• IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 day ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            which was a ‘neutral’ border back then

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