Likelihood Russia invades a Swedish/Finnish island to prevent joining NATO

This thread is just to discuss the merits of Russia invading, holding and fortifying tiny Swedish or Finnish islands to "contest" their territory so they cannot join NATO.

The counter position to this by Sweden and Finland - I think - would be to get everything ready and just relinquish ownership of said territory and fast track into NATO before a response to that.

I think the idea is obviously very far fetched, but I think it would be a creative solution by Russia to deny certain countries access to joining NATO. And it'd be so "low intensity" but huge cost to undo, that it would greatly challenge the NATO induction of Sweden and Finland and have very limited capable responses.

Over a hundred thousand of Russian soldiers already killed in Finland in WW2.

Accepting the armistice cost Finland 11 percent of its territory, including the country's second city of Vyborg. The Winter War left 25,904 Finns dead. The Soviets lost at least 126,875 soldiers.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev later recalled "All of us -- and Stalin first and foremost -- sensed in our victory a defeat by the Finns. It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay."

www.rferl.org...

Russia can barely handle Ukraine. I seriously doubt they're looking for another front.

a reply to: Jason79

Glad you had the stats on that.
Not a clue how Sweden will respond, but expect the Finn's to take it very badly. Long memories from the last time. Seem to remember Russia getting a beat down last time they they decided to attack in the wintertime. During WW2 I think?
Episodes of history repeating itself are happening faster than ever before.
It's like watching a surge of Lemmings with too much money & weapons charging the cliff.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
Russia can barely handle Ukraine. I seriously doubt they're looking for another front.

You misunderstand.

Landing on an uninhabited island and fortifying it is hardly "another front". You think Sweden has the capability of a full amphibious assault on a fortified island? Puhlease.

Also your impression about what's going on in Ukraine is juvenile. Russia is doing just fine against a NATO-supported opponent. A lot better than the US did against a bunch of "towel heads" (insult for ironic effect) who had nobody's support.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Jason79

Glad you had the stats on that.
Not a clue how Sweden will respond, but expect the Finn's to take it very badly. Long memories from the last time. Seem to remember Russia getting a beat down last time they they decided to attack in the wintertime. During WW2 I think?
Episodes of history repeating itself are happening faster than ever before.
It's like watching a surge of Lemmings with too much money & weapons charging the cliff.

I don't think either party has the capability of conducting an amphibious or aerial assault against a fortified position.

Thus such a surprise deployment by Russia would be particularly insidious, ingenious and difficult to root out.

originally posted by: Jason79
Over a hundred thousand of Russian soldiers already killed in Finland in WW2.

Accepting the armistice cost Finland 11 percent of its territory, including the country's second city of Vyborg. The Winter War left 25,904 Finns dead. The Soviets lost at least 126,875 soldiers.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev later recalled "All of us -- and Stalin first and foremost -- sensed in our victory a defeat by the Finns. It was a dangerous defeat because it encouraged our enemies' conviction that the Soviet Union was a colossus with feet of clay."

www.rferl.org...

Wow, why didn't the Germans just use the Fins to defeat the Soviets? It's almost like your hype is meaningless drivel devoid of nuance or other fact or possibly outright falsehoods. Russia engaged 12 million German soldiers and killed 3.5+ million of them. But good to know that Finland defeated a "colossus with feet of clay".

Must make the Germans really pathetic.

originally posted by: DarthTrader
This thread is just to discuss the merits of Russia invading, holding and fortifying tiny Swedish or Finnish islands to "contest" their territory so they cannot join NATO.

The counter position to this by Sweden and Finland - I think - would be to get everything ready and just relinquish ownership of said territory and fast track into NATO before a response to that.

I think the idea is obviously very far fetched, but I think it would be a creative solution by Russia to deny certain countries access to joining NATO. And it'd be so "low intensity" but huge cost to undo, that it would greatly challenge the NATO induction of Sweden and Finland and have very limited capable responses.

Is it possible?

Sure.

Probable?

I’d say no.

If anything, such an advance would fast-track NATO membership - IMO.

Russia can’t handle a war against marginally trained soldiers and a melting pot of current and relic equipment.

Bring the full force of NATO, led my the US? This would be over very quickly - as would Russia.

I see your member name and I wonder if this is for trading purposes.

As a trader myself, I wouldn’t place any trades, or hedge against, the thesis of your OP coming to fruition.

Hell, even if it did, the conflict would end as soon as the US got 2 carrier strike groups on the area (maybe only one). Buy the dip and party on.

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
Russia can barely handle Ukraine. I seriously doubt they're looking for another front.

You misunderstand.

Landing on an uninhabited island and fortifying it is hardly "another front". You think Sweden has the capability of a full amphibious assault on a fortified island? Puhlease.

Also your impression about what's going on in Ukraine is juvenile. Russia is doing just fine against a NATO-supported opponent. A lot better than the US did against a bunch of "towel heads" (insult for ironic effect) who had nobody's support.

What is juvenile is baseless speculation.

a reply to: DarthTrader

It's almost like your hype is meaningless drivel devoid of nuance or other fact or possibly outright falsehoods.

Are you serious?

Seems you left out the bit where Hitler equipped his men in the finest summer gear and attacked in the dead of winter.

That was not a battle, that was mass suicide. And they still nearly over ran Moscow.

a reply to: DarthTrader

The last time Russia tried to invade Finland it didn't go well for them.

Biden will bankroll Sweden and Finland with all the money and arms they need.

originally posted by: nugget1
Biden will bankroll Sweden and Finland with all the money and arms they need.

Not unless they set up another Sam Bankman-Fried to give 10% for the Big Guy.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: DarthTrader

The last time Russia tried to invade Finland it didn't go well for them.

You mean back when both sides were still using bolt-action rifles and tanks were "future tech"? lol.

What would be the point other than to hasten WWIII. Sweden and Finland already have defensive pacts with most of the major players in the West.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
What would be the point other than to hasten WWIII. Sweden and Finland already have defensive pacts with most of the major players in the West.

You're going to rush to defend uninhabited islands in the Baltic with a very precise stated goal against a Nuclear power? Be my guest.

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: DarthTrader

The last time Russia tried to invade Finland it didn't go well for them.

You mean back when both sides were still using bolt-action rifles and tanks were "future tech"? lol.

Only for Russia, everyone else started with tanks and battleships.

The wireless radios Germans put into tanks before the war was their primary advantage. Secondary advantage was the germen development of submarines soon after. Oddly enough it was Japan's attack on pearl harbor that taught the west the importance of airplanes and led to the development of jets and the turning of the war.

a reply to: DarthTrader

Wouldn’t matter.

Europe would come to their side anyways, likely with direct support, not just arming. The US would likely do the same or at least bankroll and arm everyone.

And honestly, Finland could probably hold them off by themselves.

a reply to: DarthTrader

There's certainly a greater chance of the West honoring the formal defensive pacts they have with Sweden and Finland than there was of them honoring the Budapest Memorandum.