5 ms·
> makes it much harder for Russia should they invade If taking over Finland would help Russia, why didn't it do so in 1945 when it was there for the taking, to
by regularization 1y ago
> makes it much harder for Russia should they invade
If taking over Finland would help Russia, why didn't it do so in 1945 when it was there for the taking, to little protest from the UK and US? Russian had no use for it then, or now, other than the Karelian isthmus, which is part of Russia. Russia didn't raise much protest of Finland joining NATO. These notions of Russia having designs on Finland are loony.
- barbazoo 1y agoYou assume a country has a cohesive long term strategy which is obviously not the case since there are ephemeral people involved.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago> why didn't it do so in 1945 when it was there for the taking They tried, but weren't able to defeat them completely; a deal / armistice was made in the end. > Finland lost 12% of its land area, 20% of its industrial capacity, its second largest city, Vyborg, and the ice-free port of Liinakhamari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#World_War_II
- lazide 1y agoRussia has always wanted more ice-free ports. It's a major geographic problem.
- yencabulator 1y ago"For the taking" when Russia had already suffered some 1.3 million casualties from Finland alone.