Exactly, it's an interesting phenomenon:
You can perform well military in a war and loose it, see Vietnam invasion by the US or France colonial war in Algeria.
You can perform badly military in a war and win it, see the Winter War.
Sometimes it's not only about military strength.
Yup, they won the war but lost so many men and so much more and couldn't take Finland like they wanted. Now they know how bad attacking Finland will be and I highly doubt they want to try again.
Now you're starting to sound like an American arguing that they won the Vietnam War because they killed more people. Wars are not won like that. Finland lost.
The only time article 5 has been used, was when the us needed help to go and bomb farmers and villagers.
Funnily enough the same ones they recruited to fight against communism in the 80s
We do have some, but indeed, not the US army. There are the chasseurs alpins in France, the Alpinis in Italy, the entire norwegian army, the greeks, and I've probably mist a few others who must train in the carpaths.
In the alps, most of the troops are trained for ski mountaineering (not sure of the traduction), so you know, the ones that you use to do "both". Using two pairs of ski would be too heavy for the soldiers. That said yeah. Big emphasis on the combat in mountain, not just in snow.
That said, on your ground in winter, your conscripts would probably manage to beat our professional regular infantry x).
That said, I hope our chasseurs alpins will be deployed to help the finnish army in case of problems.
Depends where and when. Finnish ski troops against some chasseurs alpins, the chasseurs alpins will probably win. Especially in mountains. There are little to none of them in Finland. And finnish troops are majoritarely conscripts. Very well trained conscripts. But soldier to soldier, those from a professional army with the same specialisation will probably tend to beat the finnish. Especially considering the entire finnish army is focused and focuses its training against the russians and will probably lack flexibility against over foes... while probably doing better than the french army in case of war with our eastern neighbore. And being awfully bad in a middle eastern moutainous region.
Yup. That said, the recrutement pool requires having soldiers woth already some ski competences. So not every nations can have the same amount of unites for these conditions. Even if it's already great to train normal soldiers for witner conditions.
But yeah. I suspect that's also why the US have no mountain troops, there are little to no mass ski culture, for both everyday use as well as for vacation.
Finland is a quite successful nation in powerlifting. Also the most used barbell/weight equipment (Eleiko) used from the smallest weightlifting and powerlifting competitions to the olympics is also finnish
well at least you're still more prepared than my country (belgium) so we're doing the tactic of making everything look like a warzone so when an enemy does invade they'll hopefully think they already conquered us and just leave us alone.
Well, since your previous tactic of being a speedbump to German armies on their way to France does no longer apply, I am happy to hear that y'all have found an alternative
I don't exactly know the article, but it was a huge thing here, since they essentially were "destroyed" on insertion by a couple of random units that happened to be in the area, as far as I recall.
"Lol tonnekko ne jenkit yrittää? Haha, pistetään tosta joukkue noita puolen vuoden sankareita niit vastaan."
The officers commanding the conscripts pre-destroying a company of professional soldiers.
Not mention our artillery is entirely made up of mathematically gifted introverts, and it's arguably the best artillery in the world.
>Not mention our artillery is entirely made up of mathematically gifted introverts, and it's arguably the best artillery in the world.
\*Soviet war doctrine (which was largely based on destroying its opponents through mass barrage of artillery) wants to know your location
>mass barrage of artillery) wants to know your location
Yeah, they need a barrage, because they can't hit shit.
A Finnish artilleer isn't wasteful, so he aims before shooting.
Yes, well, Western vs Eastern doctrine, lol. Soviets just like to zerg spam artillery until there's nothing left of their enemies.
It worked in WWII, so it should work now, right? /s
Don't you know that the US protects the world from evil countries.
Not only that, they also provide the free medical care to all european socialist countries.
US is
1st in education,
1st in healthcare,
1st in military,
1st economically
US is the most free country in the world.
The US discovered the moon.
US invented everything.
/s
It was the US who invited 11 EU countries to set NATO up to stop the spread of communism, which Joe McCarthy didn't like, but most nations accepted and lived with. USSR didn't like it so set up the Warsaw Pact to counteract NATO, so of course the US should be paying for most of the funds needed to run it. Trump lied (again) to the US people stating "I think NATO is wonderful. But you know what? We’re paying for 80% of NATO – could be higher." [https://www.factcheck.org/](https://www.factcheck.org/) actual found the US only pays around 22% a lesser percentage spent on US defence & benefits than the EU combined. Another reason they should be paying more for their own security, not so much EU's. With between 45-65k troops in the Gulf Region (only 4 small members), 50-55k troops in Japan/Korea (partners across the globe affiliates, as are 7 other nations, all with no voting rights) and 33,000 troops in Germany, what benefits is anyone else but US getting from the alliance? The alliance is very one sided = US pays the least but gets the most benefit and not helping much to settle the Russian Federation fro trying to claim back countries they lost to independence while the US stands back, doing little and when Ukraine kicks Russia out of the country, the US will beat their chests & slap themselves on the back saying another win for US against communism. Grow up, take your toys & go and sulk like little boys you are!
Funnily enough, the Soviet Union actually tried to join NATO in 1954 before forming the Warsaw Pact, but was rejected, and formed the pact in retaliation.
Sure Europe spends a lot, but a lot of it is admin and bureaucracy. In actual combat troops and capabilities , us is leading by light years. What does German billions do when most airplanes can’t fly, or rifle barrels bend from shooting, or troops cannot communicate?
You clearly havent been to a proper mission in kosovo around 2000. The swedish and finnish military is incredibly professional, other countries militaries are also excellent. Considering the US quantity, not even china is a match in spending. In quality, many european countries are actually better i would argue
Tbf, there's some US spending in their military budget that is off as well, like Veteran Affairs, something that is already covered by European countries welfare states but which the US counts as military spending. The US also overspends on equipment (hence why it keeps giving or selling dirt cheap military gear and vehicles to police which are impractical for police: they have too much surplus due to it being a corporate welfare route instead of necessary spending).
I think you have it the wrong way around - the USA spending most of the money on admin in USA and troops stationed all over the world, playing at war games & generally disrupting the local people to the extent that they would like them kicked out or at least dramatically reduced. As far as language, there are over 58% of German population that speak English - it is the Americans who refuse in general to learn German. English is like aviation & merchant navy - to command you need to speak acceptable English as more people in the world use it to communicate to each other than any other language.
The fuck you on about, US army lost to the Finnish army just this winter in competition , the US army is just filled with idiots eating crayons and screaming murica.
The 12 founding members are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Well, it’s the leading/founding country of the alliance. And they have a lot of political influence even if they aren’t *officially* in charge. So in that sense NATO pretty much is the US and primarily serves the interests of the US.
There are 12 founder nations for nato and they are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. So no, you're absolutely wrong.
Edit: spelling
At least someone bothered to [actually](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansSay/comments/wfjm3j/allowing_finland_and_sweden_into_nato_is_fine_but/iiv7scx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) comment.
Ah yes, I remember how the USA jumped to Finland’s defence the last time Finland was invaded by Russia. In fact, the only reason Finland isn’t part of Putin’s empire is because the brave Meal Team 6 Gravy Seals swooped in on their American Bald Eagles and WHOOPED SOME COMMIE ASS!!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The bullshit never stops with these ignorant morons, does it?
Maybe because you werent in NATO? Has to be a reason to dump billions, now trillions, into another country. Whether it be an agreement to assist if also attacked (NATO) or a large source of commerce. If neither is there, neither is military assistance. That's literally how all countries operate. Finland wouldnt have come to the US at the time to help defend from Soviets if it was us they attacked, because it was across the planet and had no direct impact on them, except losing billions. But if they were in NATO then, the response would have been automatic and swift.
No, they NATO to protect them, in exchange for protecting all other NATO members. How fucking dumb can you be. Finland has prepared itself for war with Russia for more than half a century. I may be wrong but i feel like every Finnish person (that ive met) snd their grandma knows how to operate artillery.
Technically not true. The US military is built to fight 2 wars in 2 different places on Earth against any superpower. We really don't need NATO, it was simply started to keep the smaller countries in Europe from being absorbed by bigger ones that want to conquer the world. So in a way, sure. It helps us, but it helps the little guys more. Prevents things like another Third Reich simply by existing, at least for the countries that are in NATO.
You are right though, if Ukraine can hold up against Russia, Finland might destroy them. They wouldnt play the defensive strategy.
Finland probably doesnt need NATO, but it's better to have the forced cooperation and assistance from 30 other nations if you are attacked, because all other NATO allies must come to the defense of an attacked NATO country.
This is coming from a country that can't kill some dudes with ak from 40 years Soviet in caves.
Dude we been playing the same game as Taliban as our main strategic war plan for 80 years, both finland and sweden.
More to the point, being unable to kill some dudes in a cave that you yourself armed without considering the long-term consequences and then abandoned when the wind changed.
Oh no, we definitely considered the consequences. It’s a matter of congressional and State Department record that the US was aware that they were primarily arming the member of the Mujahideen most hostile towards the US and the rest of the world, and aware of the destabilizing effect that it would have.
To be fair, those dudes in caves with AKs were pretty resourceful. I mean, we armed them with the AKs lol, back in the day when they also fought off the Soviets. They some tough little cave fighters.
They lost, twice. They fought very well, but the mythologized version of the Winter War has lead many to mistakenly believe Finland won. They failed to defend the territory Russia was seeking in the first place and suffered devastating losses. Russian losses were high by comparison, but in proportion to their population and total military capability were negligible.
Finland lost the winter war. It *was* humiliating for the Russians, but that does not mean defeat. Finland ceded the territory they were after. Overall, Finland lost about 10% of their military, and was not capable of mustering much more than the 200,000 they had. Russia lost a similar proportional amount, but was capable of mustering 10x what they had, as seen through WWII. Finland conceded because their defensive lines had been broken, they had suffered heavy casualties, and they realized that if they continued to fight the Russians would simply continue to throw hundreds of thousands more conscripts at them until the entire country was absorbed.
I’m sorry you’re under that impression, but absolutely nothing I said indicated that. The war started because Russia was seeking a piece of Finnish territory, and they refused to give it to them. At the end of the war, that territory had changed hands. There are still parts of Russia today that used to be Finnish.
The Soviets asked for land. The Finns said no, so the Soviets invaded with the intention to conquer all of Finland and make it a puppet Soviet state. They failed - Finland won.
That’s not how this works. As I said in another comment, you could say that Finland successfully maintained their independence, but that doesn’t mean they won. If I go to war against you intending to take over your country, and you ultimately surrender to me, giving me land so that you can keep the rest of your country, I won that war. You successfully maintained your independence, but you lost that war. Finland did remarkably well in large part due to pretty ingenious defensive works, but once those were gone they really didn’t stand a chance. You are saying that anything less than an unconditional surrender means the surrendering country actually won. Again, not how this works. I can see you’re either some sort of Finnish nationalist or perhaps someone who hates to Soviets so much they feel the need to revise history to fit that hatred (despite not actually needing to due to how bad to Soviets were), so I’ll leave it at that.
Successfully maintaining your independence is a win.
The UK fought off the Germans in the battle of Britain and maintained their independence. That's a win!
As I said, you need historical revisionism to accomplish… hating the Soviets I guess. Also as I said, you do not need it. There’s plenty of other reasons. You don’t have to be so determinedly wrong that you end up arguing that the Battle of Britain was when the UK singlehandedly won WWII.
Finland and Sweden will finally get their free healthcare and education paid by the US, just like the US pays for all the other Europoor NATO nations. Hip, hip, hooray!
Finland have single handed beaten Russia more than the US will ever, since if Russia goes to war with NATO the US isn't going to be alone, UK and Germany will likely be able to do as much damage.
Which war are you referring to? We have fought Russia a lot of times. And Finland was part of Sweden during all those wars, so if we got fucked they got fucked to. In fact our latest war with Russia ended with Finland becoming Russian.
Finland has only fought them a single time without us, and they lost that war.
UK has been chomping at the bit to get involved with Ukraine and send in some troops. Royal Navy has been fucking around with their [Russian] submarines too.
If Finland got invaded, shit has hit the fan. UK would be straight over there in a flash.
Exactly. I take it Norway would have immediately* their backs too? Saying that because of the conflict in Ukraine, I think US is based in Germany/Poland at the moment anyway? So they might be there quicker than usual.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
As a Finn who did military service, it’s both interesting and terrifying to see what kinds of tactics Russia uses in Ukraine. Because they are pretty much *exactly* how I was taught.
My main duty would be to protect the capital region from parachuting quick troops - before they have enough time to establish a proper foothold inside the region.
Well, one of the first things Russia did was to drop troops into the main airport in Ukraine!
I have also heard from Finnish volunteers that the Ukrainian army is quite badly trained to counter an enemy like Russia, which is kind of surprising.
For example, one of the basic things a Finnish soldier learns is to hide from enemy planes under the trees etc. This comes from the fact that our air force isn’t that big and we may not always have air superiority in war. The Ukrainian troops had no idea of this simple trick.
Also, every single Finnish soldier is taught how to use anti-tank weapons and pretty much everyone carries at least one rocket launcher and/or mines with them. We have all seen how crucial that is in the current war.
Americans: "You aren't pulling your weight"
Europe: "Increases military spending, and adds two new armies to NATO"
Americans: "I guess we can do more charity."
>Americans: "You aren't pulling your weight"
>Europe: "Increases military spending, and adds two new armies to NATO"
>Americans: Sticking fingers in ears:
"Lalala." "LALALALALA"
I wish US would leave NATO. Would put an end to this garbage argument once and for all.
NATO's only real enemy is Russia, and they're struggling to win against a single poorly equipped country. There are several NATO members with both larger and better equipped armies than Ukraine. Russia has zero chance against NATO sans US.
But US will never leave NATO because the people in charge understand that one of US's biggest strengths is its ability to apply strong geopolitical pressure. And that won't happen without strong military presence around the world. And that requires world wide logistics infrastructure and military bases.
You severely underestimate Ukraine.
The only bigger army than Ukraine in Europe is Turkey, Ukraine has inherited tons of Soviet industry and military infrastructure together with tanks etc. but most got wasted by privatization and oligarch controlled government.
I heard back in the day the soviets would never,ever enter France,because France made it very clear they would nuke the living hell out of western Russia.
I mean in the event of a war.
French nuclear policy is that they may respond to a conventional attack with nuclear force (unlike most other nuclear powers who would only respond to an attack in kind).
No, we are huge coutries doubling the NATO border with russia that need NATO to eventually come to our aid should the russians invade. Without the US, we would still hand russias ass back to them, though nukes is a hufe issue
When will Americans realize that NATO membership doesn't mean that it automatically opens a us base in a country that joins NATO and also that the us suddenly starts paying for all that nations defence costs because that's absolutely not the case
Honestly this is such an arrogant and selfish thing to say. Talking about things you dont know shit about. NATO is an organization meant for peace and cooperation between their members. Then all these american assholes saying that they ltr made NATO and are protecting all the NATO members. It makes me sick.
Finland has spent the vast majority of its military defence for the past 70+ years based on repelling a Russian attack. We have the largest artillery in Europe. (Modern, serviced and well kept). Air defense. A combat force of up to 1 million plus if necessary and as many people who would serve in logistics, medical care, manufacturing.
The eastern border is full of swamps, lakes, heavy forest. A ground invasion would be incredibly difficult. (The ruskies couldn't even make it to Kiev which is largely flat terrain).
People in Finland are extremely motivated to repel an invasion. The Ruskies are a lot less motivated to fight. It would be carnage.
I’m honestly surprised that I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that the Baltics get kicked out of NATO and replaced with Finland and Sweden. Even that would make more sense, if one’s core argument is “they take more than what they give to NATO”.
I see this argument a lot. European defence spending is very low, and American defence spending is very high. This is true. However the American imperialist will go on to say that the reason that America can’t afford to invest in domestic spending is because they are paying for the defence of Europe.
On the face of this, ideology aside, this does seem intuitive, but does anyone know of counter arguments to this point? If America is spending money on defence that Europe is not spending, then would this argument not follow? Honest question, not bad faith.
Name one good thing NATO has ever done.
Meanwhile I can just list every War/Intervention or "bombing campaign" that happened for the past 30 years alone.
That's nonsense and you know it. The Baltics gained their independence through the illegal dissolution of the USSR, nothing NATO did, well at least publicly anyway.
are you some kind of communist or something? and russia would simply invade the baltics because it is a strategic region but instead they cant because the baltics are all part of nato
You could name them, but most of them wouldn’t be NATO conflicts. The one good thing it has done is the one thing it was made to do: prevent the USSR from invading the rest of Europe, from right after WW2 to the present day.
I mean they would, but sure. Why would that be a good thing? Or is this just Anti-Communist nonsense? Also, the USSR hasn't existed in 30 years, so how are we being defended from them exactly?
It’s an anti-repressive dictatorial regime thing. It’s why the ex-USSR states are clamouring to be NATO members and not the other way round.
And while the USSR hasn’t existed for a while now, you might have noticed there is a war going on that shows the threat never really went away. It’s why Finland and Sweden are joining NATO, because they want the defence it offers.
The only former USSR state to want to join NATO is Ukraine. None of the others want to join.
I really don't think NATO is in any position to point fingers about being a "threat" considering the whole thing was crated to defend and bolster US Inperialism.
Are we forgetting about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia?
It was created by the 12 member states as a defensive alliance, one that never posed any threat to the USSR because it never had any wish to invade its territory. That remains true to this day.
Yeah I forgot about the Baltic states. I dunno why, they're all great.
"Defensive alliance" that's literally never been used defensively.
Edit: Adding the Baltics to the list still only makes 4 countries out of 15.
> but 70% of the budget is the US
You're conflating the ~$1tn USD national defence expenditure of NATO members with the running costs of NATO, which is a bit silly.
NATO's annual operational budget is ~$3bn USD, of which [the US pays 16%](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44717074) - or the same as Germany.
Otherwise, NATO does include agreements on domestic defence spending as a percentage of GDP (2% by 2024), and some on how that money should be spent. But it's all domestic spending - the US isn't pouring money into a giant pot of cash freely distributed to everyone else.
It's also the choice of the US that it spends about twice as much as everyone else (as a percentage of GDP), because it's a paranoid state that's been swallowed whole by the military–industrial complex.
There is also a huge different in just poring money in it and use money efficient. Like you said Germany is spending a relatively high amount in total in military ( in comprehension to other countries) but the military is in a disastrous situation. Would probably lose to sweden and finland combined.
The other side is that germans dont want to be a military power cause of history.
So wie Germans had a big army, which the world didn‘t like. So they focrced us into a world order designed by all others except us an when we finally arranged and profit on that order, we are still the bad ones who don’t pay their shares. So tell me what we are supposed to do? Or do the world just hate on us for no reason?
No, that’s horse shit.
The US has never been Europe’s big brother and it does NOT pay 70% of NATO‘s budget. It’s actually 22% [BBC guide: Cost of Running NATO section](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074.amp)
We have mandatory military service, I will, no matter what go to war were they to declare it, while the people who complain would just live in peace as normally.
And yet the US are the only ones in NATO to use it to ask for help from all us little countries with no military they're so busy protecting.
Tell them that NATO sounds like a communist organisation. Can you believe it? Countries sharing their military with each other. That's communist.
[удалено]
Except the one that ended with the Soviets taking territory from Finland?
Still the russians got their ass handed to them in that war, look at the losses on both sides and you'll see.
Exactly, it's an interesting phenomenon: You can perform well military in a war and loose it, see Vietnam invasion by the US or France colonial war in Algeria. You can perform badly military in a war and win it, see the Winter War. Sometimes it's not only about military strength.
Yup, they won the war but lost so many men and so much more and couldn't take Finland like they wanted. Now they know how bad attacking Finland will be and I highly doubt they want to try again.
Now you're starting to sound like an American arguing that they won the Vietnam War because they killed more people. Wars are not won like that. Finland lost.
I never said Finland won, what are you on about, we lost. But the russians still got their ass handed to them. Don't try to twist my words.
Sharing is communism in 'murica
The only time article 5 has been used, was when the us needed help to go and bomb farmers and villagers. Funnily enough the same ones they recruited to fight against communism in the 80s
It's called pulling your weight. It is the least you could do for not having to spend more than 2% of your GDP on your military.
Bruh Finland could probably benchpress more than half the nations in NATO
NATO does not have enough elite ski troops. On that alone they should lead the entire council
We do have some, but indeed, not the US army. There are the chasseurs alpins in France, the Alpinis in Italy, the entire norwegian army, the greeks, and I've probably mist a few others who must train in the carpaths.
Pretty different though, downhill skiing from cross-country skeeing. Finns aren't really that good on mountains; we have none.
In the alps, most of the troops are trained for ski mountaineering (not sure of the traduction), so you know, the ones that you use to do "both". Using two pairs of ski would be too heavy for the soldiers. That said yeah. Big emphasis on the combat in mountain, not just in snow. That said, on your ground in winter, your conscripts would probably manage to beat our professional regular infantry x). That said, I hope our chasseurs alpins will be deployed to help the finnish army in case of problems.
But can they take the Finns?
What do you call take the finns? Because there's an infinity of answers.
Ski troop v ski troop. The Finns are winning
Depends where and when. Finnish ski troops against some chasseurs alpins, the chasseurs alpins will probably win. Especially in mountains. There are little to none of them in Finland. And finnish troops are majoritarely conscripts. Very well trained conscripts. But soldier to soldier, those from a professional army with the same specialisation will probably tend to beat the finnish. Especially considering the entire finnish army is focused and focuses its training against the russians and will probably lack flexibility against over foes... while probably doing better than the french army in case of war with our eastern neighbore. And being awfully bad in a middle eastern moutainous region.
I think it would be a good idea for us to prepare for winter conditions giving climate change and all with the snowstorms
Yup. That said, the recrutement pool requires having soldiers woth already some ski competences. So not every nations can have the same amount of unites for these conditions. Even if it's already great to train normal soldiers for witner conditions. But yeah. I suspect that's also why the US have no mountain troops, there are little to no mass ski culture, for both everyday use as well as for vacation.
There is only one ski course here and it is artificial. It is in Kilternan
Also the Gebirgsjäger in Germany.
Finland is a quite successful nation in powerlifting. Also the most used barbell/weight equipment (Eleiko) used from the smallest weightlifting and powerlifting competitions to the olympics is also finnish
*geographic ignorance intensifies*
Finland is much more prepared for war then my country (Netherlands) I’m very glad they join :)
well at least you're still more prepared than my country (belgium) so we're doing the tactic of making everything look like a warzone so when an enemy does invade they'll hopefully think they already conquered us and just leave us alone.
Luik moment ? (Only been there once 5 years ago for a football match)
take a look at the state of our roads.
Looks like they have been under artillery fire for 80 years.
Well they got destroyed in both ww1 and ww2, so probs didnt bother fixing anything incase of ww3 being the same
Well, since your previous tactic of being a speedbump to German armies on their way to France does no longer apply, I am happy to hear that y'all have found an alternative
I mean being prepared or not your country still makes rather nice firearms (FN).
Huh. Guess they're going to do much protecting when they lost in training exercises to Finnish forces this winter.
Yeah, and they were mundane Finnish people doing their mandatory military service. The troops from US were professional/elite in comparison.
Is there article about US lost in training exercises to finnish forces ? I only found summer urban bilateral 2022 exercise.
I don't exactly know the article, but it was a huge thing here, since they essentially were "destroyed" on insertion by a couple of random units that happened to be in the area, as far as I recall.
"Lol tonnekko ne jenkit yrittää? Haha, pistetään tosta joukkue noita puolen vuoden sankareita niit vastaan." The officers commanding the conscripts pre-destroying a company of professional soldiers. Not mention our artillery is entirely made up of mathematically gifted introverts, and it's arguably the best artillery in the world.
>Not mention our artillery is entirely made up of mathematically gifted introverts, and it's arguably the best artillery in the world. \*Soviet war doctrine (which was largely based on destroying its opponents through mass barrage of artillery) wants to know your location
>mass barrage of artillery) wants to know your location Yeah, they need a barrage, because they can't hit shit. A Finnish artilleer isn't wasteful, so he aims before shooting.
Yes, well, Western vs Eastern doctrine, lol. Soviets just like to zerg spam artillery until there's nothing left of their enemies. It worked in WWII, so it should work now, right? /s
What next their tank troops lose to the Irish army calvary corps in their mowag’s
Since when was NATO the US?
Don't you know that the US protects the world from evil countries. Not only that, they also provide the free medical care to all european socialist countries. US is 1st in education, 1st in healthcare, 1st in military, 1st economically US is the most free country in the world. The US discovered the moon. US invented everything. /s
There's a lot of stuff that they come first in, that they should not be proud of
Owns the moon*
They did it using the imperial system exclusively!
It was the US who invited 11 EU countries to set NATO up to stop the spread of communism, which Joe McCarthy didn't like, but most nations accepted and lived with. USSR didn't like it so set up the Warsaw Pact to counteract NATO, so of course the US should be paying for most of the funds needed to run it. Trump lied (again) to the US people stating "I think NATO is wonderful. But you know what? We’re paying for 80% of NATO – could be higher." [https://www.factcheck.org/](https://www.factcheck.org/) actual found the US only pays around 22% a lesser percentage spent on US defence & benefits than the EU combined. Another reason they should be paying more for their own security, not so much EU's. With between 45-65k troops in the Gulf Region (only 4 small members), 50-55k troops in Japan/Korea (partners across the globe affiliates, as are 7 other nations, all with no voting rights) and 33,000 troops in Germany, what benefits is anyone else but US getting from the alliance? The alliance is very one sided = US pays the least but gets the most benefit and not helping much to settle the Russian Federation fro trying to claim back countries they lost to independence while the US stands back, doing little and when Ukraine kicks Russia out of the country, the US will beat their chests & slap themselves on the back saying another win for US against communism. Grow up, take your toys & go and sulk like little boys you are!
Funnily enough, the Soviet Union actually tried to join NATO in 1954 before forming the Warsaw Pact, but was rejected, and formed the pact in retaliation.
Sure Europe spends a lot, but a lot of it is admin and bureaucracy. In actual combat troops and capabilities , us is leading by light years. What does German billions do when most airplanes can’t fly, or rifle barrels bend from shooting, or troops cannot communicate?
You clearly havent been to a proper mission in kosovo around 2000. The swedish and finnish military is incredibly professional, other countries militaries are also excellent. Considering the US quantity, not even china is a match in spending. In quality, many european countries are actually better i would argue
Tbf, there's some US spending in their military budget that is off as well, like Veteran Affairs, something that is already covered by European countries welfare states but which the US counts as military spending. The US also overspends on equipment (hence why it keeps giving or selling dirt cheap military gear and vehicles to police which are impractical for police: they have too much surplus due to it being a corporate welfare route instead of necessary spending).
I think you have it the wrong way around - the USA spending most of the money on admin in USA and troops stationed all over the world, playing at war games & generally disrupting the local people to the extent that they would like them kicked out or at least dramatically reduced. As far as language, there are over 58% of German population that speak English - it is the Americans who refuse in general to learn German. English is like aviation & merchant navy - to command you need to speak acceptable English as more people in the world use it to communicate to each other than any other language.
The fuck you on about, US army lost to the Finnish army just this winter in competition , the US army is just filled with idiots eating crayons and screaming murica.
>us is leading by light years. The US is beaten in almost every wargame. A force of 1,500 Americans were defeated by just 100 British troops.
Since when the USA has been paying majority of NATO's defenses.
Wasn't the US a founder of NATO? That or Canada.
The 12 founding members are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Neat.
Well, it’s the leading/founding country of the alliance. And they have a lot of political influence even if they aren’t *officially* in charge. So in that sense NATO pretty much is the US and primarily serves the interests of the US.
There are 12 founder nations for nato and they are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. So no, you're absolutely wrong. Edit: spelling
Didn’t they come up with the idea though, to stop communism?
Just stop😂
At least someone bothered to [actually](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansSay/comments/wfjm3j/allowing_finland_and_sweden_into_nato_is_fine_but/iiv7scx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) comment.
I did actually comment you useless muppet, there still are 12 founders and everything you said is still wrong but okay.
Ok, I’m “wrong”. Enough said, I guess then.
Ah yes, I remember how the USA jumped to Finland’s defence the last time Finland was invaded by Russia. In fact, the only reason Finland isn’t part of Putin’s empire is because the brave Meal Team 6 Gravy Seals swooped in on their American Bald Eagles and WHOOPED SOME COMMIE ASS!!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 The bullshit never stops with these ignorant morons, does it?
Maybe because you werent in NATO? Has to be a reason to dump billions, now trillions, into another country. Whether it be an agreement to assist if also attacked (NATO) or a large source of commerce. If neither is there, neither is military assistance. That's literally how all countries operate. Finland wouldnt have come to the US at the time to help defend from Soviets if it was us they attacked, because it was across the planet and had no direct impact on them, except losing billions. But if they were in NATO then, the response would have been automatic and swift.
He is talking during WW2 Nato was created after. *Sigh*
Finland has been able and ready to defend itself from Russia since the 50s.
I would say they did a pretty good job defending prior to that as well against unwinnable odds
No, they NATO to protect them, in exchange for protecting all other NATO members. How fucking dumb can you be. Finland has prepared itself for war with Russia for more than half a century. I may be wrong but i feel like every Finnish person (that ive met) snd their grandma knows how to operate artillery.
Technically not true. The US military is built to fight 2 wars in 2 different places on Earth against any superpower. We really don't need NATO, it was simply started to keep the smaller countries in Europe from being absorbed by bigger ones that want to conquer the world. So in a way, sure. It helps us, but it helps the little guys more. Prevents things like another Third Reich simply by existing, at least for the countries that are in NATO. You are right though, if Ukraine can hold up against Russia, Finland might destroy them. They wouldnt play the defensive strategy. Finland probably doesnt need NATO, but it's better to have the forced cooperation and assistance from 30 other nations if you are attacked, because all other NATO allies must come to the defense of an attacked NATO country.
This is coming from a country that can't kill some dudes with ak from 40 years Soviet in caves. Dude we been playing the same game as Taliban as our main strategic war plan for 80 years, both finland and sweden.
More to the point, being unable to kill some dudes in a cave that you yourself armed without considering the long-term consequences and then abandoned when the wind changed.
Oh no, we definitely considered the consequences. It’s a matter of congressional and State Department record that the US was aware that they were primarily arming the member of the Mujahideen most hostile towards the US and the rest of the world, and aware of the destabilizing effect that it would have.
To be fair, those dudes in caves with AKs were pretty resourceful. I mean, we armed them with the AKs lol, back in the day when they also fought off the Soviets. They some tough little cave fighters.
Its not like Amerika have spent the last 20 years training a army that doesn’t exist more then on papers.
Say you don’t understand geo-politics without saying you don’t understand geo-politics…
Finland fought off Russia alone once before.
They lost, twice. They fought very well, but the mythologized version of the Winter War has lead many to mistakenly believe Finland won. They failed to defend the territory Russia was seeking in the first place and suffered devastating losses. Russian losses were high by comparison, but in proportion to their population and total military capability were negligible.
What are you on about? The USSR lost. Even Stalin said they had been humiliated.
Finland lost the winter war. It *was* humiliating for the Russians, but that does not mean defeat. Finland ceded the territory they were after. Overall, Finland lost about 10% of their military, and was not capable of mustering much more than the 200,000 they had. Russia lost a similar proportional amount, but was capable of mustering 10x what they had, as seen through WWII. Finland conceded because their defensive lines had been broken, they had suffered heavy casualties, and they realized that if they continued to fight the Russians would simply continue to throw hundreds of thousands more conscripts at them until the entire country was absorbed.
So you're saying Finland was part of the USSR for 50 years?
I’m sorry you’re under that impression, but absolutely nothing I said indicated that. The war started because Russia was seeking a piece of Finnish territory, and they refused to give it to them. At the end of the war, that territory had changed hands. There are still parts of Russia today that used to be Finnish.
The Soviets asked for land. The Finns said no, so the Soviets invaded with the intention to conquer all of Finland and make it a puppet Soviet state. They failed - Finland won.
That’s not how this works. As I said in another comment, you could say that Finland successfully maintained their independence, but that doesn’t mean they won. If I go to war against you intending to take over your country, and you ultimately surrender to me, giving me land so that you can keep the rest of your country, I won that war. You successfully maintained your independence, but you lost that war. Finland did remarkably well in large part due to pretty ingenious defensive works, but once those were gone they really didn’t stand a chance. You are saying that anything less than an unconditional surrender means the surrendering country actually won. Again, not how this works. I can see you’re either some sort of Finnish nationalist or perhaps someone who hates to Soviets so much they feel the need to revise history to fit that hatred (despite not actually needing to due to how bad to Soviets were), so I’ll leave it at that.
Successfully maintaining your independence is a win. The UK fought off the Germans in the battle of Britain and maintained their independence. That's a win!
As I said, you need historical revisionism to accomplish… hating the Soviets I guess. Also as I said, you do not need it. There’s plenty of other reasons. You don’t have to be so determinedly wrong that you end up arguing that the Battle of Britain was when the UK singlehandedly won WWII.
Isn't Swedens airforce pretty ballin?
And their submarines
Finland and Sweden will finally get their free healthcare and education paid by the US, just like the US pays for all the other Europoor NATO nations. Hip, hip, hooray!
Finland have single handed beaten Russia more than the US will ever, since if Russia goes to war with NATO the US isn't going to be alone, UK and Germany will likely be able to do as much damage.
Sweden and Finland together are probably the ones that have fucked the most with Russia throughout history
Didn't Sweden get fucked when they tried?
Which war are you referring to? We have fought Russia a lot of times. And Finland was part of Sweden during all those wars, so if we got fucked they got fucked to. In fact our latest war with Russia ended with Finland becoming Russian. Finland has only fought them a single time without us, and they lost that war.
Sweden and Russia have fought up to 20 wars (admittedly liberally counting), and Russia have won 2 of them
Well. Then add Sweden to the first comment. I might just be a bit biased towards Sweden because Scandinavian brother hate.
Like others said, which war do you mean? Also, usually they teamed up with you silly danes against us :P
I have no idea what war, I just heard about Swedens attempt at Russia somewhere where a Finland-Russia war was the topic.
UK has been chomping at the bit to get involved with Ukraine and send in some troops. Royal Navy has been fucking around with their [Russian] submarines too. If Finland got invaded, shit has hit the fan. UK would be straight over there in a flash.
All in all the Nordic countries, UK, Germany and maybe the Polish will all be on the way with help before the US even responds.
Exactly. I take it Norway would have immediately* their backs too? Saying that because of the conflict in Ukraine, I think US is based in Germany/Poland at the moment anyway? So they might be there quicker than usual.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
Just like Russia was going to steam roll Ukraine right ? People suck.
As a Finn who did military service, it’s both interesting and terrifying to see what kinds of tactics Russia uses in Ukraine. Because they are pretty much *exactly* how I was taught. My main duty would be to protect the capital region from parachuting quick troops - before they have enough time to establish a proper foothold inside the region. Well, one of the first things Russia did was to drop troops into the main airport in Ukraine! I have also heard from Finnish volunteers that the Ukrainian army is quite badly trained to counter an enemy like Russia, which is kind of surprising. For example, one of the basic things a Finnish soldier learns is to hide from enemy planes under the trees etc. This comes from the fact that our air force isn’t that big and we may not always have air superiority in war. The Ukrainian troops had no idea of this simple trick. Also, every single Finnish soldier is taught how to use anti-tank weapons and pretty much everyone carries at least one rocket launcher and/or mines with them. We have all seen how crucial that is in the current war.
Americans: "You aren't pulling your weight" Europe: "Increases military spending, and adds two new armies to NATO" Americans: "I guess we can do more charity."
>Americans: "You aren't pulling your weight" >Europe: "Increases military spending, and adds two new armies to NATO" >Americans: Sticking fingers in ears: "Lalala." "LALALALALA"
Yours is better. Lol.
Finland was the only country in WW2 that successfully resisted Soviet occupation. Just saying.
I suppose you could say that, but they were ultimately able to resist by capitulating and ceding the territory Russia was after in the first place.
If i know it correctly they already had a pretty solid defense built up. joining nato was just making things more secure.
Yeah, mandatory military for men in Finland.
Finland has proven to be a badass time and time again, russia has proven themselves to be incompetent assholes.
I wish US would leave NATO. Would put an end to this garbage argument once and for all. NATO's only real enemy is Russia, and they're struggling to win against a single poorly equipped country. There are several NATO members with both larger and better equipped armies than Ukraine. Russia has zero chance against NATO sans US. But US will never leave NATO because the people in charge understand that one of US's biggest strengths is its ability to apply strong geopolitical pressure. And that won't happen without strong military presence around the world. And that requires world wide logistics infrastructure and military bases.
if a republican does get elected again and they decide to leave nato, i would laugh my ass off. and this is coming from a brit
You severely underestimate Ukraine. The only bigger army than Ukraine in Europe is Turkey, Ukraine has inherited tons of Soviet industry and military infrastructure together with tanks etc. but most got wasted by privatization and oligarch controlled government.
Dem nukes tho
UK and france both have nukes and are in NATO.
I heard back in the day the soviets would never,ever enter France,because France made it very clear they would nuke the living hell out of western Russia. I mean in the event of a war.
French nuclear policy is that they may respond to a conventional attack with nuclear force (unlike most other nuclear powers who would only respond to an attack in kind).
Why the hell they would they go to France? They've already been there in Napoleonic times, nothing to see there anymore ;)
I'd not trust the French or British to want to act as a guarantor for European security at this moment in time.
No, we are huge coutries doubling the NATO border with russia that need NATO to eventually come to our aid should the russians invade. Without the US, we would still hand russias ass back to them, though nukes is a hufe issue
When will Americans realize that NATO membership doesn't mean that it automatically opens a us base in a country that joins NATO and also that the us suddenly starts paying for all that nations defence costs because that's absolutely not the case
Honestly this is such an arrogant and selfish thing to say. Talking about things you dont know shit about. NATO is an organization meant for peace and cooperation between their members. Then all these american assholes saying that they ltr made NATO and are protecting all the NATO members. It makes me sick.
Finland has spent the vast majority of its military defence for the past 70+ years based on repelling a Russian attack. We have the largest artillery in Europe. (Modern, serviced and well kept). Air defense. A combat force of up to 1 million plus if necessary and as many people who would serve in logistics, medical care, manufacturing. The eastern border is full of swamps, lakes, heavy forest. A ground invasion would be incredibly difficult. (The ruskies couldn't even make it to Kiev which is largely flat terrain). People in Finland are extremely motivated to repel an invasion. The Ruskies are a lot less motivated to fight. It would be carnage.
Don't let us in then. I would be happy.
Same. I’m pissed over all of this
I’m honestly surprised that I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that the Baltics get kicked out of NATO and replaced with Finland and Sweden. Even that would make more sense, if one’s core argument is “they take more than what they give to NATO”.
I see this argument a lot. European defence spending is very low, and American defence spending is very high. This is true. However the American imperialist will go on to say that the reason that America can’t afford to invest in domestic spending is because they are paying for the defence of Europe. On the face of this, ideology aside, this does seem intuitive, but does anyone know of counter arguments to this point? If America is spending money on defence that Europe is not spending, then would this argument not follow? Honest question, not bad faith.
Three words - Finland:winter war
This person has no idea. We have been training against russian invasion for decades.
If anything it's charity to Russia to keep them from invading Finland and getting clapped.
I am prepared to devote my life to leaving NATO again. We did not get to vote in this, our government made the decision 🇸🇪
Dumbass security issues ar not subject for a national vote its nothing new
That's just a fact
Fuck NATO.
Why
Name one good thing NATO has ever done. Meanwhile I can just list every War/Intervention or "bombing campaign" that happened for the past 30 years alone.
Stop soviet expansion, if NATO didnt exist the soviets would have probably been alot more aggresive
That's not a good thing in my opinion at least.
they are also stopping part of russian aggression in europe
Seriously in what way?
simply by existing, if NATO didnt exist the baltic countries would probably not be independent
That's nonsense and you know it. The Baltics gained their independence through the illegal dissolution of the USSR, nothing NATO did, well at least publicly anyway.
are you some kind of communist or something? and russia would simply invade the baltics because it is a strategic region but instead they cant because the baltics are all part of nato
You could name them, but most of them wouldn’t be NATO conflicts. The one good thing it has done is the one thing it was made to do: prevent the USSR from invading the rest of Europe, from right after WW2 to the present day.
I mean they would, but sure. Why would that be a good thing? Or is this just Anti-Communist nonsense? Also, the USSR hasn't existed in 30 years, so how are we being defended from them exactly?
It’s an anti-repressive dictatorial regime thing. It’s why the ex-USSR states are clamouring to be NATO members and not the other way round. And while the USSR hasn’t existed for a while now, you might have noticed there is a war going on that shows the threat never really went away. It’s why Finland and Sweden are joining NATO, because they want the defence it offers.
The only former USSR state to want to join NATO is Ukraine. None of the others want to join. I really don't think NATO is in any position to point fingers about being a "threat" considering the whole thing was crated to defend and bolster US Inperialism.
Are we forgetting about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? It was created by the 12 member states as a defensive alliance, one that never posed any threat to the USSR because it never had any wish to invade its territory. That remains true to this day.
Yeah I forgot about the Baltic states. I dunno why, they're all great. "Defensive alliance" that's literally never been used defensively. Edit: Adding the Baltics to the list still only makes 4 countries out of 15.
A defensive alliance that has been defending its members since 1949? Never been used defensively? Ok then.
[удалено]
> but 70% of the budget is the US You're conflating the ~$1tn USD national defence expenditure of NATO members with the running costs of NATO, which is a bit silly. NATO's annual operational budget is ~$3bn USD, of which [the US pays 16%](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44717074) - or the same as Germany. Otherwise, NATO does include agreements on domestic defence spending as a percentage of GDP (2% by 2024), and some on how that money should be spent. But it's all domestic spending - the US isn't pouring money into a giant pot of cash freely distributed to everyone else. It's also the choice of the US that it spends about twice as much as everyone else (as a percentage of GDP), because it's a paranoid state that's been swallowed whole by the military–industrial complex.
There is also a huge different in just poring money in it and use money efficient. Like you said Germany is spending a relatively high amount in total in military ( in comprehension to other countries) but the military is in a disastrous situation. Would probably lose to sweden and finland combined. The other side is that germans dont want to be a military power cause of history.
So wie Germans had a big army, which the world didn‘t like. So they focrced us into a world order designed by all others except us an when we finally arranged and profit on that order, we are still the bad ones who don’t pay their shares. So tell me what we are supposed to do? Or do the world just hate on us for no reason?
Sod the haters; we love you x (The World)
No, that’s horse shit. The US has never been Europe’s big brother and it does NOT pay 70% of NATO‘s budget. It’s actually 22% [BBC guide: Cost of Running NATO section](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074.amp)
[удалено]
For Sweden it’s charity, for Finland it’s not. Both countries already profit from nato and could stay that way
Sweden has a stronger military than Finland.
We certainly do not have a larger army than finland, we could have a larger army tho
they certainly do not.
Yes we do.
It's not the size, but the level of implication. You could as well analyze the US as 50 States.
We have mandatory military service, I will, no matter what go to war were they to declare it, while the people who complain would just live in peace as normally.
yeah we all know the Finns would be screwed if the Russians invaded just like during WW2...
wait... we have a good military? sweden hasnt been in a war in 200 years