NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2024
- Will Russia attack NATO in the coming years? In this video I discuss the recent warnings from military leaders and politicians, and I explain why the risk is bigger than many people think.
0:00 Possible war between Russia and NATO?
1:12 Wrong assumptions about a war?
2:46 Russia wants bilateral relations
4:23 Undermining NATO
7:01 A calibrated challenge of Article 5
8:06 A possible scenario
9:47 The collapse of NATO
I remember in December 2021 and January 2022, the ‘alarmists’ were also claiming that Russia would invade Ukraine…
Unlike ukraine nato is a collective security organization with nuclear stockpiles as a deterrance ukraine has no such
@@u2beuser714 If Russia nukes Poland, will the US nuke Russia back and thus cause Russia to nuke the US too?
@@u2beuser714 Now why would a ruzzia bot say that! That is really alarming!
We also remember the"realists" claiming that Russia would finish off Ukraine in a month.
Very to the point.
Whilst Ukraine is at war against Russia, they have the justification to attack within Russia and cripple Russian industry and so on. No other country has that justification. So really the best defense for NATO given these threats is to support Ukraine right now.
^^This.
ukraine alreay lose thats why nazi nato wnats a full war but with european troops only....
@@theroldan8013 shut up. Adults are talking.
But the Republicans with Trump and Speaker Johnson are anti-NATO, Ukraine and pro Putin! This is what they want! But they will pay a very high price when they have no allies when that day come! Just better to support Ukraine full out to do as much damage to Putins army now before they fill up their stock again!
@@theroldan8013 Ok Komrade botski, now take your copium like a good little Ruski.
An attack on Finland would NOT be a small, remote test of Article 5. NATO is paying a great deal of attention to it's Northern sector
Baltics will go help instantly. Finns saved Estonia, we owe them a favor.
I agree with you on the fact that NATO might not help ( I am a historian of international affairs), so that the USA might fulfil article 5 with supply support (which is possible under article 5 too). But the EU has a far bigger commitment where you must help, so that means only non EU NATO member can not fulfil commitment on an attack on the Baltics. So a dead NATO means still an EU that has a collective defense system.
Also - even now different countries are sending their aid to Ukraine - if all members are not willing. So to say, that when Finland is attacked everybody will wait if US will send it's troops or that it would be all or nothing... sry, that is stupid. That would have been maybe the case before Ukraine war.Neighbouring countries will help Finland no questions asked. Same thing with Baltics...sure Spain maybe in a siesta or US enjoying tRUMP...you really think that Finland and Sweden will just watch how terrorists are doing things right behind their border? We can't forget, that if terrorists will take the next country to attack - that will send shock wave through NATO countries and possibility that they would be next comes much more closer than at the moment.
This is why multinational 'trip wire' NATO brigades in border countries are important. Political debate in member countries to intervene can be quickly wrapped when their own soldiers are taking bullets by an aggressor.
Finland does not have one yet, but they need one soon.
I think the moment US decides to pull out of these trip wire forces, NATO is on a very shaky ground.
No, Europe just needs to get real, even in France, if Russia ever gets to them it will be up to us in blighty again, and we are getting a bit fed up of it, we have had to hold their hands and lead them in the Ukraine campaign and all we get from Brussels is are we European, don't ask us stupid questions ask yourselves, support Ukraine and then support the continent of Europe so no army will want to invade our land and that should be under NATO, not the bloody EU which can be sidetracked by a corrupt minor leader in Hungary paid by the Kremlin, they should be booted out of NATO and the EU!?!
It wouldn't surprise us to be left alone or even for bigger countries to make deals about us without including us in those. Got plenty of experiences of that from the 2nd world war too.
I personally still expect us to end up fighting Russia alone even though we are now in NATO like we have been expecting to and preparing for way longer than I have been alive.
USA is too keen on fighting internally and other european countries do not even dare to speak about the reality. There are big reasons why behind my shower wall is a bomb shelter and that isn't even strange but actually mandated by law to be there.
And to add to that. We will come in help for others. We signed up for that and we know we're going to be the front line no matter what.
Nah, much easier would be to apply EU values equally in say Baltic states, making democracy there would allow local ethnic Russians be treated as humans.
It's hard to explain to your own that you need to fight for justice when justice is already there.
I.e. EU has to follow its own laws.
@@tomk3732 Screw off, bot. Ethnic Russians are treated better anywhere in Europe than they are treated in Russia.
I think Europs best defence is the Russian weakness in supply. But Europe must prepare for a fight without the US. We have the money, but we lack the will
Feeble leaders except in Estonia but that's such a small country...
@@daydays12 All the Baltics and Poland have strong anti-Russia leaders.
Nothing to say America wouldn’t support other nato countries with arms if not with soldiers
100%
True. Europe may have defend
itself and is more than capable of doing so. Trump will stooge of Putin.
There is Swedish battallion of 5000 professional soldiers in northern Sweden that are immediately (under 24 hours, and even that is small amount of soldiers it will trigger war to Sweden first day) transformed to northern Finland if that kind of scenario happens. They are trained especially for that scenario and there is aggreements done for that move. So Sweden is almost immediately part of the war that is happening in northern Finland. I would say that Norway would be almost automatically part of the war that is happening in northern finland as well. Also in Finland we are having more and more american soldiers and we just made one and one DCA aggreement with USA, so USA it is not only defending Finland because of NATO. They have more to lose if they break their DCA deals (=Defence Cooperation Agreement), stopping russia in lappland is their cheap scenario under such aggreements. Edited this because people seems to miss point about that 5000 swedish soldiers. That 5000 men is just swedish quick response that is transfered under 24 hours to Finland for defense and it is enough to take Sweden to war at that same day than Russian attack to Finland. There is no additional decisions needed for transfering that 5000 soldiers. It is decided already and that amount if big enough to trigger war also in Sweden. More soldiers would come after. And by the way finnish are very patriotic also. By surveys most people from our relatively large reserve is ready to defend country. We have something like 870 000 men reserve. So when you think about Russia vs Finland war you should at least count in Finland, Sweden, Norway, UK and USA. Because in probability all of those countries is involved. Probably also baltic countries.
** !! ** Because people STILL leave me stupid comments that 5000 soldiers is nothing and again and again miss my point. Here is another reply to that same message: "Also you seems to miss the point. I told that 5000 soldiers is transferred from Sweden to Finland in first 24 hours without other decision and it is enough to take sweden to war. That is quick act force that will act without any other decisions. Russia attacks to norther Finland -> That 5000 soldiers will move to Finland without any political decisions, it is already decided and locked.. You think of that as kind of PACT. Of course 5000 is nothing. Finland have over 800 000 soldiers reserve."
"
I think the UK would be there with you, it gave anti tank weapons the first tanks and long range misslies to Ukraine I can't see it stepping back.
If trump will get elected, then even DCA isnt a guarantee anymore. I think that is one of the biggest things ruskies are waiting for. Trump being elected.
@@FlashdogFul28 Bruh UK is the fascist country of Europe they literally left the EU so they could drown immigrants. The UK would probably join Russia’s side
Anders is actually a high ranking officer, so i am sure he knows. That said I Disagree with him. I think Anders fails to Understand taht an Attack on Nato While Russia is at War with Ukraine is a Greenlight for Eastern Nato Allies to Directly get involved in Ukraine. Poland would invade Kaliningrad and annex it and send troops to Ukraine faster than anyone can say WWIII. The territory Russia would fight over is irrellevant as long as there are insentives and capabilities elsewhere to join the fight somewhere else. While I agree that Russia would be tempted, I think the Kremlin is aware that the ONLY reason Ukraine doesn't have Nato Troops as aid is because Nato Isn't interested in being the agressors. But if Article 5 is activated Poland can gain control over Kaliningrad, and take charge as they seceretly wants to lead the eastern european alliances, and Russia would hand them Causus Beli on a Silver Platter with Greivances. 5000 Soldiers are peanuts compared to what is being send to Ukraine and home again in boxes every day. The Issue is that the Nordics on manpower alone is still only a fraction of Russias unmobilized forces, in a battle of attrition the Nordics could kill 10 enemy soldiers for every fallen soldier, and still lose. Russias hessitance is not in the scandinavian unity, but rather the approval of direct aiding of Ukraine.
5000?
That is what? 2 months worth?
Have you even looked at the numbers coming out of ukraine?
This is very interesting analysis. Last week in Finnish newspaper was an article, how they teach children in Russian schools. Northern part of Finland was part of Russia on their maps.
Russia is pushing and NATO is acting so passively it seems disgusting to me.
It might seem like they are passive, but I guarantee you, there is happening a lot behind the scenes. Also, if NATO would be drumming on with aggression, Russia would change their tune and play the victim. NATO is playing it smart. Let Russia taunt and provoke, but we won't be the first one to attack. Now it's crucial we keep our heads cool. Because, we don't actually want a third world war
Nato is a reactionary force. Never meant to be an agressor.
I mean, NATO is a _defensive_ alliance.
Russia's desperate and seemingly in the death throes of a great power
So everything nominal
@@unduloid They're supposed to defend NATO members, none of which have been attacked. I'm all in favour of helping Ukraine defeat Russia, but NATO as an organisation is really the wrong address for that.
With this explanations it became clear why Sweden army commander said to prepare for possible war!👍
You mean possible death.
Finnish Lapland is sparsely populated and has only a few military installations, the area is mostly roadless wilderness with bogs, forests and rivers, not forgetting harsh winters, making any invasion hard even with superior numbers. And there are no major prizes, like industry or large mines to take. But even a failed attack to such a empty, unimportant void in NATO (from the city dwellers perspective) would reveal if the article 5 and NATO in general would work, so in that sense Nielsen's argumentation is harshly valid. Attacking NATO-Finland anywhere would be very risky bet for Russia, but Russians have already shown to take insane risks.
I have no doubt that Finland would put up a fierce fight against the invaders, with or without NATO help. It would be politically very hard for the fellow NATO members not to provide their partner substantial help, including military equipment and troops, after starting such a conflict. I trust and hope that Sweden would be the best ally in that situation, being in NATO or not at that point. However, I hope that your commander has been wrong this time. 🙏
@@mhyotyni We also have to keep in mind that the finnish defence force is in no way an insignificant one. So if the russians want to try article 5 through Finland, they are going to require quite a large force in order for Finland to need its allies to defend. After all, if the attacking force is too small and Finland can handle it easily on its own, why would Finland need help from anyone? If the force is large, the risk of not being able to de-escalate grows hugely in case it all goes wrong.
Russia has a lot of land - what is the point to take bogs in Finland?:))) Let say they decided to get them - to force Finns to pay taxes to Russia? or make a huge concentration camp - with the cheap labor?:))) How many police force will require to control it? There is no any economical points to invade Finland!
But Russia has Kaliningrad - and IF idiots in Baltic countries will continue stopping land-air transportation to this enclave - Russia will make a small passage from Belarus - and this is the only one territorial gain she will require.....She does not need unfriendly population.
In the term of possible war with the whole NATO - Europe would be dead in two days - the power grid will be destroyed and Norwegian supply of Oil and Gas - no any invasion required.....Ask any westerners - how many days they can survive without electricity?:))) @@mhyotyni
Swede's have fuking fear of Russian , from Loong time, century's! Psychotic fear,.
New subscriber
I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Brilliant talk The main question is: what should we do if it happens? and can we to avoid that we end up in such a situation?
The video was clear and informative as always. It's crucial that the EU and my country stop being naive, acknowledge the seriousness of this threat, and reduce our dependence on the US for defense, particularly as we witness America's growing inclination towards isolationism. We've begun to increase our ammo production, but it's still not enough. Thankfully, it appears that some political parties in my country are finally starting to grasp this reality.
They are far from naive, they just want someone else to pay.
I’m American and I hate how we are becoming isolationist, it didn’t work in the last two world wars, it ain’t gonna work in the next god forbid.
@@informitas0117 Naive in the sense that small short term savings could result in huge long term costs.
This video is rubbish. Reason
1. Ukraine still can defend itself against Russia
2. Russia not even have achieved air superiority
so
If NATO would go full force, in a few days they would have complete air superiority which would end any progress for Russia, not even talking about the chance of logistics.
The only chance for Russia would be a nuclear war which would also lead to their destruction.
So the idea NATO has a problem is just dumb.
@@martinwinter615
The question is if NATO will be able to use full force. I have doubts about Hungary and Turkey, just to name two!
That reason is why forward deployed units are needed. If Russia has to fight British, French, or American units in Finland for example, this will make them think twice before invading. Also it would be good cold weather training for those units. The Nato allies are much more likely to invoke article 5 if their troops are already dying.
US will remove all troops from Europe, when Trump wins the election.
It will all depend on how battle ready the Western European air forces are.
Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey are wild cards, they can invade other European countries at any time, if they have backing from Russia.
There are deals Russia made with those countries, just like the UK and France made deals with smaller countries before ww1 and ww2.
Serbia will surely invade Kosovo, probably Bulgaria first, to help Russia get a foothold.
Austria will block transit through their country.
The Balkans will be lost quickly, only then will Russia turn to the Baltics.
I fully agree 👍
It's also another good argument for a stronger military integration within the EU. A joint EU military would also make it much less likely that we will ever see a war between member states anymore (which is less likely, but russia tries to stir infighting, with some success so far).
Firstly Britain is no longer a first rated military force- according to US military officials and the MOD, although a war between NATO and Russia is counterproductive since Russian and the Western world financially benefit from one another, to an extent this is frankly war mongering, it is similar to “America versus China” going to war since both quite literally economically benefit from each other, this is something I laugh at because everyone seems to forget just how economically intertwined this world is, all the while wanting to think we aren’t, for Putin a war with NATO is suicidal, the entirety of the Russian nation knows this, the only people who as of know constantly brought up war with NATO is surprise surprise NATO members.
@@aurele2 Wow, I wonder why NATO is preparing for war? What a mystery! 🤔
@@aurele2 Britain not a first rated force? Then neither is Russia. Well its UK for a start not Britain. Secondly UK has Nuclear weapons, F35s decent navy with two aircraft carriers coming online typhoons, meteors, start streak, NLaws etc. UK alone could fight Russia. Look how Russia struggles against Ukraine. They are really not what you think they are. Also you talk of Russia and western world having some sort of financial relationship. Russia has no finances. Ies not an economy. It doesn't even make the top ten in terms of GDP.. Apart from oil and gas there is nothing there. You are making a fallacy of false equivalence. the West is 90% Russia is at best 10%. There really is no comparison. The west can go to war with Russia and suffer economic consequences so small they wouldn't even be noticeable. Just look how Europe stopped importing Russian gas in months and suffered no problems. A minor temporary uptick in prices.
Its not that the West is intertwined with russia. Russia is an insect and the West is an elephant on its skin.
Regarding the US and China going to war. If the leader of China wants to invade taiwan which he has says he wants to using foce. he actually tells you this. Actually sanctioned (in strategic war related sectors) would be leveled but its quite conceivable that the conflict would be kept to the S China sea and around it only its not even obvious that the US would automatically stop Chinese shopping via a block ade. The US wouldn't even be attacking the Chinese mainland. And China certainly wouldn't be attacking the Us mainland. The fight would be local to Taiwan. You can fight and trade at the same time. There are several examples of this in history. And even now Russians are free to come and go in Europe and set up businesses etcv.
Thank you very much for this video!
well reasoned and explained and i think your 1000% on target sir! thanks Anders
Svalbard, Norwegian territory where ru already have a presence and where the territorial government is somewhat 'unclear' is a likely candidate.
I was going to mention this.
Yes, Spitzbergen as they call it in the russian propaganda. It's just too far and logistically difficult. But they may do it as a warmup.
Norwegians should prepare. Each individual should get rations, water, medical kits....
@@traumvonhaiti it's a name I have read often in an atlas, all made in western countries. to be fair, I also read _Svalbard_ . we know now it is much older than the Dutch _Spitsbergen_ (from the 16th century) but my point is: using this name it not ruzzian propaganda, it's the old (pre 1925) ignorant name used by Dutch/German and many other non-Norwegian Europeans to name the whole archipelago while today it is restricted to the largest island only
@@traumvonhaiti Spitsbergen is the main island of the Svalbard archipelago.And also the old name for this area.
Well in Sweden we had a big cyberattack just a couple of days ago, it messed things up pretty bad, in my opinion we are already at war with russia, maybe not with tanks and artillery but in cyberspace and media, this is things that can do enormous damage to a country....
So true, Sweden have been in a low intensity war with Russia for a very long time with Russian cyber attacks, Russian threats, Russian mock attacks of Sweden with planes etc.
There are 1000+ russian spies in Sweden, our secret service is a gender-joke, the russkis could bring the grid to standstill in no time.
You have no idea who carried out those cyber attacks. But the fact that you blame Russia, and claim to be 'already at war', is precisely the kind of talk that might bring it about.
You Sweden chaps should've oblige russian fascists with very same medicine. Not a time for white gloves, inn'it?
@@robertatkins9419 well it not the first time it happens even if its not russia this time it has happened in the past...
And yes when another country attack another countrys infrastructure it is a cyber war...
But they have been in our sea and air space to where they dont have anything to do...
And the same goes for the propaganda, not long time ago i saw a clip from Russia news that said Swedish government take russian children because they was speaking russia...🙄
its not hard to see the pattern, as soon Sweden do something russia dont like they do stupid things like this or in the case with Finland drive refugees with new bicycles to the border.
A thoughtful take, Subscribed.
Wow, thanks for talking about this.
We all benefit from Anders contributions. No emotion, no clickbait just informed comment. Thank you.
You don't benefit from it, you suffer from it.
utter non sense. care to share how nato will defend against over 5k nuclear bombs?
@@riskinhos Thing is the bombs will most likely not be dropped unless russia feels threatened enough and a desperate sucker presses the button
This piece is literally clickbait. Idea of war between Russia and NATO is laughable, just tin medal generals trying to get more toys.
@@showdown66 Right on, showdown
Western Europe including the UK need to get over their hangups and past arguments and start to plan together for security on the assumption that US wont help anyone but themselves.
A bit over the top. Half of us Americans believe that Russia must be stopped, reversed and their transgressions adjudicated.
@@benahauswe may believe that but what if we get caught up in the Middle East and Pacific and are unable to adequately help Europe?
@@benahaus That is great to hear, but sadly your politicians have a history of not Listening to you sensible voters.
@@benahaus What percentage of your country want sensible gun controls?
That's going well then.
Your democracy may not be as democratic as you may believe.
It may not be as rational either.
@@bakedbean37 yes, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms of government).
That makes a lot of sense unfortunately. It's very scary!
Spitsbergen could be a more likely scenario as they already have a presence there, and it is more complex due to the treaty of 1920.
I think any fighting in Lapland would get Sweden and Norway involved fairly quickly.
And both have quite the formidable air force, so at least they could deny Finnish air space from Russia quite effectively, even without directly declaring war to Russia.
@@pRahvi0Finland's air force is pretty good too, especially considering that we'll be getting F-35s starting from 2026. I don't think Russia has answer to its stealth capability.
@@thetjt don't forget our artillery!
Artillery will be tracked down before u even shot mate@@kontraktofficial
Absolutely! And if NATO doesn't "trigger" article 5, it won't be worth a shit! And so won't all of our lives be either..
The highest art of war is to convince the opponent not to fight. Another super lecture Anders👍👍👍
There it is 🙂👍🏻
If you possibly bring yourself to give some of your fellow human beings - the ones called 'Russians - a microgram of credit, you'd seen that that's exactly what they are doing.
@@robertatkins9419 We are aware 👍🏻. Who did you think we were referring to??? The Chinese 🤔😉
@@GeigerFarmWell you weren't exactly clear. As it stood, it could have been interpreted either way. And the fact that ninety nine per cent of the commenters here are on the side of the channel creator, is it that surprising that I thought you too were on that side? And do you really need to be patronising and condescending about it?
@@robertatkins9419 I am solidly on his side. You mistake sarcasm for patronage 🙂. I realize that Russians are masters at disinformation and psyops. Know thy opponent 👍🏻.
Great analysis thank you!
I sure hope this doesn't escalate more... War is horrifying... You gave me a lot to think about..
Russia is already actively at war against each Nato country individually, trying to destabilize everything.
The question is: What can be done to put an end to this/Russia, once and for all (possible topic for another episode)
"What can be done to put an end to this/Russia, once and for all" - Are you sure you want to put an end for all?
Putin’s years are limited. He can’t play the slow game. His ONLY hope is that he can tip the scale of the US elections to Trump in order to sideline the US.
We can all die in a nuclear war. How about that?
Being geopolitical rivals or even being in a cold war is not a state of war, and definitely not actively engaged in war. Please, it might be worthwhile to learn basic definitions before doing some warmongering.
Biggest mistake in 50 years was not dividing up Russia to 100 different states in the 90's.
Putin’s time is limited. The Oligarchy has taken a serious hit; they will want to go back to business as usual. Putin dies, his successor blames everything on him, Russia pulls back to relieve sanctions, and the oligarchs get rich with the flood of Western cash to rebuild.
My thoughts exactly! A small border conflict in Suwalki corridor, where Russia tries to "save their citizens in Kaliningrad from the Western blockade" or some other Russia-is-victim excuse. And Russian bots together with western appeasers screaming: Are we ready to fight a nuclear war with Russia for a small strip of land that we can't even find on the map?
Not even that. Donbass style conflicts in Narva, Estonia (90% ethnic Russians) and Daugavpils, Latvia (60% ethnic Russians).
Are we ready to fight a nuclear war with Russia when there's no open invasion, but a clear domestic conflicts in these countries?
Can’t find on a map because they are illiterate, maybe. Probably can’t find Poland, either.
@@traumvonhaitiDonbas, 90 percent ethnic RuSSians, exactly, RuSSia moves ethnic people to another country then backs and stages an uprising as an excuse to steal land. Disgusting.
Spoken like a true Langley bot
При чём тут боты , ты бот я бот это на что влияет ? Автор ставит себя на место Путина ну и хорошо. Попытаюсь объяснить кулинарией что такое разная цивилизационная основа. Квашенную капусту ( на английский это слово не переводится ) можно делать в Лондоне и Вашингтоне только это будет кислая капуста. Что бы получилась квашенная капуста нужен холод 20-40 С. Кажется говорим одно и тоже но это в принципе разные продукты.
Thank you for your insight. I love this channel.
Spot on Sir, absolutely correct analysis.
It would not be very small operation that Finland would be dependent article 5. help to fend it off. And in modern world piling even few brigades so that it is not detected is pretty difficult if no at all possible. Finland would have ample time to mobilize troops.
So a small testing operation could not really be that small to really test anything.
Even if Russia brought a land force capable of occupying some slice of land in Finland, they'd also need to bring a lot of air defence for it against the Finnish air force - and possibly neighbourin countries' air force too since - I believe - it's (politically as well as operationally) much easier to lauch air strikes than to deploy ground forces. Especially since the Swedish air force is in way better shape than their army, I've heard.
And the US might still be willing to conduct air strikes against an occupying force even if they were unwilling to declare an outright war.
I think the idea is that they punch through and occupy some small parcel of land for "security reasons" - and then turn around and talk about negotiations to "end the conflict".
Some will be tempted to sit down and have those talks to avoid war. And this will encourage Putin to take more territory down the line. Inch by inch basically
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
“If you want peace, prepare for war”
Just a couple of quotes that came to my mind. They sound like if older generations knew something that our elites miss to understand.
I think you are not taking risks into account. Imagine there's a major conflict tomorrow.
West has everything to lose (its prosperity). Russia has nothing to lose.
So which side do you expect to be more decisive?
The West is not as concerned about losing it's wealth, as losing it's freedom.
Something Russian people have not tasted so cannot understand.
@@traumvonhaitirussia have a lot to lose, and showing weakness to people such as Putin and Xi is what is risky!
BTW that’s what got us in to this whole mess to begin with!
Those quotes were applicable at particular times and contexts. It is totally erroneous to think that they be applied anytime and anywhere.
@@traumvonhaiti only a fool would cower or talk with the Russians only the strong will survive.
Thank you Anders for excellent analysis. I have a question for you though:
You mention in the end that Russia could test NATO via some small operations. Would you consider that these are already on-going? I'm referring to Russia transporting asylum-seekers from Africa/Middle-East to the border of Finland. There has also now been three different underwater data and power cables cut-off during past few months by "someone".
If i may: while this is certainly part of russia's hybrid war operations, pressuring border security is hardly a big enough threat for triggering article 5. It does serve however to create tension within the affected country as it pressures their government to proof their ability to secure their foreign borders even against the "moral" prerogative of helping asylum seekers (both a soft or tough reaction will trigger political infighting among the domestic actors like human rights organizations, right-wing parties, you name it). Cutting underwater communication is certainly a more severe threat that qualifies for (and requires) a strong reaction. Yet - as we have seen with Nord Stream 2 it is hard to create hard evidence from underwater incidences and without that it is very unlikely to trigger significant military reaction. With regard to Nord Stream 2, i would argue we failed that test. Even with 90% confidence in the evidence of russia being the culprit, the collective West shied away from a strong reaction, thus embolding Putin to push some more - just a couple of months after the Nord Stream 2 explosion, communication cables and a gas pipeline were damaged in the Baltics. And again: no reaction by the West. If we do not step up our resolve, this will lead to ever greater threats.
90% evidence that Russia is a culprit? Are you OK?
@@musicnlove911- Blowing up their own pipeline? Your 90% certainly is an exercise in mental gymnastics.
I challenge the idea of northern Finland as such a target:
If Russia wanted to have the dispute with Finland without NATO being involved they have had decades to do that before Finland joined Nato.
Finland is one of the most defence-ready countries in Europe. They have a doctrine called "Total Defence" and are trained in guerilla warfare.
If Russia tried then:
* Either the nuisance would be small enough that Finland wouldn't need to trigger article 5 because they would throw out the Russians themselves. Sweden would probably show up to help anyway, due to the age-old Sweden-Finland defence pact.
* Or the invasion is so large that Finland and Sweden cannot throw the Russians out - and then it will certainly be large enough for the other NATO countries to take it seriously.
I otherwise agree with your assessment that Russia will try to challenge the coherence of NATO. I just don't believe it will be against Finland. Russia tasted that in the winter wars and Ukraine is called "Finland 2", as they show the same resilience. Going against Finland would be political suicide.
Thank you for putting these things into perspective and sharing your ' one step back / helicopter - view' I have been following you for a while and will certainly continue to do so. Please carry on like this.
This is a very enlightening video with a very pertinent point. It is important to speak about it well before that scenario becomes acute. And that the US has become a doubtful ally is a painful fact. Therefore, the EU must prepare for this type of Russian aggression and have a response planned out.
Thank you for bringing this up: as always, a great video. 👍
"And that the US has become a doubtful ally is a painful fact." This is double worrisome as much of NATO hardware is dependent on US being willing to sell munition in the case of war. Too many European NATO countries have bowed down to US buying their hardware and now they might face Russia without the US and without spare parts and munition.
EU and Europe have only a few months to come up with at plan, before Trump most likely take over and sell Europe to Putin. Who knows, he might start out with selling Alaska back to Russia as Putin already have invalidated that trade. We might have a new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact where they divide the world among themselves.
Tak for dit bidrag 🙂
Good points but (in simplifed terms for YT), I think you underestimate the willingness of anglo saxons to use agression to protect interests and/or deter further action. Look at the current responses to threats to global shipping in the Red Sea. Plus, any nation which doesn't fulfill it's commitment to article 5 will be out in the cold and they will beon their own when the next threats come along in the near future. Can smaller members of NATO afford NOT to fulfill commitments under article 5?
I think the weakness in this scenario is that Finland may be the European country most capable of defending against Russia. It would take relatively little additional support from NATO before Russia backs down.
But if the war in Ukraine has shown anything, then it is that Putin is willing to suffer a low for minimal gains.
@@michaelcederberg7937 The thing is that Finland can spank Russia in a way Ukraine can't. When Russia first invaded, Ukraine didn't have the advanced air cover Finland has.
Also, St Petersburg is within HIMARS range of Finland
I agree. Finland is not going to take any crap from Russia, and NATO is not giving up on Finland, and that is all here is to it. Russia is MUCH more likely to "attack" in some more ambiguous or nebulous way, such as computer hacking, or perhaps misinformation "troll farm" campaigns reshaping the political landscapes of Western nations. In other words, more of the same of what Russia has been doing the last 15 years or so.
the Fins did it before and if the ruzzians learned anything then that you do not mess with the Fins
edit: however, the Fins are also a member of the EU. if ruzzia were to stir up trouble in Lapland the Fins would no doubt get much military help not just from Sweden and the Baltics but from Denmark, Germany and many more - plus the Norwegians wouldn't idly stand by for sure. ruzzia would be in for a nasty surprise even without the US (or more precise: Trump) raising a finger.
@@embreis2257 Yes, I think Sweden always has Finland's back, and Norway has really shown themselves to be leaders in supporting even relatively distant Ukraine since Putin's big attack. The Baltics would need to tend to their own defense, but Western Europe is not going to stand idly by and watch the Nordic Countries get wiped out.
This is an extremely important point and I hope people hear this and take it seriously.
Read about this somewhere else but there people commented that this area is surrounded by thick forest so it's not easy for russias to move around. There are very few roads especially on russian side. It won't happen without Finns noticing it at early stage either. Finland also has a fresh DCA with the US so they had to be involved. In addition there is Nordefco and who says NATO is ready to collapse so easily? It's in everone's best interest to stay united!
Yes, you can see it, when Russia invades the country.
So, imagine a scenario where Russia launches an attack on Lapland. There are a few issues to consider here. First, Finland would retaliate by striking Murmansk's railway tracks and harbor, which is the home of the Russian Nordic fleet. This move would effectively cut off the enemy's supply lines. Additionally, Olenya, the nuclear bomber base, is well within striking distance.
Secondly, in order to prevent a two-front war, Finland would strategically fill the Gulf of Finland with sea mines, effectively blocking Russia's Baltic fleet and Kaliningrad. This would definitely cause a lot of tension at the Suwałki corridor. As a result, an attack against Finland would escalate rapidly.
However, blocking an attack in Lapland itself would be relatively straightforward.
You think russians are dumb, huh?
Russia has no reason to take Lapland. The Baltics, Poland, and Romania on the other hand...
@@alasdairhicks6731they have slim odds against the romanian natural terrain. slimmer even against the poles. the only weak spot are the baltics.
@@alasdairhicks6731they may take transnistria/moldova but it stops there
Thank you sir, for a well thought argument and analysis.
In war it isn't the most stuff or money that decides the outcome. It's human WILL or the lack of it.
You can have all the will in the world but if you anti got hardware adequate to your enemy's power its all over for you.
WW2 was mostly won through the most stuff and money. There was plenty of will to go around on all sides.
War is strangely so unlikely that the more you treat it as unlikely… the more likely it becomes
I consider lapland part of my family roots hence my father is from Lapland Salla near border. And as military service done Finnish woman, I'd go there!
Interessant og helt nede på jorden analyse, som altid. Tak! 👍
Jeg så netop en video på af de andre Ukraine war relaterede kanaler (Denys Davydov), hvor han efterspurgte kommentarer på emnet omkring en Rusland-Nato konflikt.
Jeg tillod mig at linke til din video. (Jeg håber, at det er okay. Jeg har aldrig gjort noget sådan før, så jeg kender hverken formalia, rettigheder eller begrænsninger)
I think you're on point.
And in addition to what you described, there will be massive disinformation campaigns and maybe a referendum of local populations that could create a strong ambiguity in Europe's public opinion. If people are not even sure about the facts anymore (just as an example: "wasn't this part of [insert country] actually an autonomous region with a mostly russian identity...?"), then it will be even harder for political leaders to mount a strong military response.
It's a terrifying scenario because Russia's invasion in Ukraine has already shown the West's priority of avoiding escalation at all costs.
But I think this doesn't work with Russia, they might even be encouraged by our attempts to deescalate. In my opinion, only a harsh and painful military intervention could deter Russia, but that of course is also a huge risk.
Thanks for the insightful analysis!
Well, what if tomorrow the predominantly ethnic Russian (90%) population of Estonian border town Narva decide to split off from Estonia and join Russia? Imagine your country sends troops to suppress a visually domestic conflict within Estonia.
What will that look like? A foreign army comes to suppress the local ethnic Russian population when there's no external aggression?
I think Anders is making a very good point. Test the waters and see how NATO members reacts.
Maybe start (bi)annual referendums of any bordering peoples to see if the votes radically change after Russia "liberates" the populace?
@@KingOfShadeEmpiremany regions were russified by a plan.
@@KingOfShadeEmpire It's also very important for any regions with high ethnic Russian populations in Baltic countries to be included and have a stake in Europe and if possible within the specific countries. They need to be Estonians-Russians or better yet just Estonians who speak Russian.
@@traumvonhaitiwhy not expel the ethnic Russians? If they want to be Russian and part of Russia they can move to Russia. They don’t get to unilaterally declare Estonian territory Russian
A significant thing to consider is what would the actual threshold be for Article 5 to be invoked, and would "All of NATO" actually respond (due to unwillingness or unpreparedness).
The US spends $169B on interest expenses per year (16% of the total budget). In 4 years the US govt with pay 2x as much on interest payments than the military (CFRB org). Article 5 might not see the light of the day if push comes to shove.
Correct. Many countries would not be willing to respond to an Article 5 request
Take another look at what Article 5 actual says:
Paraphrasing first, actual quote below:
Every other NATO country will assist the invaded NATO country by taking such action as that other NATO country individually deems necessary. And that might include the use of armed force.
"Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."
We can launch cruise missiles in incremental responses; low-risk.
no cos nazi ukraine is NOT in NATO simple
Just by looking the map Northern Finland is plausible place for Russia to stir things up. But when you dig things a bit deeper you might find out that it is also the worst place to start anything that requires manpower and logistics. Its basically just marshes, forest and hills up there. No people, no roads, nothing. Putin of course can justify anything to his minions so maybe some marsh area is the bestest ever and contains maybe long lost Russian vodka bottle so they have to have it. People will cheer one way or another. But logistics would be a nightmare. Only few roads that would be death trap for Russian armour columns. So in the long run it would be stupid place to start a conflict. Soviet Union found it out in the 1939. So did Germany and Finland in 1941. And if Russia tries it again some day I bet results would be the same and those are not good for the invaders.
Commendable analytical work.
Putin attacking Santa Claus? Well sign me up for military duty, I got Rudolph's back.
Sadly the Russians conquered part of Santa's mountain from us. The mountain called Korvatunturi is the home of Santa Claus and in the peace settlement with the Russians we lost the eastern part of it. Any breaches of territorial integrity are unacceptable, but Santa's remaining home is even worse 😂
That has been his goal all along, to destroy western Christmas. He hates the west and was behind 9/11 and he also adviced Dzingis Khan with the mongolian invasion. Bad Vlad.
Cringe
in Russia, Santa Claus (an analogue of Santa Claus) go to visit with a beautiful young girl (snow Maiden), they entertain children and adults, he gives gifts in large boxes and puts them under the Christmas tree, and also in Russia the new year is celebrated twice. Russia does not need your Santa Claus, who gives small gifts in socks
6:48 It makes a lot more sense now why russia risk shooting missiles so close to NATO borders (Romania, Poland) that they sometimes "fall" on NATO territory. I thought they would rather fear that article 5 might get invoked, but if countries can't be sure if invoking article 5 could surface cracks in the alliance, then russia can "test the waters" with less risk of a serious blowback.
I just don't think that NATO does itself a favor with letting russia slowly shift the redlines of "still acceptable, no serious consequences".
Some years ago I couldn't imagine that russia simply gets away with missiles-strikes which "accidentally" hit NATO territory, and now we're not certain if everybody would follow a call to arms if Finland needs to defend its Northern outskirts. It should look surreal, but with a major US presidential candidate who said NATO would be dead and the US would never come to defend Europe, it's really not a fringe idea anymore.
Our weakest defense seems to be against the influence of russian information warfare. If Western nations won't significantly ramp up effective countermeasures, then we risk seeing more and more Kremlin-appeasing people in power. With all side effects on further developments (how political discourse changed in the US, and how freedom of press is evolving in Slovakia / has evolved in Hungary).
It's a lot harder to reclaim freedom as it is to stop its erosion. Every politician who seeks a shortsighted advantage in siding with the Kremlin needs to face a fierce backlash. No matter how unfavorable opposing candidates may look, ask yourself if you really would prefer the russian version of "freedom".
It's not the same if freedom is limited in a reversible way (e.g. limiting sales of something or significantly raising taxes) or if the fundamentals for public discourse are shattered, fair-and-square elections are getting cast as rigged, and an insurrection gets repainted as rightful. These are dangerous ingredients mixed together, at a frightingly short distance to an irreversible loss of freedom.
they risk because they're idiots who can shoot for s*, you're giving too much credit to russian tech and general wisdom
From Ontario, Canada... very well said... I agree 100%... IMO we need to amp down the Russian disinformation and amp up our commitment to NATO... and put pressure on the UN to uphold the rules based order starting with Russia losing its seat on the SC. After everything that's happened since 1992, why do we still believe Russia will change.
Great analysis.
I understand that it was just an example, but there's effectively zero infrastructure on northern Finland and the only road and railway to there inside Russia is within artillery range from the eastern border. It's also the country most prepaired for Russian invasion of all NATO members so it would seem nonsensical to do that.
It all started from Chechnay when Russia realized they can kill and occupy territories and without any reciprocation. Then they attacked Georgia and that only confirmed Russian assumptions. Next was Ukraine and still there are people who believe Russia wouldn't dare try NATO.
The only reason Russia got away with its atrocities in Chechnya: The West did not want to help Muslims.
The same did the Muslims in Europe experience during the genocide in Srebrenica.
Bro Putin won't invade NATO in a trillion years. His military has been horribly exposed in Ukraine, what makes you think that he will end up attacking the entire Europe? Lol! His army can't even attack Georgia right now because he is so busy in Ukraine.
Because NATO isn’t Georgia, isn’t Ukraine or Chechnya, NATO is a whole different entity, Putin knows war with NATO is suicidal, the Soviets knew war with NATO is suicidal, Russia is economically dependent on the West and the West also economically benefits from Russia as well, so this frankly speaking is war mongering… not even the Russian military will accept a war with NATO, your logic amazes me.
no nato countries lol are you stupid???
Chechnya is a part of Russia actually and wanted separate at that tame. That war was the same anti separate like Ukraine with Donbass region in 2014…
While you are probably correct about the nature of a potential conflict, Finland would certainly NOT be the target. As small and remote as Finland is, it's not a country you can just take a bite out of and see what the reaction will be. It's probably the strongest point of NATO's eastern flank, without any NATO allies even being present.
You don't punch the hedgehog when there are easier targets.
In reality, the low hanging fruit are Georgia and Kazakhstan.
In the Baltics, I believe it's Estonia and Latvia given large ethnic Russian population. Especially in the border areas which are perfect for Donbass style scenarios.
@@TechTusiast I'm not really counting Poland as its only border with Russia is Kaliningrad. You're right Poland is stronger on paper due to a larger population and much more equipment. However their level of preparation is nowhere near the Finnish one, nor does their terrain favor the defender to such an extreme degree as the Finnish ones does. In fact that part of Europe probably has the most favorable terrain for the attacker and logistics.
Poland's military budget is surprisingly small, 2 or 3 times the Finnish one, I don't know their latest numbers. They have the same problem as most other European armies, personnel shortages. They have a professional army, which means they have to pay full salaries to them. That is extremely costly and eats up much of the military budget, that is why the Finnish one gets an insane amount for what it spends, the manpower is practically free, and significant in numbers.
Ukraine is not in NATO so not part of the discussion, it's also been a corrupt, poor and divided country largely stuck with old Soviet equipment and doctrine. It was not a strong military power, obviously the vast aid and necessity of war is changing that, but Ukraine is no military powerhouse.
Finland does not have a shortage of either manpower or equipment in the short term. Sweden and Norway have nothing to offer in manpower compared to what Finland can muster by herself. After weeks or months of high intensity fighting, ammunition and supplies would definitely be needed from friendly nations, but the stockpiles already in place surpass that of most if not all European nations.
You have to understand, Finland never downscaled after the cold war. The preparation for conflict has been ongoing for 80 years without interruption. Finland has prepared until this day to fight a war against a single enemy, alone if necessary. NATO wasn't on the table until recently.
@@balticwaterI agree entirely with your position. The only point I would add is that Finlands military basically has a single mission - oppose any Russian invasion. Russia would never get a chance to move into Finland with as little initial resistance like they did in Ukraine.
NATO cohesion is the target, not concurring Finland. I doubt the Finns would respond by invading Russia.
If the goal is to challenge article 5 and not to actually win the conflict - Finland is a good choice. That Finland is strong by it self, is the perfect argument for not getting involved.
What kind of operation would Russia perform? Finnish Lapland is indeed sparsely populated, so where exactly would Russians try to set their boots on the ground and why -- just making a territorial violation for its own sake, to attract attention, or taking hold of something with strategic military value? Or would they just like to camp in the middle of nowhere, waiting for something to happen? What season of the year would they choose? How would they manage their logistics to their offensive unit?
Lapland is no military vacuum, Finland has its land and air forces that are used to operating in that environment, so the offensive Russian unit would have bleak prospects for survival. Finland has bilateral defense arrangements with Sweden, and also the Flygvapnet has remarkable fast-moving striking power. And Finland has a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States, so the idea of fighting Finland alone (instead of NATO) would have far-reaching consequences that Russia should avoid according to this scenario, despite of having chosen a remote theater of its operation.
His scenario makes zero sense for Russia. Huge risk for no gain.
It's a cool explanation. Really simple. I like that
I’d love to see the comparison of Russia vs the European part of NATO - excluding Hungary and Slovakia…
And wouldn’t Finland, Sweden answer with force if Finland was invaded?
Finland absolutely would answer with force. Sweden too, even when not in NATO, most likely would. And if they are absolutely.
The question is if Finland and Sweden have enough power to resist Russia taking land.
Problem with lapland is that is remote, not much of anything there. So its "safe" to invade and hard to defend. And in a full ware defense of lapland would be a low priority. So in this hypothetical scenario of Russia just taking a piece of the northern part of Finland just to say "this is mine now", yeah, it would not. be entirely easy to prevent that.
Most likely, yes; Sweden would help Finland. But Sweden and Finland are just 2 of all NATO countries.
In Slovakia the commander in chief of all armed forces is the president (Zuzana Čaputová) with very pro european and pro Ukrainian / NATO views, if article 5 is to come into power than no matter what PM or his government thinks our forces would go and help.
@@AlexAnteroLammikko and maybe Norway - I think Russia would find it easier in Georgia or Moldova, but try something, they most certainly will…
Well if they go unto Lappland, shouldnt it be fairly easy isolate part of Russia say Konigsberg?
We have taken general peace in Europe for granted and regaled too much about beating Hitler and those Nazis as if as that will save us now and forever!
That is the downside when talking about history.
Yes, that's why people fail to see the wrong in expanding military alliances in peacetime. That's why people call negotiating with Putin "appeasement". They've forgotten the importance of collective security for EVERYONE, not just a few. They've forgotten what war looks like.
@@wolfswinkel8906 Yeah, you’re going to need to develop your arguments beyond just stating your opinions. As it stands, it’s just tissue.
FSB manipulated media, academics and politicians at will in Europe. Need better benefits to get better military recruits. Wise up.
@@bluecanary9417 I was agreeing with the OP's comment "We have taken general peace in Europe for granted". You have no idea what either of us were talking about, and that's okay. We all got opinions.
Ok, let's imagine that scenario in northern Finland. Russia occupies a small region up there. The first question is not whether it will trigger Article 5. as it will, depending on Finland invoking it.
The first question is what will our Border Guard and defense forces do? (Bear in mind; defense of Finland is carried out by us Finns)
Finland defends in depth, not lines. The idea is to draw the enemy to a halt and then dissect it. Finns would counter the Russians by cutting all land connections to the South, and isolating the entire Kola Peninsula. Our airforce would make sure nothing moves on the Arctic sea either. This would ensure there wouldn't be a stalemate, the immediate escalation would force Russia to up their game down on the Southern borders but Finland would have undoubtedly already made advancement plans to take the Karelian Isthmus and put them in action. When we roll our artillery on a striking distance from St. Petersburg it's on
The Gulf of Finland would be shut off from the Russians by our coastal artillery, and mined completely. Northern Baltic NATO members and Sweden would have most likely already cordoned Kaliningrad, preventing all Russian maritime and naval movement.
By committing the defense effort into a strong offense, Finland can escalate the proposed regional conflict into a larger battle and thus remove any doubt in the Alliance over forsaking the Article 5.
Thank you - quite scary.
It's obviously that without the US backing the whole thing, Turkey would never go into trouble for, say, Greece or Lithuania.
Therefore countries will have to form new alliances to ensure their safety, something like Poland plus Baltic states plus Scandinavia.
Or maybe at some moment Russia will just suddenly collapse as it did in 1917 and 1991.
this comment. It so obvious and there are still so many people who do not see it...
New alliances of Russia-haters. You can count Greece, Turkey, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria and Moldova out. When the Russians are transferring naval assets from the other fleets, Turkey will not be there to stop them. When the Black sea region boils over, Bulgaria will not be there to assist. If Trump is president of the US, Good luck with your new alliance.
Turkey would invade Greece 😊
More likely that Russia would come to Greek aid than say Poland.
Not sure about Turkey not protecting Lithuania or even Greece to be honest.
In the end they even supported Ukraine in some ways.
As for hoping for Russia to collapse sounds interesting, but the truth is one can not predict that happening for sure anytime soon and who knows who will replace the current state of the Russian federation in such cases.
I really think it is a bad plan if said plan counts on the most optimistic situation to happen.
At this point Turkey is NATO member in name only.
Sweden, Norway and Finland has seen this potential threat for a very long time. In this very momemt those contries are building "strategic depth" in that area and are reinforcing their military capabilities and increasing their cooperation to new levels. Finland and the finnish people have planned for a second winter war since the last one and have never relaxed - they know their freedom is not free nor cheap. That include a remote part of finnish Lappland. Murmansk and the military bases around it have been a possible flanking threat for a very long time. That is why it were a bombshell news that Russia put 3000 men in a base close to the finnish border. Luckily there is only one very very long road and railroad to that whole area going through a extremly big and remote aea with very few people. Hence it is relativly easy to cut off their vital supplylines. This while finland have a much much tighter supply chain, backed up by very close allies in depth. I think (and hope) Russia knows this.
Norwegian military has been ruined by the politicians over decades. Whatever reinforcements are happening, it´s too little and too late.
Finland is the only one who took the risk of russia serious enough. All easter countries should have mandatory military service like finland does. Also because of feminists i would like to see mandatory service to include all women as well
@@mikrosixtysixi think mandatory service for women is unnecessary. In finland we have a decent amount of female volunteer fighters. If some kind of service was to become mandatory, i'd hope it would be something like 6 months of community service or a 3 month boot camp. Enough to learn the basics.
Men are dispensible for a nation, 1 man can have as many kids as he wants to while women have to carry and give birth to them. I know this is a pretty rough way to look at things but i'd rather give my life so my girlfriend wouldn't need to grab a gun in her entire life.
Россия дала Финляндии возможность создать своё государство, СССР экономически на протяжении всего времени помогал ей. Но финны выбрали агрессию против Россией, видимо захотели лишиться своей государственности, дураков история ничему не учит
@@user-iz3dj2lk8e Финляндия опережает все страны бывшего Советского Союза, в том числе и экономически. зачем нам быть лояльными к России, если мы можем добиться большего без вас?
That particular scenario seems not very realistic atm, while there are much weaker points in NATO than Finland. Moreover, it will start anyway with hybrid warfare where it is not so easy to invoke fully Article 5. Baltic states are clearly under threat here. Artic conflict is also possible but when it warms up sufficiently.
Hybrid warfare is already at full swing
Anders, do a video on how often the US has actually cut off allies from military aid.
I always find your videos helpful and informative, Sir.
Keep it up!👍👍
With your theory, then I think Svalbard is actually even more likely area. Its already in a special relationship between Norway and Russia.
It is remote, and it doesn't have so much value really.
agreed
Russia don't have the logistics nor the airpower to do that.
@@carnie2_917 The Russian Northern Fleet is based just to the south of Svalbard on the Barents Sea coast, and they have dozens of ships and submarines. They're supported by the 45th Air and Air Defense Army, who have bombers, MiG-31s, and other fighters, including an air base on Novaya Zemlya. A surprise attack on Svalbard, with a cover story of protecting Russians in Barentsburg, might overwhelm the demilitarised island - as happened to the Falklands.
Make my day.....
Love the soothing green background
Brilliant analysis. Thank you Anders. The war is coming and you have told us about it (many times). I wish there were many more people than me hearing your message.
Excellent analysis - I really learnt a lot from that, and it explains a lot - thanks.
Shouldn't be news to NATO, as Finland clearly understood immediately February 2022. Imperfect as diverse groups are, they must ally to protect against bullies.
Hello, is it possible that you're working with or were contacted by the channel TLDR News? Your wording of Russia establishing a "security zone" in Northern Finland was used word for word in a more recent video by them
Oh man... have you ever been in Finland ? Have you ever asked yourself why Soviet Union was unable to defeat Finland in 1939-1940 and why Finland with Germany was unable to do anything except setting up the blockade around St. Petersburg in WW2 ? The answer is that almost all these lands from Finland till Moscow are woods and swamps with very few roads which are very easy to control, with drones, mine fields and artillery. It's totally impossible and makes no sense to run any combat actions here. And from the other side - there is nothing to fight for here: no oil, no other valuable resources, no russian-oriented population who will support the invasion, just swamps and woods.
Your comment is very realistic. There is realy no point to talk what would be if it would be. And specialy if you'v never left your office or even home office.
This was clear cut and informative, thank you!
Now, what struck me, is that Russia has already started to test the limits of article 5 with hybrid warfare. From cutting undersea communication cables to gas pipelines to cyber attacks to GPS interference to information operations and meddling in elections.
A managed escalation from this stage, would probably not jump to Lappland anytime soon, however, rather, involve something less escalatory. Like, say, disrespecting treaties in other areas, and perhaps encroaching on territories where it is easier to create some kind of half-baked dispute.
Now, of i keep the idea that it is in their interest to take somewhere remote, which i think was very well argued, the north-east passage and the archipelago of Svalbard looks like a more likely, less escalatory, candidate.
The other would be Moldova/Transnistria, however, that requires Russia to capture significantly more territory in Ukraine first, something that does seem to be highly unlikely even if US support is halted permanently.
They also flew fighter jets into Turley several times over the years and only stopped doing so when Turkey shot down one of them as it entered their air space. They slammed the hammer and complained internationally, but they _stopped_ sending fighter jets into turkisk airspace.
Russia only stopps when it is stopped. Plain and simple. They _WILL_ try to attack Nato countries like the baltics eventually and will only stop if Nato's article 5 is honored. Russia knows Nato won't attack them, pretending that they have "security concerns" are just them lying. They know if they attack Nato and fail, they can fall back and regroup because Nato countries will not attack them back.
If they attack let's say Lithuania and lativa in hopes of closing the gap between themselves and kaliningrad, and Nato doesn't respond with military force but only sanctions and threats, then Russia will see it as a win. If they do attack and Nato throws them out, they'll back down and lick their wounds and try again in 20 years. That is how the Russia grew from being just the principality of Muscovy to the largest country on earth over the centuries.
I basically agree. I still have doubts about the "Svalbard scenario" only because it would involve the russian navy as the main actor.
And we've all seen that the russian navy is nothing to write home about (and that's putting it mildly).
It doesn't seem to me that Putin thinks about testing the NATO already. My first thought would be that it's done just out of spite for blowing up the Nord Stream.
Putin might be mad but blowing up his own mega project is not a thing I'm willing to buy
@lorenzcassidy3960 the Russian navy! That's a good point, I didn't thought about that. Norway just got their new F35s operational. With some nice new missiles, by the way. That would make short work of the entire Russian northern fleet if they ever dared to leave Russian waters.
Good point 👍
The cut cables have been explained as not being 'hostile' actions. Not sure what makes them particularly friendly, though...
That is why we have the EU and NATO: to prevent the big powers from dominating the small countries.
But these organisations have existed for so long that the leaders of many countries do not remember the time without them.
We need to commit to invest and defend the strength of these organisations, especially in the smaller countries.
Just look at Brexit for how easy it is to lose what has been built over generations.
What about when nato abuses small countries too?
It has happened before, no one in positions of power are the good guys, protect your community instead.
'leaders of many countries do not remember'
I would add 'citizens of many countries do not remember'.
This is the main problem. It always is when history disapears from living memory.
NATO is good, EU is bad. EU decides too much.
The EU is dominated by the larger countries, especially Germany. The euro is essentially underwritten by Germany and controlled by German economic thinking.
Finland isn't good to even try, we have good army on our own already and very very close relationship with Sweden and Estonia, Norway would not watch aside attack like that so the whole nordic block would be fighting for sure
Why run the risk of being wrong? Prepare for it and it's less likely to happen or hurt anywhere near as much if it does. Fail to prepare and you are tempting fate.
Second time I've watched this Anders, it's very thought provoking. My mind is calmed by the thought that all the main players in NATO are already discussing this line of thinking and already have a positive reaction in mind that does not initially involve immediate military response other than in the area Russia has been naughty. Blocking access to the Baltic Sea, Scandinavian airspace and land access to Konigsberg (oh yes it is) for instance.
Konigsberg? it's old history
How did the sanctions (half of which are impossible to actually enforce) and asset freeze help against the war in Ukraine? No, you can't fight armed aggression with only non-armed response, that's weakness.
I love how you think calling Kaliningrad "Konigsberg" is supposed to be an own now... Like, after which war did the germans lose control over that particular piece of land I wonder...
@@VioletGiraffe He's not talking about sanctions, but rather a blockade.
Germany, at least, is dragging its feet. I don't see that kind of thinking here at all, and that worries me.
Never underestimate the cowardice or gullibility of modern politicians. There are would be Neville Chamberlain's waiting in the wings everywhere.
this is not a conventional war asshole is a NUCLEAR war where thousands of millions will die first in europe and USA
Neville Chamberlain is somewhat misunderstood. The RAF was undersized and was flying biplanes at the time of the Munich agreement. Chamberlain used the year he gained to grow and re-equip it with Hurricanes and Spitfires. And don't forget that it was Neville Chamberlain who declared war on NAZI Germany.
Without the Neville Chamberlain approach, the Cold War would surely have erupted in an active nuclear war. Don't think you can apply Chamberlain blindly to any geopolitical conflict like that.
@@Intel-i7-9700k Not even close to reality. The Cold War was _precisely_ from the motto of "peace through strength". The USSR knew the consequence of invading Western Germany, so they didn't. This level of policy clarity and willingness to do what you say you'll do are pillars of nuclear policy. Chamberlain et al on the other hand were willing to constantly cede ground. It was precisely that unwillingness to back up their promises (to the Czechs in particular) that led Hitler to think he could invade Poland without consequence as well. As such, being an appeaser was one of the _causes_ of the war.
You have it precisely backwards.
Chamberlin knew that Britain wasn't ready to fight Germany so he had to play for time, history tends to forget that.
Look out for places like Svalbard.
In Croatia, a drone fell in the capital city of Zagreb, in the middle of a student settlement, so no one reacted, let alone triggered Article 5 of NATO. Fortunately, it fell on the grass and no one was hurt (although it is still "unknown" whether it was sent from Russia or Ukraine)
Brilliant analysis! Thanks Anders for the heads up! Let's hope we have the courage to stand up to our convictions! Without democratic societies the world will be hell! 🌿
Brilliant is right. Too brilliant, actually. I wish it were less so, so I could disregard it. ☹
As a lifelong student of Geopolitics, this video has imbued me with a sense of dread, deeper than any previous analytics that have been generated by this conflict. Prof. Nielsen has beautifully (painfully) laid bare the Russian's skillset, as well as our potential facade in the West. Wein the USA, nervously await the month of November.
It was obvious for years that for whatever reason Trump wants to cause devastating damage to the United States.
But now it is becoming more apparent that he wants to cause devastating damage to the entire world.
You could also argue that the US at some point will join again. They did in WO I and WO II. Trump could delay the support, but I don’t see why America wouldn’t jump in in the long run. They severely dislike a strong Russia even if it’s not on their continent.
@@C4rb0neum Even with the polarization and populism popping up everywhere, including in the US, I don't think we're at a point where an actual attack on allies on a WW3 scale would be ignored by the US. They can't afford "the west" to be destroyed as a concept, as it would mean the loss of economics, political power and military influence.
@@C4rb0neum NATO is not USA. Even if USA chickens other countries will fulfil their obligations regarding article 5.
@@kamilpotato3764 Well, just look at the statistics of the militaries of those other countries: active duty, reserve, spending, readiness, R&D, etc. France is maybe the only first-rate military power in Europe. Half of Germany is on Rosneft's payroll. Europe can put up a fight, but can it win a fight against a battle-hardened Russia being supplied by its allies? This could be the Winter War all over again.
That makes a lot of sense.
Dude you are too right
Thanks for the dose of existential dread :-) Seriously though, excellent analysis as always! I wish our politicians would tune into your channel to hear your logic!
Very cogent analysis, as usual. Thank you.
I have watched this video several times because I cite it a lot. Only today a question came to my mind. Although the video is nearly 2 weeks old, you have probably moved forward, I really hope you can shed some light on it.
What have happened to the “Nordic Air Commander’s Intent (NACI)”? Has it moved forward? In case of an attach will Finland de facto have, a mix of F-35, F-16, F-18, and JAS39, 250 aircraft strong fighter fleet.
One has to look geographically.
The thing is. In all fairness Finland at the best position to be interacted with in any shape or form.
Too north to make sense. Just a shaitload of forest and lakes.
Outstanding as always. Thank you Anders.
This was an excellent video. Lots to think about after watching this one.
I would also be concerned about some islands in the Baltic sea. For example Gotland, as long as Sweden is not part of Nato, would be a relatively safe target. A bit riskier but still quite easy might be Åland, which is currently de-militaresed due to some 19th century agreement and where Russia already has a foot hold in the form of an embassy.
Yeah. Lapland sure isn't demilitarized, being so close to Murmansk
interesting to think that in this century the problem might be the imperial powers being unwilling to honor an alliance, whereas in the previous century it was that there was too much willingness to honor an alliance
Yes sir!! Another top notch analysis!! This is the type of expertise and clarity of thought simply not found on so many other channels. I'm really happy you're able to find the time to post more often these days. Many thanks!
Anders has a long carrier in the danish military behind him, and works as a researcher at the danish defence academy. So he's the real deal 🙂
this is the type of information in german television :D nothing new to me. Thought it would be more detailed.
I think an invasion by Russia in Northern Finland might have caused NATO the dilemma you describe if that was Russia's first aggressive act but not if it is a follow on to the Ukrainian invasion which would be the case now. Remember the West stood idle after Crimea was invaded but then acted after follow on aggression by Russia.
Moreover they stood idle even when russians invaded eastern Ukraine, it took russians shooting down civilian Boeing from Netherlands for the first sanctions to be engaged, the question is whether NATO values a country like Romania which could be attacked from the Black Sea, as much as they value Western Europe members.
Ruzzia is scared of Finland.
Russia isn't going to risk a full-blown war with NATO over some frozen forests almost completely devoid of people and resources besides pines and reindeer. Not even to poke to check for an article 5 response because even without NATO the Fins would make it a very costly offense. And Putin also would be handing NATO a casus belli on a silver platter for retaking the territory that was claimed from the Fins as part of their WO2 peace negotiation.
Putin has made a monumental mistake in invading Ukraine. He is in a deep hole now which only seems to be getting deeper as the war progresses. He is no longer in control of the situation. He is looking for a way out and I believe he sees that as the complete control over the Donbass region if he can achieve this. He will go no further because he knows he cannot. @@niktoinikak
@@niktoinikak Russia is 100% going to lose this as their economy and social order will collapse well before a defensively-fighting Ukraine runs out of land, men and materiel, even if the US cuts back on support.
NATO is well aware of this, so a more cynical view is that a victory achieved through a long grind that marginalizes their historical main enemy for an entire generation would suit NATO's agenda better so they aren't in any hurry to ramp it up and risk getting involved more directly themselves.
This video deserves endless 'likes'. For years I've thought that article 5 was never going to stand up when the time comes. I think some nato members will answer the call and fight, but not all of them - and that undermines article 5 (ALL is mentioned there, i believe)
8:54… Finland 🇫🇮 is as April 04, 2023 a full NATO Member. Article 5 will apply.