Russia's greatest defeat? Finland and Sweden joining NATO and what it means for Europe
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2022
- When Russia invaded Ukraine, one of the reasons cited was the need to 'demilitarise' Ukraine and prevent the expansion of NATO.
In doing so, it convinced the nations of Finland and Sweden to break with long traditions of non-alignment with military alliances (and strong public support for that stance) and apply to join NATO.
In some ways, this must seem like a natural step. Both Finland and Sweden are members of the EU and NATO partners, which hardly made it unclear which side of the metaphorical iron curtain they favoured. There's also reason to suggest this might not change as much as some networks are suggesting, with both nations expressing their lack of desire for permanent NATO bases in their territory or any sort of nuclear weapons sharing.
But in other ways, this move is a tremendous boost to NATO and a disastrous strategic reverse for Russia.
In this episode, I look at the history of Swedish and Finnish neutrality (and shift to non-alignment in the post cold war era), examine what these two nations would bring to NATO, and what that means for Europe, Russia, the USA, and global peace and security.
I want to stress that while I talk about the relevance of these new NATO members in the context of certain military scenarios that have appeared on Russian TV, I don't believe any of those are at all likely. They're used because they help illustrate the point, and because when something appears on Russian TV, you can't argue that there's zero chance of that being on the Kremlin's bucket list.
Also, because I'm aware the word is used differently around the world, please note that when I'm using the term 'liberal' in reference to the post-war order, I'm referring to the system of institutions, rules, and norms the victorious powers put in place after WW2 rather than any contemporary politics.
I'd also ask you to check the pinned comment regarding the question of how large the Swedish army is and what to include or not include in that figure.
Patreon:
/ perunau
Relevant news items:
On Russian energy cuts to Finland:
* www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5...
* www.bbc.com/news/business-614...
Russian TV discussing invasions (anti-Russian posters, but Russian content) I can't get the original Rossiya 1 clips:
* / 1506283895771348994
* • Russian TV explains a ...
I need to make a comment on the Swedish military figures I use here (since they do clash with the Active duty figures on Wikipedia)
Wiki uses an active duty personnel figure of 24,000 which is derived from a source which includes 9,100 civilian workers. My figure is the Military Balance 2021 figure which only counts the active military personnel. I generally agree with not including non-uniformed personnel in force statistics so would back MB2021 here.
Link for the source for the Wiki active duty figure:
www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/organisation/om-var-organisation/personalsiffror/
The IMBS figure does not include the Home Guard (of c.20,000) which is a decision I personally disagree with. While I generally cite IMBS and stick with it for consistency across my videos, if I were generating my own figures I would increase the stated number of Swedish reservists to approximately 30,000 including Home Guard, part-time staff and reserve officers.
All the US has to do is put some sanctions on Turkey and they go into hyperinflation. Trump threatened to do this over Bronson, who was being held hostage in Turkey and Erdogan released him. Turkeys economy is pathetic and dollarised.
That said Turkey is the wolf in the sheeps clothing of NATO and their people are nationalistic. They are more similar to Russia than they are to Europe but Russia has oil and gas. Turkey just pretends to play Ottoman Empire but with an economy based on cheap holidays.
Thank you mr credible analyst for the convient and beautiful presentation of information that us, peasants, wouldn't dare dig.
Might want to check Försvarsmakten's website on Swedish numbers instead. They are likely to be more accurate. Plus, you forgot most of Sweden's navy.
@@nian60 Yep I second this check out Försvarsmakten’s homepage they are our military and will probably have the most accurate info on our military. Our armed forces are between 50-60k in size.
@@nian60 He forgot 90% of our navy. lol
Finland is basically a defensive fortress nation. You have to see it and think about it to really get how prepared we are. I live in the city of Turku, and below my city there is a huge underground network of bunkers and tunnels. Most of them are currently used as underground arcades, minigolf courses, bowling alleys, bars, kids' play areas, go-cart tracks, and more. But all of them are dug so deep into the hard rock ground, that they are rated to survive nuclear explosions.
The hospitals of Finnish cities also have massive underground fortified bunkers serving as storage and emergency treatment rooms. The hospitals are linked to other underground bunkers and shelters with tunnels running deep under ground. There are huge ventilation systems with air filtration to protect from fallout and chemical attack.
Our road networks and bridges have been constructed with defending against Russia in mind. Our roads from Russia are constructed to be too narrow for two tanks moving side by side. They have steep ditches for two reasons, first is spring snow melt water not flooding the road, and the second is to deny Russian armor from escaping the road when we ambush them. Our bridges are built with demolition slots for tactical charges that pioneers can easily deploy to blow up the bridges and slow down the advancing armor. We have huge amounts of fortified positions, as well as the capability to rapidly build new fortified positions anywhere.
We are basically a nation of doomsday preppers. Our nation is our bunker. Us being a part of NATO allows for a very well defended and fortified position that can last most likely years of Russian siege and bombing, even if they had limitless resources.
I doubt we could even be nuked into submission. Unless the Russians nuked every single inch of our country, and managed to blockade us from receiving any supplies through the Baltic sea or through Sweden. Then we would probably last for a few months off our own stashes of supplies in our underground cities, if no help arrived and the entire surface of Finland was nuked.
As a Fin I can sign that.
That's badass
sounds like Finland is a giant Azovstal metalworks.
This is incredible. Finland is probably the best country to live in during an end of the world
@@bergonius Switzerland has taken the same concept even farther. They can survive indefinitely independently.
Who is here to reminisce after Finland joined NATO today? 😎🇫🇮
🇸🇪 Now, with the agreement of Turkey, Sweden will be joining NATO.🙂
@@Dan-dy8zp NATO lake ascendent 🇫🇮🇸🇪
Here from Norway. Welcome to the club! You're all awesome 🇳🇴🇸🇪🇫🇮
1944:
-Finland: Alright, fine! You win! But you promise not to invade us again if we stay out of Western alliances?
-Soviet Union: Da.
1994:
-Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus: Alright, we'll give up our nukes. But in return you have to respect our independence.
-Russia: Da.
-Finland: Wow, this neutrality thing is really working out well!
-Sweden: Tell me about it.
2022:
-Russia: Alright, so you know how I dismembered you back in 2014? Now I'm gonna finish the job and turn your peeps into good little Russians.
-Ukraine: Like hell you will! [war]
-Finland: Hello, NATO? Yeah, it's me. I'd like to know where I can submit my application.
-Sweden: Ask them if we can file jointly.
*BONUS:*
-Kazakhstan: Wow, that sure is a lot of explosions going off at Ukraine's place...Wait, didn't I get the same security guarantees as them?...He-Hey, China! You know how we were talking about strengthening our ties...
Kazakhstan is aligned with Russia.
It is a part of CSTO and literally asked other CSTO members (including Russia) to send soldiers during the riots/ colour revolution attempt in January.
ruclips.net/video/GMtOme-J3D4/видео.html
The president of Kazakhstan attended this year's St Petersburg Economic Forum in person
Accurate - also, this has aged well.
@@tripsupstairs Didn't you notice ? Last year polandball put an order of few tanks. I think it was a thousand abrams from usa, five hundred k10(I think?) from south Korea, and few hundred more leopards.
Thank god that nothing else has happened between and during the events you have hand selected...
@@BalkanSpectre oh god! The Americans are making friends with our neighbors! We need buffer states, (even though we’re the 1st or 2nd largest nuclear power on earth and in no danger of invasion) we should probably punch the Ukrainians. Russia doesn’t need buffer states in the age of nuclear bombs. Do they need crossbowmen for their star forts or hastati for their maniple? If Russia wanted to act like a great power maybe it shouldn’t have collapsed into a heap 30 years ago, your sympathy and/or fangirling will not change that.
It should be pointed out that Finland has one of the largest artillery forces in Western Europe, which is relevant given how much fun the Russians have been having against the Ukrainian artillery.
Also Sweden joining an alliance against Russia is much less remarkable than Sweden and Denmark being on the same side for the first time in 500 years.
^Yeah well we are also actively voting on joining you guys in EU Army next week (removal of our opt-out clause from '92 EU aka Maastricht Treaty) so could be by insane events mutual agreed friendliness is another Putin gift :D everybody glosses over all 3 Baltic states are basically subcomponents of the danish armed forces in reality (see deployments in AF and Iraq etc.) and NATO structures for good reasons. Big reasons being certain 2 other brothers in our local family was never going to be full NATO. Generally glossing over Danish influence in current and historic world tech/military/history is generally a thing unless the surprisingly widespread danish influence everywhere is the main theme. I think its a deep cut OP had no option about. It's a good main topic for a 20 minutes Baltic background later.
@@rplasticpirate3999 Lots of interesting stuff in the history and geopolitics of Nordic Countries that gets glossed over for sure.
False, Sweden alongside Denmark combined would mean that both countries could choke Russian Navy from exiting the baltic sea.
Currently, Finland and Sweden being neutral means that Russia is free to use the tiny waterway between Denmark and Sweden to enter the Atlantic, usually entering Swedish water.
Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha Bahahahahahauahahaha
Isnt it 400? Wasnt the 30 years war the last time they fought a common enemy?
Babe wake up new slideshow dropped
Bacon...
I had to leave my grandma’s birthday to watch this.
@@Jables4you I had to leave the birth of my first child to watch this.
Had to cancel my funeral for this. Perun vid comes first no exceptions
Many people are saying this
"The historical record is unclear whether [Sweden's nukes] would be in a flat pack and contain easy to read instructions." Perfection
But what to do with the extra bolt and the coffee cup that unexpectedly came with it?
and in dead pan delivery
Our anti tank weapons are not in a flat pack, but have easy to read instructions, so even our American customers can use them. 😉
@@magnuslundstedt2659 something like "don't use that AT rocket to warm your porridge"? :D
@@magnuslundstedt2659 Yeah, we know not to throw away the hex key. We need it for limbering and unlimbering the guns.
When I was in army, one of my fellow private asked our leutenant: "Why we always fix our positions facing east?"
Our leutenant replied: "The only way that the enemy is coming from the west is that they are hooking or trying to flank us."
I'm half Finnish, half Ukrainian, born (and currently living) in Finland, with a good amount of life experience in Russia too.
This has been such a confusing time, but with a strong understanding of who's in the wrong here regardless.
I hope people understand how insane all of this currently going on is.
Edit: just to expand on that, and what's mentioned in the video. A considerable number of Ukrainians speak Russian as a first language. Families are spread between the two countries, this is literally brothers fighting against brothers. *This does not mean Ukrainians want to be Russians. Ukrainians are Ukrainians.*
I wonder if we will ever truly be able to understand why Putin did this to me it seems like utter launcy no matter how I slice it.
@@seanmac1793 I would say that our only chance of getting a real answer is having some official papers leak from the Russian government in a decade or couple, but if I know anything about Russian bureaucracy, those never existed in the first place, were immediately destroyed, or will forever stay misplaced in an incorrect folder in a dusty office somewhere no-one would ever logically think they could be in.
By now the world knows you are Ukrainians. Slava.
@@seanmac1793 We already do. Illusions of grandeur sums it up in three words.
"Families are spread between the two countries, this is literally *brothers* fighting against brothers. This does not mean Ukrainians want to be Russians. Ukrainians are Ukrainians."
By that logic Ukranians are Russians too. Wich they were fighting for in Donbass since 2014. Do you have 84 IQ?
Thank NATO for starting this, not Russia. You know that organisation you tried to join because your government is a vagiiina? And still failed... 🤣
“Putin wins NATO recruiter of the year”…that’s hilarious and so true!
...and for Greenpeace too...
...by threatening to cut oil-/gas-/-coal-supply, alternative renewable energy is booming...!
Not only recruiter but the savior of the NATO... after cold war existence of nato was under question (Macron called NATO brain-dead aliance not that long ago) if putin just sat quietly and gathered petrodollars nato would dissolve eventually as europeans didn't want US influence and military anymore, especially after Iraq. But afer 2014 Putin firstly gave nato "life support" and now he reunited almost dead aliance. Same thing with ukraine. till 2014 Ukraine was 50/50 with pro-western and pro-russian governments rotating. All this balance was destroyed in 2014 with crimean annexation (after that pro-russian parties shrunk to something like 20% and now its easier to find nazi jew than ukrainian who supports Russia). Had putin just sat quietly and used soft power, Maidan government would not last that long (in 2004 Ukraine also had pro-western revolution but pro-russian party won next election)
ah yes, the best NATO recruitment ad
Perun says: "Putin wins Nato recruiter of the decade" i would say "Nato recruiter of the Century". Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slowenia all joined Nato because of the Georgia Conflict and the second Chechen War, which were supported by Putin. Now Sweden and Finnland is joining too, ukraine will join Nato ASAP. That makes 10 States or nearly 1/3 of then Nato states in 2025 will have joined because of Putin's ambitions. And there will be more Nato Associated States in Asia. Putin and Xi are the Reason Nato will grow.
@@Elkarlo77 while NATO is great and all, South East Asia already had an alliance, ASEAN. I think Japan joining NATO is an interesting prospect indeed
Little tidbit that might interest someone: The reason that the statue of Tsar Alexander II mentioned at 9:28 still stands in a very central part of Helsinki is that it actually became a nationalist symbol during Russification. The Good Tsar's birthday became a day of public celebrations, with large crowds laying flowers on the statue etc. This was obviously pure trolling, because everyone knew it was meant to send a message of "this is what a proper Tsar looks like, while the current one is a faithless scoundrel". But what was Governor-General going to do? Crack down on people celebrating Tsar's birthday?
"But what was Governor-General going to do?" Get shot.
Well that does make sense, I mean Alexander II was called 'The Liberator' for a reason; he was passing liberalising reforms all over the place; especially the Emancipation of the Serfs, but also major legal & land reforms and for me personally; he was realistically the last Tsar who may have been able to save the institution from it's eventual collapse; had he not been assassinated when he was.
Alexander III was an absolutist who got away with it by being politically competent, crushing his enemies with great efficiency & avoiding expensive, unpopular wars, but his reign didn't fix any of the inherent problems with the system, just papered over them.
Then we got Nicholas II, who had all of his father's absolutist tendencies, but none of his actual skill at governance. He might as well have been an embodiment of all that was wrong with granting so much power to a single man just by virtue of who his parents were.
But even just looking at the cliffnotes of what Alexander II did in Finland, you can see why he'd be called 'The Good Tsar'; reopening the Diet, making Finnish a national language, building a Finnish railway, letting them have their own currency and just granting Finland more autonomy in general... That was more than Finland had been granted before and more than his successors would allow.
@@JamesTobiasStewart We also really dig our historical govermental city center they built for us, so I hope they don't end up shelling it to rubble.
@@grimsoncrow That is an entirely reasonable attitude to take.
nice little bit of information😂
I am Russian. I strongly against war and conflicts. I really enjoy your analysis and find it really good and insightful and best of all, free of value judgements. I wish there was translation to russian so I could share your analysis and points to my friends and family who often greatly misunderstood potential threats and consequences and costs of wars and probably could reevaluate their opinions on Ukrainian war.
Aleksey, do you know you can add Russian subtitles to RUclips videos?
I'll go and dig up a guide on how to do it, but the basics is you take the transcript, translate it and submit it to the creator. I think.
I'll go find that guide.
There's also auto translation.
On Android, touch and hold the 'CC' icon.
Then, select auto translate.
Then, select Russian.
But, it is auto translate so not perfect.
One comprehensive article, search for:
"How to Translate Videos on RUclips? Everything You Need to Know"
(Links get deleted so I'll just post article titles and you can search for them)
It kept deleting my comment.
But here's the article I was searching for:
"How to translate youtube videos | Translating subtitles as a viewer"
From Videotranslate.
This one is exactly the information you need, how to auto do it and then how to improve the auto translation manually and submit your changes to the author (perun in this case)
OK I think that comment is stable now.
Follow that guide.
Do Svidaniya.
(It's all we know how to say)
It is great watching this just as Finland gets into NATO. Hopefully Sweden will soon follow.
took a while, but here they are
Ding ding ding!
Oh boi I have great news
It's worth mentioning that Sweden also has a total defense doctrine (at least on paper), according to the Swedish law of the duty of total defense everyone living in Sweden who is between the ages of 16 and 70 can be compelled to help defend the country to the best of their abilities in case of war or crisis. This includes both military service and to help society at large by either continuing with their everyday jobs or by doing other necessary work. The military strategy also reflects this, placing a lot of emphasis on low level autonomy in case of breakdown of command as well as a doctrine (which also applies to civilians) that Sweden will never surrender to a foreign force and that "all information stating the cessation of resistance is to be considered false"
I have friend who is Swedish. He was a destroyer of airports. Depending on how much PE there is to hand he can wreck a runway for between 8 and 48 hours.
How many immigrants? Will they fight for Sweden? Yeah, right, they didn't for their own countries!
On paper doesn't usually mean much in practice, but I wouldn't discount Sweden's ability to ramp up if necessary. It's not a flick of a switch kind of thing as it would be for Finland, Israel or any other well-organized country with a total defence strategy, but much could be done in few months. One thing this video didn't mention is Hemvärnet, a territorial defence force of 22,000. That could easily be expanded, and in fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out about a sudden influx of money and volunteers that's happening right now.
"at least on paper" ;)
This doesn't help very much when Sweden's conscription is so limited that they don't have much reserve with military training to speak of. Norway has half the population, but has twice as many conscripts every year.
I usually don’t comment, but I had to, after this excellent performance. Being swedish, I was shocked about the amount of research you must have put in, and the general in-depth knowledge on your part. Just outstanding. Myself, always been against large military spending, actually switched from ”against” to ”pro Nato” membership, like most of my fellow swedes of course, as soon as they entered Ukraine.
Great video! Love watching them all. The longer, the better!
Buddy, trust me, there are people that don't have their faces glued to the social media but actually know history - so there is more people that know who sweds and fins are than might appear on the surface! (uk here). So don't be discouraged by usual idiots, people that make decisions are in the know, people that make stuff that matters are in the know. Good luck on the nato membership !
Sweden by these slides look "mini nordic USA", in small active troops (all of course relative to country size) but huge amount of active equipment of latest grade and also big military industrial complex in country.
@@effexon as someone said, "more metal = less blood" so I wouldn't discourage that tactic ;)
@@tommybronze3451 conveniently sweden still has plenty of iron ore mining in north, so that aint problem to get more metal :D
@@effexon “true, true” as someone said :D
Swede with Finnish family roots here. Very impressed with how accurately you summarized both Swedish and Finnish history and the countries' different reasons for non-alliance/neutrality. Also appreciate that you didn't beat around the bush with Sweden's tiny army comparative to its size. I've seen too many videos that inflate or simply ignore the actual numbers. It should be mentioned that Finland being so defensively capable is likely a large part of why Swedish ground forces have dwindled in size for the benefiit of a stronger air force and navy. Finland is often mentioned as Sweden's buffer against Russia, and while I don't like the thought of my Finnish brethren having to pick up the bill for my security it's been pretty much a geopolitical fact. However, with both countries now likely joining NATO in the forseeable future that will no longer be the case as Sweden would most likely be the first NATO-country to come to Finland's aid. Anyway, nice vid man. Looking forward to more!
While I have no proof of this, Sweden would probably join Finland either way in the case of a Russian full on invasion, and them being able to go toe to toe with the Russian Air Force and navy would certainly help Finland.
Its more because the only way for russia to invade is over the Baltic Sea. Swedish defence is based on Russia not reaching the shore. Thats why there are three different systems to deliver RBS 15 that are linked and can launch and hit the same target simultaneously.
@@Dap1ssmonkit is very strikning that the swedish military is almost built to massively augment finnish defense strategies
I like to share a small personal experience in order to make others understand better what standardization within NATO means. I was a specialist for electronic warfare in the german army during my active duty time. We did a exercise with our dutch counterparts.
During this training their generator failed. Shit like this can happen. Not so much during exercises but in combat the longer the equipment has to go without proper maintenance this will happen. And the point here is a group of electrical warfare vehicles is not of much use without electrical power and the vehicle own batteries would not last long for this.
But due to standardization we just plugged them into our generator and everyone was fully operation again within 5 minutes. All systems have the same voltage, the same plugs. Its like borrowing an USB charger for your phone. I can not stress enough what a huge advantage this is.
Also all NATO countries use the same ponton bridges. So germany can cross 150m of river. As soon as the brits show up we can do 250m and than uncle sam can built a second line next to it.
I'd just like to say how nice it is that we can be mutually enthusiastic about fraternal cooperation when our grandfathers and great grandfathers were trying to kill each other.
"use the same ponton bridges" I thought the Germans used the VERY German and technically advanced M3 self propelled floating bridge? A wonderfully awesome feat of German (over)engineering! And the rest of us use the 60's ex-Soviet invention, the Pomtommo Mostovoj Park (PMP) pontoon bridge... Am I wrong in this assumption?
Yep, standardisation is hugely important. Half a world away from the conflict, Australian artillery ammunition factories are running around the clock supplying 155mm NATO standard artillery rounds to Ukraine.
Henry Ford was a smart man. Standardization makes the world better. Us mercans need to get with the metric system a hundred years ago 😅
@@gqp4800your military did since 1957.
Swedish history Major here. I was surprised to hear such an accurate, succinct summation of Sweden and Finland's history, shared objectives and capabilities. The only thing I might want to add to is that the Swedish doctrine of armed neutrality stretching back 200 years is a bit of national myth. In the manner that it is very much a post-WW2 rationalization and packaging of a long time of complex history. Basically we've been staying out of the wars of the Great Powers since we've had the Baltic as a moat, and simply not had the resources in manpower to try and become a major force in Europe again. The time stretching from the 16th to the 18th century was one of almost unrelenting warfare and it took its toll on the country. After losing Finland in 1809 we were basically finished with regards to future military interventions on the Continent. And since we kept a small army during the 19th and first half of the 20th century, other major powers didn't have to worry about us, safe behind our inland sea.
World War 2 was a wake-up call for us. Modern warfare spanned continents, moved with a speed and devastated civilian populations in ways not previously possible. We had a very weak army in 1939 and only appeasement saved us from German occupation. The concessions we had to make to the Nazi regime was not only a blow to our pride, but as the atrocities of the war come to light it triggered a national movement of bad conscience coupled with anxiety that the could have happened to us. So we armed to the teeth and stayed out of any alliances. Part of it was also the fact that Finland was neighbouring the Soviet Union and it was reckoned that if Sweden joined, Russia would put additional pressure on Finland. Since our nations have very close ties and we sent almost 10.000 volunteers to fight in the Winter War, no one here wanted to put Finland in danger.
In the present day, joining NATO is for Sweden again a thing of having a common cause with Finland. Our defences are already to some degree integrated, but it would be seen as almost a betrayal if we did not show the Finns that we have their backs. The Gotland scenario with the extended Baltic one is taken seriously over here, and Sweden won't be the weak link in the defence of the democracies around the Baltic sea. I remember in 2016 during the US presidential election campaign seeing Russia amp up its cyber warfare attacks against us, among these making social media pages and posts claiming there's a Russian friendly, persecuted minority on Gotland who longs to join the Russian Federation. Which is of course nonsense to the point of idiocy.
It is indeed a great irony that Putin's geopolitical ineptitude has now for the first time in over 200 years once more united Swedish and Finnish military capacities under the same command, granted we get to join. Congrats Vlad, you played yourself.
Great comment. (Perun missed a bunch of current military stuff in this video though. Note how our navy is missing, f ex).
"After losing Finland in 1809 we were basically finished with regards to future military interventions on the Continent."
You did fight a small war to seize Norway a couple of years later, though.
I had hoped Perun would have spelled out how far into Ukraine Swedish forces went.
Nice post!
Would just like to add that often the volunteers are mentioned.
But its seldom mentioned that we sent massive amounts of materiel to Finland too.
We literally gave them a third of our air force for example
Thanks for that.
Swedish follower here, well done on the historic summary of Sweden, here you have made a more balanced summary than many domestic commentators. In particular, many forget (or has never learned) how much resources was spent on defence by Sweden in the 1940-80theies. I was personally surprised to learn that Sweden at one point had the worlds forth largest air force. Credible neutrality comes with a cost. Many thanks for the video.
It's a cliche but it's also often very true. Freedom isn't cheap and it's easy to forget how much it took to establish the current world order we have.
Sweden/Finland seem like natural NATO friends. Unclear what the future of Ukraine will be, but I imagine if they win the war they will continue to strongly push for NATO membership, and I can't say I blame them. Russia has got to figure out how to live without being an imperial power anymore, or otherwise it's going to use it's nuclear weapons to end the world.
@@seanmac1793 It's also easy to forget how quickly we could slip back into 19th century might makes right geopolitics.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
@@roblangada4516 yep and it's also something that I constantly hammer home when I talk with my fellow Americans about forgein policy. Even if we bend the rules from time to time the US is fundamentally the one that underpins our current rules based International order and if you want to keep it that way the US can't go back into its turtle shell
The NLAWS the brits sent to Ukraine were designed by SAAB and developed in a joint project with Britain. The guy who designed the guidance system is a engineering legend.
Exactly, the NLAW is just a damn mastepiece of an anti-tank launcher
As an American the idea of a unified 'European defense' that is self sufficient and doesn't rely on us sound like probably one of the best things that can happen to us.
Let's face it, the whole idea of NATO is to protect the US by placing allies between you and Russia.
Deployed US troops in civilised nations is good for America. It gives a lot of folks who wouldn't otherwise get to travel abroad a chance to see the world when they have rest periods. It's the best answer to American isolationism which has been a big historical factor.
Exactly!
Its not Americas responsibility to babysit Europe!
They can and should support Europe as an ally! But not babysit
The majority of US influence in Europe is generated by the defence capability that America supplies. Though the US does have a lot of cultural power, the economic relationship is completely two-way, similar to the relationship with China. The US could not use its economic power to bring the EU to heel without destroying itself.
So, while unified European defence may be good for European autonomy and US spending, it would mean that - while the EU would likely still be an ally of the US - the US would not be able to influence the EU to a great degree. That's a serious problem for when the US wants to do something like Iraq or Afghanistan.
I think it would be good overall, because the EU could operate as a democratic counterbalance to the US, but it would not be good for US foreign policy
@@isaacdalziel5772 I'm not sure if that would be bad for US foreign policy. While I agree Iraq or Afghanistan-like conflicts would get more difficult, you have to remember that US armed forces are a massive drain on the US economy and public will to maintain it is especialy nowadays difficult to rile up. So if some of that responsibility could be split with Europe, it could achieve a much more consistent base of influence. You also have to remember that European interests are really close to American interests so I would predict that it would overall be good for both sides.
I think Turkey isn't really opposed against Sweden or Finland. They just want to show their power in foreign politics and get some influence/weapon deals out of the situation.
You nailed it. They want to use the situation get somsthing from us
It's not even turkey as a whole, just Er dog an and his supporters.
Sweden is a small fish in the USA empire.
Turkey said - that they will not block their joining NATO, but they need to negotiate some things before that.
Turkey bought some SAM systems from Russia a few years ago, and as a NATO member, that's a HUGE no-no. Because of it, they got sanctioned, and haven't been supplied with the 140+ F-35's they ordered from the US. This seems like a way to pressure the US to hand them over. But now the Czech president is also demanding something... He wants a constitutional change in Bosnia, so Czech's have an easier time getting elected to public office...🤦
Finnish history here seems mostly accurate. Which is rare. Well done!
Just an anecdote, but I think a lot of Finns had a very strong reaction to the Ukraine invasion specifically because it invokes the national trauma (and myth) of the Winter War. Many relate to the Ukrainians in a weird, nationalist way.
Also the Finnish defense was based on the concept of 'credible defense' - Finland could put up a big enough fight that even if Russia did invade, the payout would not be worth it. And while Ukraine is definitely different from Finland, the fact that a month into the invasion, Russia is bogged down in this war, with no end and no gains in sight - and with massive Western sanctions on Russian economy - sure made a lot of Finns question if leaving our national security hinging on Russia being a rational actor was a wise decision.
If Russia had marched in, taken Kyiv in 3 days, and the whole 'special operation' was over in few weeks, the situation would be much different. The Finns would be much more concerned about potential Russian retaliation for the NATO bid, but also our defense policy would still have something to stand on. As it is, Ukrainians put out a 'credible defense' but even when it became clear the conflict would not be over quick and easy, Russia still continues with it's invasion. It's because Ukraine has held on that Finland has both the opportunity and the will to seek NATO membership.
Thanks, you've just explained why Russia is not planning to attack Finland. This is a massive overreaction by Finland. Are Russia's forces massing on Finland's border ? Russia can't even get things right in easy terrain such as the Ukraine.
It’s irrational from economic prospective, from the unique perspective of Russian imperialists however? That makes total sense. So don’t lower your guard even after NATO accession. In fact, you should press for other European nations to strengthen their militaries, both technology, materiel and mobilization-wise, so they aren’t free-riding.
And yes, I myself snort at the idea of Russia becoming a proper empire with its declining demography, primitive economy, sucky climate and geography, lack of institutions or really anything of long-lasting value to offer to the wider world, including any sort of coherent ideology. But people act according to their beliefs, rarely on objective and full truth.
I really don't understand why they did it.
It's not good to be an enemy with the first neighbor. especially if it's a country with a nuclear weapon.
Walking away from neutrality is a bad thing for Finland. I think that both (Russia and Finland) lost here. The only winner here is the USA.
The same goes for Sweeden.
@@inemanja Exactly. Finland and Sweden should not join NATO. Other defence models are possible. Marin is too young to be making decisions like this.
@@susannamarker2582 What other defense models?
And it's not Marin making the decision. The parliament voted to apply to NATO 188 votes vs 8.
As for conscripts, don't forget that we are probably a million or so, that got the full military training back then, still alive. I for one still remember most of the training, and after a couple of days of refreshing, could probably perform a lot of the tasks needed to defend our country. Sergeant Felten at your service, Sir!
The problem with the Gotland scenario is that the Swedish Navy already have the island under control. Sending green men to the island, unless Putin would be willing to send all of them, would just end up making the see around the island more green, with a shade of red... The place is like a fortress, because it has to be...
What do they say? Sweden has an Aircareer and its name is Gotland.
That is good to hear.
@@ashkuigp Gotland is an island.
@@Lars_Paulsen so is Midway and Iwo Jima
@@silentdrew7636 True, but I don't think those places are that close to an air force like Sweden has and they weren't that fortified...
On the news I recently hear a Norwegian officer commenting: "Good, now the Nordic countries will be stronger and more united as we can contribute and expand more on the defenses we are experts in: Finland on Army, Sweden on Air and Norway on Navy!"
There are indeed some who are suggesting that we should even form combined forces in peace time with Finland leading the army, Sweden leading the air force, and Norway leading the navy.
@@gunnar6674 Me/you(?) are no military strategist (neither are our politicians) but yes, why not?
@@gunnar6674 And to make things exceedingly easy there, Finland already has a Swedish-language brigade (although kustjägare, so they're under the fleet as far as command structure goes). The command language is Finnish, though, but I am convinced even Swedes and Norwegians can learn that if they want to.
@@gunnar6674 it's insane as an American to see such unity from different countries while we fight amongst ourselves and slowly destroy ourselves. Im jealous of the European people honestly and wish we could make half the good choices you all have made
Lets imagine Sweden and Finland is admitted to NATO. Next month Poland decide to take Lviv as a 'peacekeeping action'. Russia, destroys a bunch of convoys. Now NATO and Russia are now at war in the Polish theater. Sweden and Finland are now obligated to go to war with Russia, and the theater 'was' Poland, but now includes their previously neutral nations.
In the increasingly messy present and presumably even more increasingly messy future I would expect that mistakes will be made, or false flags will occur. The probability of your Swedish and Finnish children being front line cannon fodder is high and afterwards cities in infrastructure being shortlisted for destruction. I'm not sure why people are lining up for 'yet another world war' as it's pretty clear that this is just the opening salvo's and a very long and bloody war.
For all Fins and Swedes, now might be a good time to look in to US projections in NATO's ability to defeat Russia alone. The chances are looking pretty terrible. Further, should China start getting frisky, the US will not be lending full support to NATO as it'll be reasonably solo in containing china.
Pretty rare to see a video that understands the end situation of the Winter War this well. One thing about the dire state of the Finnish army at the end of that war that seems to be still totally unknown outside the Finnish historian community is the fact that Red Airforce interdiction campaign had almost totally collapsed the Finnish logistics for the Army of the Isthmus.
I don't want to diminish the incredible achievements of the Finns in the Winter War, I just wanted to point out that in the end, materiel and population disparities were eventually going to tell, and Finland was at the end of its resources by the end. There is only so much you can ask of a nation of what, fewer than four million at the time?
I think I learned this very recently from Forgotten Weapons. No idea, previously.
It has to be remembered that at the end of the war in Europe, only three of the warring countries hadn't had their capitals captured by the enemy: the UK, the USSR and Finland.
Good video, I am a Swede, now an American, have lived half my life in Sweden and half in the US, and was a bit afraid of the "usual" misconcepts most countries have to live with...and Sweden as well, but you covered the Swedish aspect pretty darn well if I may say so.
I was born in -52 and remember the cold war very well.
Sweden was always aiming its defense, and defense strategy with the notion that Russia...or then, the Soviets...was the obvious and assumed enemy.
The cultural ties between Sweden and Finland are strong, I would say very strong.
Finland is a completely different language and that should by all means be a very strong barrier, but historically, when Sweden and Finland was Swedish...(it was, for around 400 years) this was not an issue.
About 15% of Finns speak Swedish, but are proud Finns. I assume its the same in Ukraine where a certain portion of Ukrainians speak Russian.
Its funny to do historic comparisons.
Hitler had the idea that if anyone spoke German...they were Germans.
So before the war, he took Sudetenland, Rhineland and the he took Austria.
Nonone did anything.
So then the idiot started a war with Poland.
Putin have the same idea....if they speak Russian, they are Russians. So he took Chechnya, Georgia, stole Crimea, and snatched Donbas and Luhansk.
No one did shit diddly squat.
So, the idiot starts a war with Ukraine.
With that logic, all English speaking countries must then be England.
What gets me is that no one have any problem describing Hitler as a psychotic, out of his mind, dictator, illusion riddled and other feeble minded descriptions.
Its almost a sin to describe Hitler in any other way.
On dark corners of the internet, Putin is seen as a master chess player, a savior of the world from the "Dark State" and the atrocities and carnage taking place is an necessary evil .....
I think this is very much a created scenario.
Russia have a huuuuge internet Troll Factory with hundreds of people posting Putin propaganda, or Putins agenda and mis-information especially to the west.
Do some research and you will be surprised. Its located in St Petersburg.
Many western postings with a face like "Sue from Oregon" or "Joe from Texas" is in reality Svetlana and Boris from St Petersburg.
Putin, an old Marxist schooled KGB agent knows exactly how to run PsyOps.
I can see how you have masterfully tackled the lies in earlier videos, but it would be huge if the way its introduced into the west is highlignted.
Good job...
Roger
The amount of Finns who speak Swedish as mother tongue is about 5% and not 15, but everyone here is forced to learn at least some Swedish as part of our eductions.
But these days everyone communicates in English internationally as well, every time I or some of my friends have tried to use Swedish while visiting Sweden everyone switches to English when hearing the accent. So it would not matter if nobody here spoke Swedish, in any case people here aren’t that interested in using Swedish these days either.
Regarding Ukrainians who speak Russian as mother tongue, it’s about 30% so huge difference. Also the people are often ethnically Russian whose parents or grandparents or great-grandparents moved from Russia during Soviet Union (with Crimea majority are Russian speakers since they tatars and other minorities who lived there were forced often to move out) and the eastern areas are more solidly Russian. So there is actually a divide in loyalties. In Finland the Swedish speaking minority has ethnic ties to Sweden often centuries ago or they are just completely Finnish ethnically but their ancestors changed language since Swedish was the only official language under Swedish rule. So they don’t have ties to Sweden (although of course some people from Sweden these days do immigrate, but it has been more Finns immigrating to Sweden during the 60s and 70s).
@@sarasamaletdin4574 My grandfather goes bananas when people can't speak swedish in Finland, or at least in Turku. He's Finnish with Swedish as mother tongue (finlandssvensk). He's quite old and isn't that good with change though...
I do how ever find it a bit curious that the Varsinais-Suomi heraldic weapon does include two Swedish flags.
Spot on pudin is master manipulator.
Engineered brexit and 45 presidency so was on a roll.
It's a great pity we in the west have been so dulled by his trolls it has taken a full on war to wake us up to what's going on.
> What gets me is that no one have any problem describing Hitler as a psychotic, out of his mind, dictator.... On dark corners of the internet, Putin is seen as a master chess player, a savior of the world from the "Dark State"
You are right here, but I will note that in his day a horrifying number of people in other countries thought Hitler had the right idea, or that he should have been left alone. In any country, in any age, there are a lot of people who want to apologize and excuse what dictators do. These days, certainly, some of them are Russian bots and trolls, but many of them are just the usual sort of people who think that everything would be better if just there was a Strong Man in charge of everything. It doesn't matter how many times it goes badly, they still keep wanting it.
Imagine being afraid of a defensive alliance and using it as justification to commit mass murder. Sickening.
In all fairness the average Russian is so brain washed that all yhey have to do is mention MATO and they poop their pants for no reason... It's much easier than thinking I guess..
Tell me about one single defensive war NATO waged for the past like… 70 years😊
@@kristian33
They kept war from beginning in the first place. No NATO countries have ever been invaded by Russia. 😊
@@bananian interesting why…
@@bananian and l am still waiting for a defensive war
Russia: "NATO needs to stop expanding"
NATO: "Only if you stop trying to conquer and annex former Soviet states."
Russia: "No."
Only because of years of ethnic cleansing of Russians in Donbas by Ukrainian Nazis.
That's pretty much it. What the "This war is NATO'S fault" mob will never understand.
Being Czech I can tell you, that NATO expansion wasn't easy feat, and we wanted in,, because we did not believed russia would stay defeated....
Finland has said that we will NOT scale down our military even if we join NATO. We're still going to be the main defenders of our own country. What Finland really is after is article 5, the promise that we won't have to stand alone if something were to happen. For that, we don't mind lending our support (and military) to our neighbours :)
Finland will have to increase its defence spending to meet the 2 per cent of GDP requirement. From 2011 to 2020 it was consistently below 1.5%. It's begun to increase spending. I'm pleased Finland joined, but I'm also a realist. It has a 1340km border with Russia, only 5 million people, and 23k active duty soldiers (given the split between combat and sustainment, it has about 5k to 6k front line war fighters). That's a lot of real estate that now falls under Nato's obligation, and neither Sweden nor Finland bring a lot to the table beyond technology. Technology is not a Nato shortcoming. Nato's shortfalls (of most members) are bodies in uniforms and funding. I will give credit to Finland for attending to its equipment needs better than Germany.
@@gagamba9198 actually the personnel number is wrong. While we only have some 20k active personnel, our wartime strength is about 280k. Our total reserve is about 900k. Since we have conscription, anyone who has completed their initial training is counted as a reservist who can, with some refresher training, be brought to the wartime strength army. In that regard, our total military personnel is one of the largest in Europe. We put in an order for new planes a while ago so our military spending will be above that 2% for a few years
@@gagamba9198 I also forgot to mention that most of that long border is made up of deep forests, swamps and just wild land so there's only a few key places where tanks and APV's can come through. While it's "fun" and "sensational" to mention the long border, in truth it's not open plains where tanks can just roll in en masse. From what I understand, our strategy is to mine those key points, blow up bridges and make it as hard as possible for any enemy to advance.
Finland joining Nato will have zero impact on our conscription because it will be based on volunteers and i belive there will allways be enough of em.
@@ThaStrum I believe this. Being on the Front Lines is different from being far away.
Thank you Vlad for convincing our Nordic friends that what they really need less of is you. Welcome Finland (and soon Sweden) ❤🎉
"Let's talk about metal and what Sweden and Finnland bring to NATO".
Me, a metalhead: "the best damn metal on Planet Earth!"
Also worth mentioning on the point of NATO standardization, the JAS Gripen has, to my knowledge two separate datalink systems. One of them being NATO-compatible. So with no change to the Swedish air force required, they can take advantage of NATO and the USA's AWACS and similar systems in any training or real-war scenario.
noone resigns from their own data systems. they are doubled (because that increases market - you can sell plane or tank without nato electronics in it)
So Gripen can carry the B1 nuke?
@@ThePRCommander I have no idea how relevant that is, but if it's a bomb, the Gripen can carry it. Maybe with minor modifications, but seeing the Ukrainians improvising with civilian drones and grenades and performing precision strikes on infantry, a capable, 4th gen, multifunction fighter, backed by a strong military industrial infrastructure that is integrated in NATO, it will be able to deliver whatever.
I think the jet engines is US made? It's not a 100% Swedish made jet down to all sub-components. There where talks about using JAS Gripen in Afghanistan but it was something about that they didn't have the right type of equipment for precision ground bombings.
@@lubricustheslippery5028 yes, but mostly due to cost - they can make their own turbines, its just cheaper to buy them from US
i am very impressed not only with the depth of Perun's commentary but his humorous perspective. I don't think I'm quoting properly but the sense of the remark 'one wonders whether any Swedish soldier has to walk' when talking about the equipment base of the Swedish army is worthy of a prime time comedy show. Thank you again.
to remember world is a sphere - I am sorry to any flat-earthers in my audience…
Typical Australian humour at its finest!
the "you don't make friends with artillery barrage" got me
When I did my conscript service in sweden 10 year ago I got medical troubles with my knees because, guess what, we were driving everywhere, I didn't get enough exercise. 6 vehicles in my squad of 12 soldiers, and you weren't allowed to drive alone for safety.
HAHA! The pearl was when he talked about how close the Swedes were to constructing an Atomic Bomb.
Something like They had a flat pack and "easy to assemble instruction." An IKEA reference in case you didn't get it.
took 10 months, but it's finally happening! For Finland, anyway :)
'if you threaten Estonia, Uncle Sam is coming off the bench with a chair. And Uncle Sam has a really big chair.' It's dry humor like this that makes these more than just slideshows
As a Finn, this is something I've been thinking about A LOT recently. What does it mean, really, if we Nordics (FIN+SWE+NOR+DK) seriously start integrating our defence forces, while focusing on our own specialties and strengths?
Sweden used to be a military superpower, so there's a precedent to what we can do together. We all have our strenghts and we complement each other nicely, so if we combine our forces and work together, we'll pack some serious punch together. Like, even more than people think we will. Much, MUCH more. We have the dedication, the discipline, and the desire to protect each other. We also have the tech (thanks, Sweden) and enough money to really make it count.
The Combined Nordic Force would not be an offensive force (with most of Finland's army being conscripts, obvs), but we would be such an effective deterrent that the threat of Russia would be pretty much neutralized entirely in the whole northern and central Europe (including the Arctic regions as well). We would secure both Iceland and the Baltic states, and With Ukraine and Poland flanking us, Russia's access to Europe would be denied, completely and utterly.
The Baltic states are already overjoyed that Finland and Sweden are joining (because we WILL kick Russia's ass if they try to mess with our Baltic family), but I don't think they have quite grasped the jackpot Putin (quite unintentionally) hit for them, if he really triggered the formation of the Combined Nordic Defence Force.
And neither has Putin. If he did, he'd be having a stroke RN.
I'm thinking that's a recipe for an organizational mess if you try and focus on specialties. Any hope for an effective force is homogenization. If Sweden has the best air force, then The Combined Nordic Force should have Sweden head the combined air force, if Finland has the best ground force, then the combined armies should adopt the Finnish model. Otherwise you get a complete organization mess like the Austro-Hungarian Empire had. Uniformity puts less burden on command and control and on the supply lines.
@@Edax_Royeaux yes, that's what I meant, exactly.
Finland is in charge of the combined ground forces (the bulk of the troops being the Finns) and especially the arty, since we have LOTS of it, and we're very, VERY good at it. (We're the best in Europe, maybe even the best in the world).
Sweden is in charge of the air force, the other air forces operate under their command. As for the navy.... IDK, I think SWE, NOR & DK all have very good navies, I don't know who'd be the natural leader in that. They'll sort it out, I'm sure.
We're all problem-solvers and very practical, we'll make the command structure very efficient and train the branches together until they work together seamlessly.
We should all keep our own SOFs, I think, because all Nordics SOFs have expertise that does not overlap. They should definitely train & work together a lot, and the command structure should be extremely streamlined, so that they'll function as one, and not as four separate branches.
@@Shannis75 the combined force, running on NATO-standard command and control infrastructure, utilizing their allies' information networks... that'd be a sight to behold
Wouldn't that be difficult linguistically? Each of those has a different language.
@@Sociotard Language is no longer a problem for almost all European nations. Why ? Because almost all europeans can speak english at this point. Or at least enough do the one can coordinate. For example in German schools it is now customary to begin at bareminimum 5th grade teaching students 2 foreign languages which are almost always french and English and by the time a normal German student is then done at school they can speak English and French at a passable level and knowing how schooling is in most of europe this is pretty much the norm.
Adding Sweden and Finland would also make the NATO ice hockey team really good, too!!
You mean Canada doesn’t do it for you?
I always new Canada had plans for world domination
@@citrusandseasalt Finland just beat Canada's ass in the World championship, so no. :)
The Swedish air force has 60 Gripen E on order which will augment the Gripen C/D in service rising the air force fighter strength to about 155 aircraft.
The expected result of this is the reactivation of the F16 wing in Uppsala with 2 squadrons and the use of the Gripen D as the advanced trainer for new pilots replacing the SK60.
This training squadron will have war missions in case of mobilization but will concentrate on training.
The air forcer is also fully integrating with the Patriot Air Defence system making it more flexible and lethal to an enemy as a Gripen can provide coordinates for a Patriot battery or vice versa via the common air defence picture.
Gripen-E/F is a highly respectable 4.5-gen fighter in and of itself, isn't it?
@@0xKruzr Yes. It's had a complete overhaul with everything being improved from the engine and internal fuel to radar and countermeasures.
Designed specifically to beat the Su35 and S400.
Another aspect to consider is the geography of FInland - there are no fields like in Ukraine - most of it is forest, lakes and swamps. Considering the Russian side of border and their railroads - there are essentially only two routes they can take with mechanised units - south along the coast to Helsinki and another roughly in the middle of Finland (excluding Lapland for a moment). Lets say ... Im not the first guy who has thought about this...
The cost of taking Finland for Russia would be quite substantial - 1v1 it's possible, but Russia would have to mobilise to keep the country after an invasion and quite possibly for a successful invasion to begin with.
If Russia ever managed to take Finland, the cost would be so high as to remove the problem of a Russia in the first place--and so the Finns would have Finland back. Stupid Russia lol
If they would by some miracle take Finland. Snow would still speak Finnish.
Not just the geography of Finland but northern Sweden and most of Norway... When Germany invaded Norway during WW2 they took advantage of the ports and the shorter distance and surprise... There is no way russia can have surprise in the modern battlefield and obviously nato fleet can take them out at sea... all of these countries are made for the defender... the men and women who know the land...
The moment I heard Sweden and Finland actually said and confirmed that they’re going to try joining NATO, I was absolutely shocked. This is absolutely something that I never thought we’d see given I’m well aware of their history.
What the hell is the point of having treaties with a neighbouring country that can break them anytime they want, bomb the sh*t out of you and then tell you you're bombing yourself? We're not waiting for our turn.
Here in Finland joining NATO had like 25-35% approval last year, after the war started, National Radio Company made a poll that had over 70% wanting to join NATO, now it's on 80%. I'm one of those who changed his mind. Disgust and shock of what is happening in Ukraine is so horrid. I couldn't have believed that this NATO process would be so smoothgoing in Sweden, too, when we started to talk about it here.
@@ilari90 In other words, you are just another person making important decisions based on emotions and shock content, 100% biased and cherrypicked for you by Western (really, US-controlled) media machine which is losing credibility (even in the eyes of people who used to believe it) with each passing day.
All Finns and Swedes are doing with this hysteria is embarassing themselves, really. You don't understand this conflict, and the simplistic story of "unpredictable Putin waking up one day and deciding to start a war" could not be further from reality.
No one has to worry, btw, you probably are not joining NATO anytime soon. The decision has to be unanimous, and Turkey is very unlikely to budge.
For reference, I was born in Kharkov, Ukraine, and I support what is being done by Russians.
Tbh, I’ve figured it would happen eventually back to around 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia and Putin made his true nature and geopolitical agenda clear. It was only a matter of time before Russia did something to get them worried, although I was also betting 50/50 it’d involve war and these countries being very close to Nato already. Putin doesn’t want normal relations with the world, he wants an empire, something incompatible with the modern world, so he seeks to destroy that world.
I was in the same boat - but I also assumed Russia would not invade Ukraine based on the pattern of their military investments for the last decade.
Perun, I love you.
My dad was talking about Sweden's standing army size (it really is tiny) being worried that they didn't have the manpower to meaningfully defend themselves (and to be clear, we're American, and this was already in the context of potentially sending NATO troops to Sweden to protect it, not in the context of "what can Sweden offer" lol), and he was quite surprised when I showed him just how much military hardware Sweden puts out _in peacetime._
It's difficult to even articulate just how much of a win this _already_ is for NATO. A military industrial powerhouse, protected by a highly galvanized self-defending populace between itself and NATO's primary adversary, with ready and immensely well-defended access to the Baltic Sea for both industrial product and industrial raw material logistics, just effectively added itself to NATO in everything but name, whether Erdogan accepts it or not.
I've wondered how much of Erdogan's bargaining attempts here is him realizing how much less important this makes the Bosporus, without realizing that NATO access to Ukraine and the absolutely astonishing level of camaraderie that, looking from the outside, seems to have been forged between Ukraine and Poland in this conflict (can't wait to see your Poland video BTW) have both already seriously reduced the importance of the Bosporus to defending against Russia. Perhaps he realizes that this is definitively the last time he can really leverage Bosporus access this way, even if arguably very little has changed from the logistical reality that makes Turkey far less strategically vital than it was when Ukraine was in the USSR. I think a video on Turkey's history with - and the history of Turkey's logistical importance to, which has often been underestimated - NATO would be an interesting topic (if you're up for it, of course).
This is mad-man-level sharp perception of geopolitics moving for Turkey. ^^
Well done & thank you ❤️
The problem with that is that Turkey is an especially great ally against middle eastern threats.
On top of that, many are predicting, that if it gets past it's economic troubles, Turkey will be a regional powerhouse, ensuring more peace for all NATO members from more threats from more theaters of war.
It's a Win-Win in the mid and long term geopolitical game.
Right now it seems bad, but it's appeal WILL get FAR stronger with time.
Not only that, it has the possibility of helping defuse, along with Romania's centuries of peaceful coexistence with Muslims, yes that is real, Islamic extremism that might be targeting members of NATO.
None of us are enthused of playing desert storm whack a mole for another fucking twenty years.
@@Dodsodalo Not really. Turkey more recently has been more of a liability in the Middle East (see: Syria), and Turkey's relationship with minority populations (see: Kurds, Armenians) as far as "defusing" regional tensions goes is historically atrocious. Turkey is neither a peaceful influence on the Middle East nor a particularly vital ally in the Middle East, and US foreign policy is fully pivoting away from the Middle East right now anyway so NATO's pan-oceanic naval military industrial juggernaut is much less inclined to want involvement in the region.
I would think that control of the Bosporus gets more advantageous since between that and stronger control of the Baltics, NATO could effectively keep Russia from getting their navy anywhere near a conflict. Even if it isn't better for NATO, Russia would certainly be willing to pay top dollar for safe passage to whoever would sell it. Or am I misunderstanding the importance of Turkey in this situation?
Swedish military industrial capability can't really be shirked. They even make Excalibur rounds in Sweden and in the case of an invasion of Finland, they could supply us for extremely long periods. Combined with our massive field artillery of actually over 1300 pieces, any invader would have an absolutely terrible time.
Overall a well made video, if i could add something i would mention how Finland has an amazing artillery and not just in terms of amounts of equipment, but how they are used.
Another thing that is often forgotten is the Finnish terrain, but i dont know how relevant it is in this context as it would require Finland to be invaded by ground forces for it to matter.
I pointed out in another post that Finland's high ground enables Finnish ground based early warning radar to look deeply into Russian territory, maybe all the way to the Urals. While Finland was neutral, in theory, the radar was operated only by the Finns but now... there is an opportunity for NATO to closely integrate with the best technology that can probably monitor even the slightest little thing happening in Russia all the way to the Urals.
Thank you! Actually, I cannot find the words to express my gratitude at the actual level I experience it, when it comes to these videos where you're clearly being an honest broker of such disparate information sources.
Your summaries with source references and clear eyed analysis of the strategic situations facing each of these players has been so informative that you've undoubtedly became a highly regarded and a critical resource to all nations, regardless of this conflict's impact on them.
This ill-conceived and arrogant plan to make friends by putting a jack-boot on your "friendly" target's neck and when coupled with its poor execution, makes this channel "Must Watch Tv" even in the tiniest of corners of governments around the globe.
Only thing I'd nitpick in the video, was about the Winter War. It's true Stalin and Soviet Union _officially_ claimed to want only to move the border "a bit" to secure Leningrad. They even offered some useless forest lands in exchange for it.
But the war wasn't about that at all. It was about conquering the whole Finland and subjugation and destruction of the people as an entity. How do we know?
Soviet troops had maps of the road network of entire Finland. They had instructions of what to do when running into Swedish border guards, after they had crossed the entire width of Finland. They had parade uniforms and a music band with them. Most likely not to keep the spirits up while getting shot, but to hold a victory parade in Helsinki. We know what happened to the Baltic states when they gave a little finger to the Soviet Union, they didn't lose just the hand, they lost everything. For decades. And during those decades tens of thousands of lives were lost in each country because of deportations and russification drives in the Baltics.
I think Otto von Bismarck had it spot on. "Never trust Russians because Russians don't even trust themselves".
I'm pretty sure the land they offered wasn't useless, it was valuable farmland, but the problem was that the land they wanted in exchange had all of Finland's fortifications and the trade would have largely made Finland undefendable.
@@brlbrlbrlbrl I agree on your point about the fortifications, and I should have elaborated on that point when talking about giving a little finger and losing everything. The border defenses (and military bases) in Finland correlate pretty well with what was done to the Baltic states.
I wholeheartedly disagree about "valuable farmland". The areas in Karelian Isthmus the Soviets wanted not only contained the fortifications, but were comparatively well settled and farmed, when compared to the areas that were offered in return.
Those areas had little to no population centers, a couple of dirt roads and the rest was just wilderness. Sure, you can turn wilderness into farmland if you work on it, but Finland had more than enough forested wilderness already.
So to Finland, that land was useless.
@@gebus5633 Ok, I had the wrong impression about the offered land then. It might well be that I got it mixed with another case with another country.
@@brlbrlbrlbrl There is no farm land in the eastern border. it is nothing but thick forests and lakes.
and swamp.
Something that could've been mentioned as illustrative of the total defence concept here in Finland is the way our road network is set up specifically to make east-west movement difficult and slow, with bridges prebuilt with hooks for hanging demolition charges onto.
I doubt we're going to relax particularly soon... in the Finnish psyche, a Russian invasion is an emergency akin to a housefire or a car accident. No, you don't particularly expect it to ever happen to you. But you know that these things do happen and it's entirely natural to have a fire extinguisher on hand and put your seatbelt on. And when you're used to that, the idea of going driving down the highway without a seatbelt feels a bit... unnatural.
thank you for sharing, I didn't know that about Finland's road network but seen as part of the whole it really adds a lot when seen from an American perspective.
Based Finland 🏆
@@honestlyreed1612 Yeah, it's an interesting balance between a road network fitting our everyday civilian needs and priorities on the one hand and....
if you've ever read the Lord of the Rings (this scene was cut in the movie), this place called the Old Forest had strange winding paths in it that always seemed to tempt you away from where you wanted to go, to lead you astray deeper into the heart of the woods, regardless of where you tried to go. But by but lure you into compromising the exact direction you're going for ease of getting "forward" through the terrain - and ultimately the trees would trap you.
A bit like that 😉 You see a lot of roads going north-west or south-west, but no major ones going straight west and lots and lots of V shapes to get funneled in.
Interesting insight with that emergency analogy.
As a Pole, I can totally relate. We too had to live with Russian bear just on the other side of the border for decades. Even when he was pushed back after USSR collapsed, recent events had clearly shown that bear is still there, and uncomfortably close.
With the death of the Soviet union basically removing NATOs main enemy and Russia invading Ukraine the argument of NATO now being a European wide armed neutrality alliance that can count of American and Canadian help (yes my cold maple leaf friends I haven't forgotten you) sounds increasingly valid. The wording of NATO only requires military action if NATO is not the aggressor and you protected from a war that starts on the American or Canadian west Coast (we do politely ask that you do help but understand if you must decline).
Thank you Perun for another fun and informative video, love your work!
The most ironic outcome of the conflict! Russia's attempt to create a barrier between them and NATO just brought NATO to their doorstep!
Yeah, he really doubled his NATO Borders with that.
But Biden said it wasn't about NATO, Putin wasn't interested in diplomatic negotiation, they concluded that he was set on attacking.
I do sometimes feel like the best way to undermine NATO as Russia would just be to leave it alone for twenty years.
Hmmm.
Finland is within 100 miles of St petersburg center.
That is a HUGE weakspot with how major St Petersburg is.
@@PerunAU This is what made invading Ukraine so unimaginably stupid. Had he left them alone, NATO would have folded on its own due to lack of interest. Most NATO nations are, or were, treating their obligations lightly with many "cheating" on even the 2% of GDP. In one step, Putin has ruined Russia's reputation and strengthened NATO more than anyone could have imagined.
"A scenario where everyone dies is considered sub-optimal"
Let's hope the people involved in the decision process in Moscow also share this view.
"I hope the Russians love their children too!" 🎶
It seems crazy, but part of nazism was a death cult, and Hitler did see the destruction of Germany as a good thing. putin isn't there yet, nor has he made a totalitarian state, but it's something to keep an eye on for sure...
At least one person on the Russian propaganda argued that since they are good Christians fighting for a noble cause, they have nothing to fear. Implying that they would go to heaven while the godless heathens from the West would burn in hell. In that worldview, even if everybody dies, they win. Not sure how common this idea is among decision takers but it does call into question how rational the Russians really are at this point.
@@userofthetube2701 : the thing is, the same morbid desire for the end of the world can also be found among fundamentalist christians in the US. As long as these weirdos on both sides are not in charge, there's still hope, but in my opinion that's a very good reason to maintain a reasonable distance between religious ideas and political power.
@@userofthetube2701 Russia is not a particularly Christian nation after decades of atheist rule under the Soviet Union. Sure, Putin uses religion to help his political career, but I doubt he or any of his former KGB friends actually believe in God. In fact, I think it is very likely the KGB specifically avoided having overtly religious officers, as the official state ideology called for atheism and the KGB was the secret police that existed specifically to carry out the will of the Soviet state. Putin and most of his inner circle are atheists that pretend to be religious to convince religious conservatives they are on their side
I love your videos mate!! I have learned so much about the military state of the countries involved in the current conflict; and the geopolitics of Europe. Thanks a lot, and congratulations 👏👏👏
THANK YOU! You are incredibly good at capturing the wide perspective and lining out the probable scenarios. Kudos for your research. Cheers from Sweden 🇸🇪
A few years ago the Gotland scenario with a sneak attack was quite plausible. The only defense on the Island was a few hundred national guard with hand weapons. Now not so much as Sweden have regular troops there with anti ship, anti air missile and tanks. And it is hard to get to Gotland with Swedish submarines and airplanes defending.
Not to mention if there's a naval invasion and Sweden is allied with Finland, the Baltic Fleet needs plenty of luck getting even past the Gulf of Finland.
@@Perkelenaattori I wonder if USA will sell Finland some anti-shipping missiles to conveniently line the Finnish southern coast with. That would pretty much close the strait completely.
@@Niskirin We already have the Israeli Spike-ER and Saab RBS15's. Both are good stuff.
@@Perkelenaattori You've got Israeli spikes? Just had a terrible flashback to Wargame: Red Dragon and those godforsaken Maglans. Still haunt me.
@@ThatOneGeneral_ We've got Spike ER's for the navy and we also have MR's and LR's for anti-tank weapons. We chose those over Javelin's and there's always been a very long history between Israeli weapons industry and Finnish weapons industry. The first Galil was basically a copy of our RK assault rifle and the richest man in Finland, Poju Zabludowicz basically made his money on his contacts with both countries weapons industries.
Adolf Arwidsson who is one of the first Finnish patriots stated "Swedes we are not. We don't want to become Russian. Let us therefore be Finns." And on the topic of winning the Winter War, we prefer to think we didn't win but got a silver medal.
Sorta like my dad's belt buckle that says "SE Asia War Games - 2nd Place." 😃
Adolf Arwidsson really sounds like a Finnish name.
@@MrGunnar69 Finland was part of sweden for hundreds of years
That is a sensible interpretation of events. From an outside perspective though it looks like Finland achieved its war objectives. Does that count for gold?
People called Adolf are pretty good at talking about nationalism it seems. (JK)
"Everyone dieing is considered a suboptimal strategic outcome"
That's the most professional way I think I've ever seen someone say "That's a fucking stupid argument"
As a side note, I love your humor! ;-D To the matter, even as a Swede, you provide tidbits of strategic insights to the Swedish/Finnish relevance that are new to me. I'm not into military things at all, but given Sweden and Finlands position, we all think about it. There is a joke about exercise field tactical briefings, the officer telling us -"The enemy is positioned east of..." some landmark. Everyone chuckles, and thinks, when were the enemy NOT positioned to the east? And generally, just talking about "the enemy" thruout conscription service, feels a bit silly, since everybody knows it's Russia we are talking of. But everyone plays along with the "neutrality" charade in words. It kind of goes with doing your service, and supporting official policy of stating neutrality. Personally, I always felt really silly, since nobody except some Swedish people, belived Sweden was neutral. Certainly Russia never believed in it. Sweden even flew dare devil spy missions into Russia / Kaliningrad, and then shared the intelligence gathered with the USA. Sweden also had war time plans for attacking Kaliningrad during the cold war, stopping Russian invasion resources even before leaving Russian territory. (A very surprising number of Swedes know Russian language...because they were trained in the military language school, where you study Russian really hard, all day, for a year and a half.. ;-D It's kind of a "Russian language brainwash". It's only for the brightest and really motivated conscripts. It's great fun, if you like language learning. As a "bonus" you are offered to skip summer leave, for learning another language of choice, just for fun. Most do, since you will never ever, ever, again recieve such qualified study support in your life. Only kind of strange thing, is you wear a uniform all day, and sleeping and eating military style. ;-D )
As a Lithuanian, I'm very happy and very thankful about all this situation. If Ukraine somehow wins and becomes stronger militarily and Belarus gets its revolution and becomes democratic and an ally. We won't need Americans to be really safe (if Brits extend their graceful nuke deterrence to our region). But already now situation is so much better. But appetite grows eating and at some point I would love to know how it feels to live like German or Danish. Always safe, no worries about Russian invasion, no nightmares about gulags and shit.
Aye, as an American. Although a number of our politicians would be annoyed by the decrease of influence the US will have in Europe. I believe a majority of both politicians and citizenry would prefer to focus on the threat in the pacific. And if that problem is ever truly dealt with?
A bit wishful thinking but not entirely impossible given it’s history. We just sit back. Take off the armor, drop the weapon from our hand. And let the only empire building we do after, is through markets and entertainment. Where both morally good and corrupt politicians will be happy with the cash being raked in.
Dane here, Russia keeps saber-rattling at us about the island of Bornholm. The Soviets occupied it on May 9th of 1945 and were initially planning to keep it. Fortunately the Soviets were convinced to leave on April 5th of 1946 at the cost of Denmark signing an agreement to never allow foreign troops to be stationed there without Soviet consent, an agreement Denmark kept only until the collapse of the USSR. After the collapse of the USSR, Soviet war plans to nuke Denmark rather than occupy it to clear a path out of the Baltic and into the North Sea without having to deal with our Homeguard (Territorial Defense Forces, grown out of the resistance movements against the German occupation during WWII) or anti-air and anti-ship missiles led to some confusion about our defense spending. The decision was made to pivot toward expeditionary forces and to aggressively participate in US foreign ventures to keep Uncle Sam on our side until we figure out whether we need more powerful deterrence capabilities ourselves, or to nationally give up the ghost and subsume into the EU and cease to exist as a sovereign independent nation.
well ive been trough the first cold war and yes it was hairy at times i alway felt safe here in sweden we had the third largest airforce at the time with draken and the aj37 viggen so i never really worried to much about it
@@54lolman The problem is, the world has many childish and immature countries with large populations, that are bitter and twisted that they are considered third world jokes.
If the USA wasn't active in the International Community, and by that I mean "prepared to project force across the world in its commercial and cultural interest" Indonesia, India, Iran, Pakistan, russia, Brazil, China et al would try to Empire build. And all of them have this silly meme going that somehow the USA has been a tyrant . . . when pretty much the opposite is true.
I vote you remain the big dog even if it looks like the world has grown up.
@Sophie David oh u mean that clown trump
As someone who works in defence science, the analysis and insight you provide is top tier. I’ll be sharing your videos with my team.
What do you do/work on for your job? Sorry if it's a bad question
from a political science perspective the videos are quite bad and biased
@@anarchyorslavery1616 yet..here you are
@@anarchyorslavery1616 Say that again without crying.
Make sure you chuck him a few bucks if you do ay. Only fair.
"Uncle Sam is coming off the bench with a chair. And its a really big chair." 🤣 - That line made me join your patreon. Thank you!
All other Australians: watching the election
Perun: yeah this is the time to drop a new vid
Mate, I've been watching the great Antony Green all night, but figured I'd let this one release in recognition of the international audience.
Ah a fellow ABC man
@@PerunAU thoughts on Anthony Albanese winning ?
Now I want a slide show breaking down the Australian Political parties, but keep it simple I'm an American who went to publicly funded schooling.
@@J_K944 Public schooling in America is very bad in Red States, Trump loves the poorly educated. That's what the US is dealing with. It has to be the opioid addiction (imo) that has ruined common sense in the US. I went to both public and private schools in New England. Once No child left behind was passed in my state. The schools expanded the curriculum and local major manufacturers donated their old equipment to the high schools. Shop, TV & Radio, classes. The sports included skiing Tennis, football, Soccer. Plus rocketry club. We spent our afterschool work money (or parents $) at the local shops buying equipment to support our activities. Some of us worked at those local shops too, if not someone's parents. The benefits of early STEM education made for a valuable potential workforce.
So when the local Nuclear Power Plants went to hire. It was pretty easy to qualify if you could read and do math. I did for 12 years before moving into computers. The US isn't all bad, just some bad parents if you ask me.
As a swede all of this happening is still crazy to me. On an election year as well? Utterly unfathomable. The strong resistance to joining NATO, feeling that we had enough safety between our close cooperation with Finland and EU membership, it is still surprising that Russia was able to push us to this.
I'm not opposed to joining NATO, given the circumstances, but I think we could've waited until after the election.
Surely we're not at significant risk of being attacked right now, at least not until Russia has recovered from its war i Ukraine? (assuming it will)
@@davidnayr301 I think it was about sending a message. A big F U to Russia. Maybe trying to get Putin to see how he's shooting himself in the foot.
@@davidnayr301 Russia has its hands full now. But joining NATO is not an instantaneous decision. It’s a process that can take a long time. If Sweden and Finland want to join NATO they should start that process now rather than wait for the Russians to maybe win the war against Ukraine.
@@johanmetreus1268 Did you watch the party-leaders' debate recently? It seems almost everyone is in favour of NATO all of a sudden, and they want to do it quickly.
Doesn't sound very partisan to me.
propoganda is a powerfull tool
Brilliant exposition of the various scenarios and backgrounds. Just love these. Most all of them are worth a second listen.
Congrats on your increased stamina; this video was as comprehensive as the topic required. Excellent job as always. Kudos, sir!
There's already talk about the future disposition of forces in the Nordic countries. The Norwegian defence concept (which is a similar kind of atrophied "total defence" with conscription and mobilisation, though lower numbers than Finland) has since WW2 been based on a defensive position in inner Troms where the land strip between the ocean and the Swedish or Finnish border is both narrow and practically impassable. But with Sweden and Finland in NATO that makes no sense, as to get there Russia would have to either pass through Finland or stretch out north of Finland in a very juicy target. We're likely to see forces being moved around but also likely Norway leaving more of the army game to Finland (who cover almost the entire border with Russia anyway) and freeing up a lot more resources for naval and air force presence in the Arctic. The Nordic countries really do complement each other very well when we don't all have to do everything individually.
As a Tromsøværing (inhabitant of Tromso) its joked that Finnmark(the land on russias border) is just a buffer so we have time to get organised.😅
@@MrJacobElias As a søring I can only counter that anything north of Trondheim is really just a buffer ;)
Oof, there's that fatalistic tone from the transporter movie 🙄
I was actually curious about how this would change Scandinavian military disposition. Thanks for shedding some light
Considering the lack of roads in both Troms and Lappland: basically 3, the E45, the E4 and the E6, it seems unlikely the Norwegian army would further reduce it's Army strength. We're basically down to one brigade, but with divisional sized support elements. We hold our road, the Swedes hold their two, and the Russians face the pain of 2000 km of terrible logistics (good luck Finland). I would also say that the Swedish mobilization numbers are very pessimistic. They used to have full on conscription until very recently, and they couldn't possibly have forgotten that much.
To be honest, Finland's objective was not to "win" back then. Their primary victory condition was simply to exist and survive. They had little ammunition for heavy weaponry, and had no hope of mass material aid from the British and France. This is because the two of them were at war with Germany, so could not access Baltic ports, and the only northern port Finland had provided limited capacity.
From what we know, about 25-30% of the population will suffer genocide upon being part of the ussr like Ukraine, the Baltic states and Kazakhstan.
2 be Honest, Winter War 1939-40 was Hitler's wish in agreement with Stalin. He forbid military supplies from reaching Finland too.
In March 1940, Finland was practically lost, but Stalin did not push his victory, in a war he had stupidly begun towards winter, which no commander had ever done before.
"25%-30% Genocide" is stupid propaganda.
Funnily enough during the Winter War UK and France both had plans and even made some decisions for helping Finland. France made a decision to send a considerable expeditionary force (from memory it was meant to be 60k troops and the resources to back them) but UK vetoed this plan and changed it to help Finland by occupying northern Sweden. How does that help Finland? Well it wouldn't but it would have stopped Germany from accessing the iron from the mines in the area. This was between the "phony war" phase when UK & France were mostly twiddling their thumbs and playing the good old colonial empire games. I love bringing this up when ever I meet brits who have high opinion about themselves as some sort of good guy in world history.
@@sentteri literally about half of the world has Independence Days because of France and Britain, so they hardly are or have ever been the good guys in world history
@@sentteri I think it's a mistake for people to associate their identities with their nationalities. The truth is there were millions of people in both Britain and France doing millions of different things. There were bad decisions and good decisions made across both empires. Neither Britain nor France have the monopoly on evil or the monopoly on good and even if they did that shouldn't be what determines how individual French and British people feel about themselves now. They weren't there back then. Nobody alive today was.
Finland did want to survive but didn't they initially advance into territory rhat wasn't originally theirs? Not that I believe any nation has territory that is, "originally theirs" when you look back far enough.
Brilliant. These videos are high quality and educational. Keep up the GREAT work.
These videos are fascinating, seriously. Thank you for putting things like this out.
You know it's an Australian presentation on the implications of Nato membership and what that means for the world when it includes a "yeah nah". Love the content keep it up.
You know it's an Australian when he refers to poms.
Containing NATO expansion cannot be done while also clearly validating NATO's existence through the aggression in Ukraine. It was naive to expect that it would have any other effect, but it would not be the first time Russian leadership fail to properly account for otherwise obvious factors.
Knowing how much military non-alignment has meant for us (Sweden) as a country, I was positively convinced that if Russia came to us with legitimate diplomatic solutions rather than threat upon threat, then the Swedish government would've been happy to listen. But it has been evident for a long time, and remarkably clear now, that Russia will never negotiate their diplomatic positions in genuine good faith and that we stand stronger with the global partners with whom we already share so much. They played this the way they wanted and it backfired.
Yup.
I would put a caveat on the "it was naive..." That would be true if the leadership of NATO countries was not highly suspect prior to Putin's expansion of the war against Ukraine. I'm am certainly surprised that almost all of the NATO countries have realized that if we continue to ignore Putin's aggression, he will continue to do it. And that they were willing to make tough, economically painful decisions that they would have avoided in the past.
Exactly, Europe has been trying to rely less on America and NATO, so would have been open to closer relations with Russia a few years ago.
NATO expansion is the reason behind what is happening in Ukraine. Russia was not doing anything significant in 2003, yet Ukraine wanted to join NATO. despite no major Russian military activity, NATO expanded into eastern europe. Russia asked to join NATO yet was not allowed. it can be said that Russia is NATO's target
JFC. Why is NATO expansion a threat to anyone?
The infantile mind games when even cold war documents prove EVERYONE was planning defensive actions and reactions to the other side starting hostilities.
No one give a damn about Russian borders. Except for Russia who demonstrate they very much want to expand them.
Awesomely informative video. Thanks so much.
Love the videos. I couldn't even tell that you were still recovering. Terrific work.
I rarely ever comment on RUclips videos, but, as a Swede, I’m extremely impressed with the amount of research gone into this. As a civilian I obviously can’t comment on any of the figures mentioned in regards to the military. But as someone highly engaged in the political conversation, the fact that you managed to pick up the deal between the Social Democratic Party (S) and Amineh Kakabaveh (ex V) is highly impressive, as this was something I myself learned about just a few days ago, even though I’d like to think I’m very up to date in regards to the politics.
Anyways, I never imagined myself watching narrated PowerPoint-videos on RUclips. Especially on military topics. But holy hell, you’re doing an amazing job. Keep up the great work and I can’t wait until the next one!
Jag äf också helt knockad av hur sjukt bra research han har gjort. Otroligt imponerande rakt igenom.
@@Herminator72 Jo han är bra, men rent informationsmässigt sagt så får han en del hjälp också. Det som imponerar mig är att han inte fastnar på åsikterna som oundvikligen kommer invävna med informationen, som i dethär fallet har han säkert hört Finnar som snackar skit om Sverige men lyckades undvika det helt. Jag är Finsk, men född i Sverige, och mängden dumheter som gemene man i Finland ibland tar upp ang. Sverige är löjligt ibland, oftast från folk som ofta inte enns har besökt Sverige mer än typ en dagstripp med färjan osv. Jag har följt BPS i många år, han har mognat med tiden som ett gott vin :-)
Finland didn't come as a surprise to the Russians. Our Moscow ambassador was interviewed last week, and he stated that had he had told the Russians late last year and early this year again that Finland is likely to seek NATO membership if Ukraine is attacked. Sweden probably was a surprise to everyone. What it all speaks to is that the Ukraine war has very little to do with NATO, it's about Russia wanting to control Ukraine.
If Sweden was a surprise then Russia's intel on Sweden is poor. I agree, Russia attacking Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. It's merely an excuse.
It's the oil and gas they want, along with land access to Crimea, total political control over Ukraine would be a bonus
@@nian60 It still mystifies me that Putin thought he could get away with it and that the West wouldn't respond.
@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 basing my assumption on the 3 day papers and russian national guard being near Kiev I must assume that Putin wanted to enforce a fait acompli. Roll into Ukraine, conquer it in 3 days, show how strong he is, move on.
Obviously that didn't happen
@@tanker00v25 Trying to go through with it anyway seems to be a disaster though.
Well done! This was a really informative and useful overview of Finland and Sweden’s decision to join NATO. I’ve been a student of geopolitics and military history for a long time (even edited books on the subject) but I still learned several things here that I did not know - Bravo!
An admirable, cogent and clearly reasoned video that avoids going into extremes of both optimism and pessimism. Much closer to an academic lecture than some news channel's condensed and superficial piece of coverage. As both a Canadian and a Finn I applaud and highly recommend the watching of this video and paying attention while you are doing it.
The ties between Sweden and Finland are strong. An important reason Sweden previously abstained from NATO membership was that Finalnd would be left out alone, seeing as their hands were at least perceived to be tied by the soviets.
Sweden abandoned the huge army of the cold war days, opting instead for a small expedtitionary force. But we did keep a decent navy. Some of you might remember the swedish navy vainly hunting for subs in our littoral waters back in the 80's. It was easier to argue for boats than a return to a million man army (yes, the army numbered over a million).
The official reasoning for keeping all the military industry and technology while dismantling all other running costs was that Europe seemed so safe and that any shift would be picked up on well in time to allow a new build-up. The industry had to be kept alive all along, so that's why you see all this goddamn top-notch materiel that nobody uses.
Ahem, the materiel might be shared. Like, say, with a neighbor just East, who just happens to be dug in up to his ears, facing a big, ugly, angry bear with a bunch of nukes and raging inferiority complex. The which, I'd expect, was kind of part of the plan all along.
Also, if you've got lots of gear in storage, you can quickly train up men to fall in on it. Which will probably happen now. Because after they are defeated in the Ukraine, the Russians are going to go all North Korea on everybody's butt, and spend the next two decades rebuilding Brezhnev's Red Army to total economic collapse. Russia is like that. They're always shooting themselves in the foot. Raging national inferiority complexes are not good for rational decisionmaking.
I don't know what you're trying to say except that Russia is crazy and Sweden should give stuff to Finland. I can assure you Finland and Sweden have developed deeply integrated cooperative defenses and that giving away industry products isn't conducive to a goal of keeping said industry alive.
Nice to hear from Sweden to get an understanding what is going on in the Viking mind These days.
yeah now we can see that has a mistake
before the attack on ukraine swedish army had this kind of meme status being "weak" a bit similar to bundeswehr
maybe they were weak at the time but now bundeswehr should become one of the top militaries and hopefully sweden fould follow a similar path
As a kid I always thought the SAAB Viggen had absolutely phenomenal lines, and a lot of people forget that the Swedes make a nasty anti-shipping missile the RBS15.
While not being a stealth aircraft, the Grippen may have the most sophisticated jamming and spoofing electronic suite in the world, like the old Wild Weasels but on steroids. Even better, they are optimized against Russian electronic systems.
Please imagine joint F35 and Viggen operations. The Viggen is putting out so much electronic crap the Russians cannot track or lock onto them. Yes the Russians know something is out there. But which something, and where, they cannot tell. except for this big blob of electronic fuzz.
F35s are going to be next to invisible in that environment. Not only that, but both aircraft have already engaged in joint operations. Oh, and did anybody mention that they have a common set of data link standards. Which by the way the Swedes have stressed for integration with SAM systems.
A huge plus for NATO. Instead for the defensive side versus a political side, let the Turks supply their drone to NATO. It's affordable and you can afford for some to be shot down.
As long as we can do that without screwing the Kurds over worse (Iraq anyone?).
Its always confused me how accession of non-aligned countries into any alliance would be claimed to increase the likelihood of conflict. Both world wars began with invasions across weak borders with expectations of complete success of limited objectives. As you said a strong NATO border completely removes any ambiguity. Concrete irrefutable interpretations of possible consequences are the single best deterrence IMO.
Yes.
A strong deterrence is always a good thing.
Forces people to talk rather than act.
You could argue that in case of WW1 large alliances caused a regional conflict in the balkans to become a major war.
@@Menwulf20 Yes but those same large alliances also allowed for the century of relative peace that came before
@@Menwulf20 The differrence is the stakes. Pre WWI the stakes of an all out war was the loss of some peasants, the loss of some colonies , some national prestige and some of your national wealth. Does that suck ? Yes. But you could win the first world war and you could win it big making up for any losses and paving the way for glory afterwards. Now a war between the East and the West is unwinnable. Losing such a war does not neccessarily mean the loss of some land but could mean you see your entire country turned into a radioactive wasteland upon which nothing stands. Thats the differrence and why the alliances of today work where the ones of Pre WWI failed. Because today a war could mean the end of the world and that is simply not something you can gamble with.
For one its quite visible that its increased the mindset of people from engaging into rational dialogue ( instead into warlike belligerence) . Also because it also increases the likelihood of Russia expanding its alliances and the world becoming bipolar instead of multipolar. Truly military alliances should be thing of the past rather than expanding.
For the record: Finland joined NATO on 04/04/2023.
Thank you so much for your interesting and very informative videos. They are very balanced and well researched. I send you best wishes for your continued recovery!
"Sweden went from Vikings to the people who run Ikea".....still don't know how you managed that without laughing.
Turning their axes from splitting skulls to splliting trees to make great furniture
We just switched methods of world conquest.
Apparently some of those Vikings ruled the Ukraine for quite some time.
Slipped in thd flat-pack Nikes jokes with a straight face too.
@@TrasteIAm They ruled the Kievan Rus. So basically more like Russia.
this is a massively underappreciated channel. A gem out of the shithole that is the russo-ukranian war
I'd say the algorithm, despite it's typical biases, is inherently giving him a pretty big boost. When I subbed he had 23k subs and that was only like a month or so ago lol. Now he has a 100k play button and is well on his way to many hundreds of thousands of subs. No doubt the fact that his videos are so good and detailed, is helping by dramatically boosting average watch times
@@TheOriginalFaxon Algo is thinking that if so many people actually sit and watch though an hour long powerpoint presentation and dont change video in 5 mins, probably, algo thinks, its a damn good video?)
@@mishander Yup! It defies youtube's usual watch conventions as well which makes it boost more, we think. we don't really know since the algo changes minute to minute, there's a great veritasium video on it if you want to learn more
I'm fairly new to RUclips but this was a high recommendation for me. Really thankful because stumbling across such excellent intellectually vigorous content seems unlikely given how much pap is available
probably a significant factor is his first video (which is how i found this channel) where it was highly topical and on a very trending topic, which brought it in the initial views ans exposure. And the quality and thoroughness of following content contributed to high engagement and watch time.
Great video! Adding this to my required viewing list! 👍🏽
Imagine Russia falling apart to smaller countries and most of them getting closer to Europe. I'm almost sure this will happen eventually, especially based on their differences inside the country.
Keep on dreaming. USA is going to fall apart. Have you seen their dept and poverty? ❤️❤️🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳❤️❤️🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
Try not to run out of choal pollack, going to be a cold winter for you. Z
@@edwardvijga Your assumption is wrong, I'm not from Polland. And if I would be, I would def. not be affraid of Russia. Even one of the poorest countries in the europe si a good match for them. I cannot imagine them going against any other really. It already is total disaster for them :)
@@edwardvijga Imagine being a fan of/living in frozen hellhole.
it is more likely that Poland will be forced to accept millions of refugees from Africa and that they will be given machetes by Russia to make sure that they can protect their human rights from racists, all with the full approval of the United Nations
Thanks for your consistent and high quality content. Your videos are already cited in Discussions as a reliable source.
That's a huge compliment - while I try to crack jokes to keep things engaging I care a lot about accuracy. That being the case, if in any discussion information is presented that contradicts something I put forward please pass it on and encourage to do the same.
Strategically Sweden and Finland means for NATO that baltic sea is fully controlled by it. Russians baltic fleet is basically out of the war games. All NATO need to invest in Finland is air and coastal defense. And now NATO controls all of russian warm ports and their sea trade and supplies routes in the world. This alone should be huge blow to any not world ending war strategy.
Russia still has warm water ports in Syria,Sudan(soon),and the far east.
Not to mention russia has the largest fleet of ice breaker ships
The coastal defence is more than adequate, I would say it's the strongest part of the Finnish defence forces.
@@command_unit7792 In what scenario including an open war between Russia and NATO would Syria not be counted as participant on Russian side and thus being blockaded immediately?
@@jirivegner3711 Syrian ports wouldnt be hard to blockade(The Far east and Northen ports would be very hard to blockade)
Effectively your saying they just went from irrelevant to a target. Not sure thats a smart move..
Great video as usual. You were making this while recovering from Covid, I’m watching while laid up with Covid
“Sweden was once a great empire.”
I actually live next to the former colony of New Sweden or as we call it today: Delaware.
Most Swedes don't know we had colonies in the Americas, our history is more focused on our domination of the Baltic sea and our constant wars with the Danes
@@CarlXVIGustafBernadotte420 it wasn’t much of a colony to be fair. They claimed most of the Delaware Bay and the Delaware River I think to about Trenton. So this was most of Delaware, southern and western New Jersey, and southwestern Pennsylvania. It sounds impressive but I think they only had one notable settlement: Fort Christiana which is now Wilmington, Delaware.
I believe the Dutch invaded New Sweden and later it was sold to the British with New Amsterdam/ New York.
The British turned them into formal colonies with the areas east of the Delaware River named for Jersey Islands, the west side was settled by William Penn and it was named after him, Pennsylvania. And was named after the river which got its named from Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr which I guess we turned into Delaware at some point.
This is a poor man’s summary of American colonial history no one asked for.
I feel like the slide at 28:00 is a response to vloggers like Caspian Report, who see geopolitics as a function of geography.
I really like the extra dimensions you bring to the analysis of international relations.
As a fellow Aussie, I am more than happy to forego an hour of election analysis to watch a Perun video! Bravo my man!
I definately feel CaspianReport had strong bias in the video released on this topic. I especially found the discussion on how Finland would cut off railroad to Murmansk wierd. In the end it is 6 millon Finns vs 130 million Russians which would never make any sense. There is no desire to go to war, avoiding war was the most important reason of applying to NATO.
Peruns take was much more realistic and the numbers were on point which is nice to see.
Geography (particularly distance) is also far less of a factor than it used to be but it's still very much at the front of public consciousness in terms of how much it matters.
When Napoleon invaded Russia transporting his army the distance from France to Moscow was an insane logistical problem the likes of which the world hadn't seen before. Being a few miles closer was a big deal
Today? 100 miles to St Petersburg or 200 miles, same difference...it IS still a factor of course but not nearly as big of a factor to be a decider in whether Russia pursues an armed response lmao
@@fiachnaodonnell7895 you say that but it was exactly this issue that plagued Russia in attempting to take Kiev. Every additional mile beyond the nearest railroad depot was _two_ miles of travel required by Russian supply trucks, and as that distance increases you quickly drop the amount of supplies you can move to the front to mere fractions as you reduce the number of round trips that each truck can make in a day from four to two, to one, to being lucky if the truck can complete a one way trip past a hundred miles of ambush country. The US military is the only one that can come close to having the logistics capacity to support operations anywhere, and it's not even close. For everyone else the proximity of battle to their home countries is of immense consideration.
@@msytdc1577 I understand that and don't dispute it. I'm pointing out the discrepancy between the scale of the issue and how much attention it gets. As Perun himself pointed out in this very video, Nato being that much closer to St Petersburg is not a big deal...in fact almost not a factor, absolutely not a factor when it comes to Russia's response beyond use as a talking point for propaganda.
@@msytdc1577
You're very correct that it's a huge factor, given the dynamic between Russia and Ukraine.
But the point was that, regarding geopolitics between NATO and Russia, the issue of geography isn't that important.
If NATO invades Russia, or vice versa, then there will be absolute wholesale destruction of Europe, whether the war is nuclear or not.
Technically, just as in current war with Ukraine Moscow said that it wants part of the territory to protect something, but really planned to take everything. That is why Moscow even created it's own version of "Finnish government" - Kuusinen and company. And it's only when the war didn't go as well as they hoped, they took part of the Finland and declared that it was a success.
Yeah Stalin's plan for WW2 was to re-establish tzarist Russia's borders which included the complete annexation of the whole of Finland- and as is well documented, it didn't work out
great video/content. thank you
What fantastic content. Thank you Perun.
It should be noted that Swedish neutrality during the Cold War was really the cover for extensive cooperation with NATO and the US. The nuclear weapons program was cancelled due to US pressure and the US instead extended nuclear security guarantees to Sweden.
However because all of the cooperation was done in secret it is still poorly understood today due to the destruction of documents and the death of key individuals before they could be interviewed. It is also a sensitive issue in political terms so only a few academics and journalists have researched the topic and their reaults gave been kind of ignored in the public debate since no-one is keen on opening Pandoras box.
As a Canadian, I believe this.
The Americans are paranoid and AGGRESSIVELY "discourage" any other nation from developing nuclear deterrence, regardless of how friendly or non-hostile that country might be.
It's the reason Canada dismantled it's nuclear arsenal (despite what the official rhetoric says).
It's the reason Ukraine doesn't have a nuclear arsenal, and is in it's current situation.
We did keep the blueprints, however. ;)
US was like "hey we don't want even more nukes in the world, how about you stop building yours and walk on over here under this umbrella"
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Yup. In return, we got access to uranium for our nuclear powerplants as well as the secret deals Vonstab mentioned.
We even printed official request forms for US nuclear strikes for our leadership to fill out. "Umm, today I think we'll have two Minutemen W56 warheads for the staging area around Riga (sorry baltic friends), and whatever the chief recommends on Moscow"
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 yes, but didn't the US basically make the same promise to Ukraine?
One little fact so many people tend to overlook is that an invaded country per definition can never be neutral as it defaults to being belligerent.
Thus, as soon as one hostile soldier step over the border, the whole concept of "alliancefree in peace to be neutral in war" goes right out the window.... and that's the signal the pre-planned cooperation was waiting for.
1:35 I don't know about Sweden, but at least in the case of Finland "the option to apply for NATO membership if the security situation in Europe changes" has been in the government programme for years. While from the outside it might seem like a sudden change, from our perspective it really is not, but rather predictable development based on our defense policy.
People like to talk about military "victories" and "losses" but the truth is both sides lose in a war. While Finnish Defense Forces would be completely capable of thwarting an invasion like seen in Ukraine, the core of any defense policy should be to prevent wars happening in the first place. Ukraine has a massive population of 40 million and they have been modernizing their military for almost a decade, but that did not stop Russia from misjudging their capabilities and invading the country.
Well, you say that it's been a smooth transition, true enough there if you're just talking about the political side of things. However, it's the public opinion polls that are hilariously dramatic. Things like NATO support going from just over 20% to over 75% in a span of a couple of months really doesn't happen unless something really notable takes place.
Now 15 minutes in and I must say, the video seems thoroughly researched. Keep up the good work Perun!
tread lightly
Not really the same in Sweden. After the end of the cold war and before 2014 we basically didnt care about our defense in the least. When Russia showed its agression we decided to begin to build up the military a bit but beyond that we never felt threatened enough to seriously consider throwing out our 200 years of neutrality.
@@Niskirin They are far less dramatic if you understand the past political and public discourse in Finland and how people really think. Polls can give you neat binary results, but they also tend to miss a lot of nuance that gets lost without any context.
The so-called "NATO option" has been part of Finnish discourse for over a decade. People have had pretty solid idea when they would or should support the membership and vice versa - it does not matter whether we are talking about the general public or politicians.
The point I'm getting at it is more like a tipping of scales rather than sudden shift of policy. Sure, the scale goes from the one end to the other suddenly, but solely focusing on the two different states ignores that things have been piling up on the other side for over a decade.
Putin: “No, you can’t join NATO!”
Finland and Sweden: “Hur hur membership application go brrrrrr.”
It has just struck me - Russia _suck_ at *soft power,* and has historically, so it tries to make up for with hard power, but that always backfires.
This may seem like an irrelevant point, because "soft power" has become such a meme in modern mass media-driven the geo-political analysis, but in reality it is the most efficient and effective form of power, all things being equal.
I suppose that, being an Anglo American, I have always subconsciously taken it for granted that being a great power - that is a major military and economic actor - always comes with the added benefit of global cultural power, but in reality that's not true. To be blunt, very few non-Russian people have ever really wanted to become Russians (hell, Peter the Great basically had to assimilate _his own nobility_ in a way) and, to be blunt, "russification" has only really ever worked, in the limited cases where it has, against very small or low quality populations. Once you get to a state with the size and substance even of Finland, it doesn't work. The Russians try to make up for this by absolutely clobbering their neighbors and basically forcing them to be compliance, but this only works so long as the Russians literally have the boot on their necks, and as soon as that is done they snap back there this is probably a big part of the reason why the Russian Empire was always so unstable (even even those in the Caucuses were not really interested in the material or social advantages of Russian culture).
In contrast, the British are almost the exact opposite paradigm. They were able to take and subdue half the world, so to speak, with relatively limited military operations (it should be noted they were actual board, and they did defeat their opponents, but they were much more efficient than anything the Russians have ever done). But more importantly, they were able to convince populations from Hong Kong to Oman, an entire sub-continent of hundreds of millions of people, that they basically wanted to be as British as much as possible - mimicking speech, emulating customs and dress, adopting manners and naming, and trying to give their children, if they could afford it british-style education or even a shot at actual British universities. And it was kind of a half-hearted convincing, because the British weren't really trying, the colonial subjects basically took this on by proximity. (Of of course the British were not the only Europeans to do this, the Spanish, the French, and the Portuguese also did to varying degrees, but I think the British are the premiere example).
In many ways a significant portion of moscow's constant geopolitical paranoia is precisely because, to put it in a word, the Russians are not good at making friends. Whether this is a cause of the position they find themselves in, or result of the position they find themselves in I don't know, but it's definitely tied up in it. I wonder how much of the contrast between these two paradigms is related to genetics, culture, things like the Periphery-Heartland/Makinder Theory, and just the general metaphysical differences between these two national paradigms.
And yet, consider that Russia is a charter member of BRICS which is a collection of misfit nations with limited access to the global financial system and is doing everything it can to band with the other BRICS members to destabilize existing world institutions and create an alternative World Order based on "multi-polarity."
'Finland's story is a little bit more complicated...'. Understatement.
I like the long format. The lack of success you've had with short format though is probably related to subject matter rather than people not liking it. However, the long format seems much more in depth which is why I like it. I can put it on at work and have something interesting to listen to for an hour without really being on my phone. Your delivery and humor is part of what makes lectures engaging and that seemed to be lacking while you were feeling ill (understandably). Glad you're feeling better.
Swedish flat pack nukes with easy assembly instructions definitely made me chuckle.
Really good episode as always - enjoying the long format of big topic!
This is a really nice overview of the situation. Definitely the best video on the topic I've seen.