Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[TheReal_ND]

This isn't the first time I've seen a Russian embassy shit posting on twitter. Can't remember the last time but whoever it is got bantz.

[Dand]

This isn't the first time I've seen a Russian embassy shit posting on twitter. Can't remember the last time but whoever it is got bantz.

Yeah they made this lame duck tweet two weeks ago

[ssu]

This isn't the first time I've seen a Russian embassy shit posting on twitter. Can't remember the last time but whoever it is got bantz.

You mean it's not real or that Russians ought not use your meme?

see here:

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy

[Smitty-48]

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.

That's all sound I suppose, but you're sort of contradicting yourself now, first you invoked the Russian long ranged rocket artillery, to which I responded that you would be fucked if they rolled out the long ranged rocket artillery to bombard you into submission, but now you're saying they wouldn't do that.

On the one hand you said you needed BUK-M3 to manuever your AD through the woods in a shoot n' scoot against the overwhelming Russian firepower advantage, now you're saying the Russians wouldn't need to use their overwhelming firepower advantage, all they have to do is grab some Islands in the Baltic in a quick and dirty smash and grab, so, which is it?

[SuburbanFarmer]

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.

That's all sound I suppose, but you're sort of contradicting yourself now, first you invoked the Russian long ranged rocket artillery, to which I responded that you would be fucked if they rolled out the long ranged rocket artillery to bombard you into submission, but now you're saying they wouldn't do that.

No army or city has ever surrendered to artillery bombardment, that I'm aware of. Am I wrong?

[Smitty-48]

No army or city has ever surrendered to artillery bombardment, that I'm aware of. Am I wrong?

Oh you're definitely wrong, but I didn't say the Finns would surrrender, I just said that hunkering down in the face of the Russians bombarding them into the stone age would be a pyrrhic victory.

If the United States attacked Canada, my response would not be let's dig in and fight them conventionally until they have reduced Toronto and Montreal to rubble, that wouldn't be worth it, that's burn the village to save the village.

[SuburbanFarmer]

No army or city has ever surrendered to artillery bombardment, that I'm aware of. Am I wrong?

Oh you're definitely wrong, but I didn't say the Finns would surrrender, I just said that hunkering down in the face of the Russians bombarding them into the stone age would be a pyrrhic victory.

If the United States attacked Canada, my response would not be let's dig in and fight them conventionally until they have reduced Toronto and Montreal to rubble, that wouldn't be worth it, that's burn the village to save the village.

Enlighten us? Source?

[TheReal_ND]

This isn't the first time I've seen a Russian embassy shit posting on twitter. Can't remember the last time but whoever it is got bantz.

You mean it's not real or that Russians ought not use your meme?

see here:

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy

What? How did you get either of those things from what I said lol? I said it's not the first time I've seen a Russian embassy tweeting banter.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, I am sure these guys are going to put up a huge fight against the Russians with their army-issued sneakers.

[Smitty-48]

Enlighten us? Source?

Well, look it up, there's plenty of examples of capitulation over anihilation, down through the ages, from Cornwallis surrendering in the face of the Contintental Army's guns at Yorktown, to the Confederates ceding Richmond to the Yankees, to the South Vietnamese surrendering to the North Vietnamese, and in the case that ssu invoked, the Georgians capitulating to the Russian's terms, rather than waiting until they had reduced Tbilisi to rubble.

Frought with disorganization as the Russian response was in the South Ossetia War, the Russians none the less won the war, by forcing Tbilisi's capitulation, in the face of overwhelming Russian firepower.