By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Satellite imagery reveals Russia is significantly expanding its military presence near the Finnish border. Construction of a new garrison in Kandalaksha, housing an artillery and engineer brigade, represents a permanent troop increase, unlike previous temporary deployments. Simultaneous upgrades to other sites, including Sapyornoye and Petrozavodsk, showcase broader military reinforcement in the region. This build-up, estimated to add nearly 100,000 troops, is likely linked to Finland’s NATO accession and Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Military expert Marko Eklund emphasizes the strategic importance of these actions and their implications for Finland.
Read the original article here
Satellite images recently revealed that Russia is constructing a significant military town near the Finnish border. This development has sparked considerable online discussion, with many questioning the strategic rationale behind such a move, particularly given Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. The timing, close to the Finnish border and amidst a protracted conflict, naturally raises concerns.
The sheer audacity of initiating a large-scale military buildup so far from the main theater of war in Ukraine is puzzling. Many observers have pointed out the inherent risks and logistical challenges associated with opening a new front, especially against a country like Finland known for its formidable military capabilities and history of tenacious defense. It is argued that such an action would be akin to strategic suicide for Russia, a country already stretched thin by the Ukrainian conflict.
The historical context is crucial here. Finland’s history, particularly its Winter War against the Soviet Union, showcases its resilience and military prowess. The significant losses suffered by the Soviet Union despite their overwhelming numerical superiority are often cited as a testament to the Finns’ fighting ability and tactical acumen. This legendary fighting spirit, often compared to figures like the renowned sniper Simo Häyhä, fuels the belief that a Russian attack on Finland would be met with fierce resistance.
Some argue that the new military town is simply a response to Finland’s recent NATO membership, a move that brought NATO forces significantly closer to the Russian border. This, coupled with increasing NATO presence in the region, could be viewed as a provocative act by Russia, seeking to establish a stronger military posture. However, this explanation doesn’t fully address the scale of the project and its strategic implications.
A common counterargument is that the construction might be a way for Russia to reposition military units currently deployed in Ukraine. This suggestion implies that the facilities are intended to house and train troops before redeploying them to the Ukrainian front. This would be a way to train new conscripts and support existing troops away from the direct pressures and dangers of active combat in Ukraine. Such a strategy, however, fails to fully explain the size and visible permanence of the construction.
Another perspective suggests that the location offers strategic advantages. It’s further away from the range of Ukrainian drones and missiles. This makes the base potentially safer for training, logistics, and the storage of vital equipment, allowing Russia to protect its resources from the ongoing conflict. However, the benefits of such protection are weighed against the considerable risk of escalating tensions with a NATO member.
Regardless of the reasons, the construction of this military town has understandably prompted unease in Finland. Finland is not unfamiliar with the threat posed by its neighbor to the East, and it remains vigilant against potential aggression. This is exemplified by the country’s preparedness, both in terms of military capabilities and its long-standing readiness for conflict with Russia. This readiness is not a new development; it’s a historical reality deeply ingrained in Finnish national security strategy.
Finland’s recent NATO membership significantly alters the geopolitical context. An attack on Finland would be viewed as an attack on a NATO member, triggering Article 5 and a collective military response. This drastically increases the potential cost and risk of Russian aggression against Finland. This makes an unprovoked attack on a NATO member far more complicated, and perhaps impossible, for Russia to contemplate.
Despite the ongoing uncertainty surrounding Russia’s motives, the construction of the military town undoubtedly adds to the complex security situation in the region. While some downplay the threat, suggesting the presence of military facilities in the area is not entirely new and that the new structures are primarily for existing formations, the scale and timing of the current construction project are highly significant and justify concerns within the international community. The situation demands close monitoring, emphasizing the need for vigilance and diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions and prevent potential conflicts. The events unfolding serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace and the importance of continued dialogue and cooperation in resolving international disputes.