Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> 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.



> 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


Russia has always wanted more ice-free ports. It's a major geographic problem.


You assume a country has a cohesive long term strategy which is obviously not the case since there are ephemeral people involved.


"For the taking" when Russia had already suffered some 1.3 million casualties from Finland alone.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: