind of person.

But as you say, it would have been extremely difficult, but theoretically possible. Just look how well US astronauts speak Russian today.

US Astronauts in Star City.

[Smitty-48]

The problem in Russia was that the economy collapsed, that's the real source of the revanchism, you would have needed a total bail out of the Russian economy by the West, and Western taxpayers would not have gone for that, the fact of the matter is, the Russians were going to reap the bitter fruits of the communist centrally economic collapse, and there wasn't much anybody could do to save them, from what they had ultimately wrought upon themselves.

In the chaos of the economic collapse, is where the Siloviki regained control. They dissolved the Union overnight, a few connected players plundered the place in the power vacuum, and so the power vacuum became the cause of everyones misery, and then they invited the Siloviki back to fill the vacuum.

They were incredibly naive, they had no idea what they were doing, and as soon as the state authority dissolved, the wolves starting running amok, because there was nobody in charge who could secure anything, hence; Comrade Putin to the rescue.

[Martin Hash]

Russia is recognizable to Americans. We have hope it will mature. China, on-the-other-hand, is incomprehensible. (I spent a month there, and hated the place. Russia just seemed old-fashioned.)

[Smitty-48]

And with Finland starting from not having Air Superiority, combat survivability, mobility, the ability to hide the system when it is not operational and be quickly deployable is a necessity. One has to remember that in Finland, it's not only the aircraft that pose a threat to SAM systems, but also enemy rocket artillery.

This in the end, is the entirety of your problem, and why you don't stand a chance against the Russians, you have no depth, they can just sit back in Russia and launch rockets, cruise and ballistic missiles at you, until Finland is reduced to rubble, at which point, not being invaded by the Russians; is rendered a pyrrhic victory.

[ssu]

This in the end, is the entirety of your problem, and why you don't stand a chance against the Russians, you have no depth, they can just sit back in Russia and launch rockets, cruise and ballistic missiles at you, until Finland is reduced to rubble, at which point, not being invaded by the Russians; is rendered a pyrrhic victory.

The standard pacifist gives the reason for the total futility of having any defence whatsoever: Perhaps the Russians just starting nuking a city after another until we surrender. Yet it is unrealistic as Putin's Russia isn't Stalin's Russia. Putin does have to enjoy popularity, and it can be seen even now that when he was (is) fighting in Ukraine, he has to take into consideration what the people think ...and what the elites think.

From the way Russia has fought now can be seen how Russia fights.

And Finland is only a defensive game: no raw materials here to be plundered or strategic causeway to be found. Finland (or Sweden) themselves are no threat to Russia. Hence it is rational to think that if it comes to blows with Russia, Russia might have interests somewhere else. And just to have a bombing campaign rarely does the stuff. Both Finland and Sweden (when it was preparing for war with Russia during the Cold War) have an area defence doctrine and a total defence concept. In the end you need those ground forces.

Yet the real danger isn't a Russian occupation or a Russia "Back-to-Stoneage" bombing campaign. It's the "Make-Finland (and/or Sweden) Georgia campaign". Here it is called "strateginen isku", strategic attack, which is basically short limited attack, something over in a week, with Limited objectives to cripple the capability of the state to fucntion. If Russia would just occupy the Åland islands or Gotland because of some false-flag operation done by the Russians themselves, that puts both Sweden and Finland out of the game, not valid anymore to seek protection from Georgia. Once the Russians are there, then it's

Hence the real alarm is in mobilization speeds. There simply isn't the time anymore of a half of a year to get your army together, like happened in 1939. You don't have months to prepare, to muster up and train the units before action. Those Russian snap excersizes and the ability to move troops around and have them in large excersizes is the really worrying thing. Russians woke up themselves to this during the Russo-Georgian war.

And when thinking about doctrines, seems that deterrence that the Baltic States try to muster up is by starting to train people for an insurgency.

[ssu]

Russians being awesome in their information campaign:

Russian Embassy in the UK tweets:



These guys are good.

[TheReal_ND]

Pepe, you scamp!

[Dand]

What the fuck I love the Russian Embassy in the UK now