By Matt Underwood Russia is currently engaged in the construction of new military bases in close proximity to the Finnish border, a development that has raised numerous questions and concerns.
The decision to build new outposts, with reports from Swedish military intelligence indicating the establishment of six new locations between St. Petersburg and Murmansk, seems curious given the existence of already established, albeit perhaps underutilized, facilities.
There’s speculation about the construction crews themselves, with a touch of dark humor suggesting they might be the very soldiers eventually stationed there, a testament to Russia’s current manpower situation.
A significant concern is the timing of these deployments. Some observe that Ukraine might strategically wait until these bases are nearly completed, potentially leading to a considerable waste of resources and personnel for Russia. This echoes historical precedents, with mentions of unused fleets in 1918, hollow fortifications in 1944, and economic instability in 1988, painting a picture of a facade being built while underlying foundations crumble.
The Finnish army anticipates a substantial increase in Russian garrisons near the border once the conflict in Ukraine concludes, with estimates suggesting an expansion from 20,000 to 80,000 soldiers. This proximity raises the practical, albeit grim, observation that such deployments bring Russian forces within artillery range, negating the need for costly missile attacks.
The fundamental question arises: for which soldiers and for what purpose? There’s a palpable sense of incredulity regarding the possibility of Russia targeting Finland, a nation with generations specifically trained for defense and a history that should have provided ample lessons. The sentiment is that Finland’s natural defenses, like its extensive swamps, have already proven a formidable barrier.
The logic behind building up military infrastructure while Russia is reportedly experiencing significant losses of soldiers and conscripts is questioned. The idea of constructing a moat of mud around these new bases is floated as a potentially effective, if unconventional, defensive strategy.
The geographical placement of these bases, while still relatively close, is noted as being far enough to allow Russia a degree of plausible deniability, presenting it not as a direct provocation. However, the overall sentiment suggests that Russia’s military might is no longer a source of widespread fear.
The ongoing geopolitical tensions are highlighted by Russia’s demands for NATO withdrawal from its borders, leading to the ironic suggestion that Finland could, in turn, demand Russia’s withdrawal from NATO borders. The lack of reporting on Finnish military buildup on their side of the border is also noted.
Questions about the funding for these extensive construction projects are raised, especially considering Russia’s current economic situation. The fact that these new locations are seen as already accurately targeted presents a stark strategic challenge for Russia.
The prevailing mood is one of defiance and preparedness on the Finnish side. Finland is described as having continuously invested in modern and older artillery systems, boasting one of the largest collections in Europe, including advanced rocket artillery. Their air force is equipped with F-18s, complemented by modern US enhancements, and they possess a significant supply of landmines, drones produced domestically, and modern armor, including battle tanks.
Furthermore, Finland is recognized for its world-class sniper rifles, suggesting a highly capable and well-trained infantry force ready to engage. The argument is made that simply building bases is insufficient; the critical factor is having the troops to garrison them, a resource Russia is perceived to be lacking without compromising strength elsewhere. The potential for an unpopular conscription drive to fill these ranks is seen as a destabilizing factor for Russia’s population.
A prominent suggestion is that Ukraine could likely target these new bases with drones before their completion, a move intended to further provoke and disrupt Russian efforts. The prospect of Russian soldiers meeting their end in Finnish lakes is a grim but vividly expressed sentiment.
The Finnish army’s preparedness is considered far more advanced than historical precedents, with a strong implication that any Russian attempt would be met with overwhelming resistance. The idea of Russia building mere “concepts of bases” that will quickly become “future rubble” is a recurring theme.
The question of affordability for Russia to undertake such projects at this time is posed, alongside the notion that these new bases could be prime targets for Ukrainian drone operations. While 175 kilometers from the border might seem distant, it’s acknowledged that Finland already has bases closer to its frontier.
The possibility of a “Second Winter War” is brought up, with the strong conviction that it would end even worse for Russia than the original. This sentiment is fueled by the perception of Russia’s current weakness, despite claims of surpluses, and a feeling that Europe has not fully learned from past conflicts.
The timing for initiating a broader response against Russia is considered overdue, with an urgent call for action. Concerns about potential political shifts in the US and their implications for Russian expansion are also voiced.
The heavy losses Russia has sustained in Ukraine are acknowledged, and the question of who truly profits from building new infrastructure versus utilizing existing assets is raised. There’s a cynical view that these new bases might serve as secure locations for the children of politicians and generals to avoid the front lines.
The current geopolitical situation is characterized by a sense that Europe is relying on Ukraine for its defense, a reality that is not openly admitted. The notion of Putin receiving only partial or skewed information, similar to other leaders, is suggested, leading to decisions like building bases near Finland instead of focusing on critical areas in Ukraine. The idea of these being “Potemkin Bases” – grand in appearance but lacking substance – is a powerful metaphor used to describe the situation. The eventual end of the war in Ukraine and the potential use of artillery on these new Russian bases are also pondered.