By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite former President Trump’s focus on Greenland, the US military faces significant limitations in Arctic operations compared to its allies. The US lags behind Scandinavian countries and the UK in cold-climate training and experience, as evidenced by difficulties encountered during NATO exercises. The US relies on Finland for icebreaker technology, highlighting a dependence on European expertise. While potential long-term security and commercial risks exist in the region, US capabilities currently fall short, potentially undermining collaborative efforts within NATO.
Read the original article here
US Army Poorly Prepared for Arctic Operations: Finnish Troops Forced Them to Surrender During Exercises in Norway
It seems the story of the US Army’s struggles in Arctic conditions, particularly during exercises with Finnish troops in Norway, is making the rounds. The gist of the chatter is that the US forces got a bit of a schooling, with the Finns, masters of cold-weather warfare, essentially forcing them to surrender. Now, this isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. It’s not uncommon for training exercises to have a victor and a loser, and the Finns, with their intimate knowledge of the Arctic environment, hold a significant advantage. This wasn’t just a friendly match.
The Finns are incredibly adept at Arctic warfare. Think of it as playing a pick-up game in someone’s backyard – they know the terrain, the weather patterns, and the nuances of fighting in the cold. It’s their expertise. This isn’t just about training; it’s about pushing limits. These exercises are specifically designed to expose weaknesses and force participants to think outside the box. The US military is forced to confront the harsh realities of Arctic conditions, something they aren’t as accustomed to.
The Finns have a natural advantage. This “home-field advantage” is a critical factor when it comes to the Arctic. These exercises are meant to identify weaknesses and promote learning and adaptation. The key takeaway here is not so much about the outcome of the exercise itself, but rather the lessons learned. Losing can be a valuable experience, particularly when it exposes areas for improvement.
It’s actually pretty common for international training events to generate news stories about one side “beating” the other, which often focuses on grand claims and overemphasizes the event’s importance. It’s important to remember that these exercises are about more than just winning or losing; they are designed to push boundaries and test the limits of what soldiers can do. The point is not just to perform, but to evolve and improve.
The Finns know that one thing the Nordic countries understand that some others still need to learn: you don’t bully your way through cold weather. Respect nature, and understand its rules, or it’ll defeat you. The Americans have a real issue here. Their experience is the exact opposite of cold.
The US military has a long way to go to catch up to the Finns and their understanding of Arctic warfare. The military has a tendency to be prepared to fight the last war it fought. With their experience in the Arctic, the Finns have a substantial advantage.
It’s been noted that US forces struggle to properly operate in Arctic conditions, particularly when facing the Finnish military. There’s a general consensus that the US military is not sufficiently prepared for the type of conflict that would await them in an Arctic setting. The idea of the US military trying to “take over Greenland” is met with some derision.
The reality is that the US lacks the specialized training, equipment, and experience necessary to compete effectively in Arctic conditions. Other countries, particularly those in the Nordic region, have spent decades honing their skills in this environment. The US forces lack the equipment and the commitment to arctic warfare that the Finns possess. The Finns are the best at arctic warfare for a reason, and it’s why so many armies train with them.
There’s some skepticism about the US military’s approach to such exercises, with criticism of leadership and a general lack of preparedness. There are questions about the US ability to secure its own waters. There is also a lack of specialized training, equipment, and experience when compared to a country like Finland. The US is focused on the wrong things, while the Finns and other Nordic countries have spent decades honing their skills in this environment.
The training exercises with the Finns serve as a stark reminder of the US military’s current limitations in cold-weather warfare. The US military has a way to go if they want to get ready for the shit storm that could await them if they ever pushed on their allies.
The general sentiment is that the US military needs to invest in a lot of things they aren’t focused on currently. The US military’s Achilles heel is arrogance. Training is the key, and the Finns clearly know what they are doing.