Russia invades Ukraine

[Strathclyder]

I certainly wouldn't trust Orban on anything. For years, I've considered him a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

Quite, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. It wouldn't be remiss to say that it'd be wise to keep a wary eye on him and Hungary as a whole going forward, as they are looking more and more like Europe/NATO's weak link in security with each passing day.

 

[Giugiaro]

I was left nauseated by the recent pictures of mass graves with piles of bodies of Russian soldiers.

Simply disgusting! Families are awaiting the return of their beloved sons, lovers and fathers in Russia, only for the Russian Army to leave them behind like trash.
Yes. These soldiers may be responsible for war crimes in Ukraine, but this is treating their kin like cannon fodder! Like, LITERALLY.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Quite, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. It wouldn't be remiss to say that it'd be wise to keep a wary eye on him and Hungary as a whole going forward, as they are looking more and more like Europe/NATO's weak link in security with each passing day.

I am absolutely convinced at this point that with Fidesz getting another supermajority, now is the time to start cutting Hungary out of EU and NATO structures. They are so thoroughly compromised by the Chinese and Russians, and there are no checks on their power.

Yes. These soldiers may be responsible for war crimes in Ukraine, but this is treating their kin like cannon fodder! Like, LITERALLY.

Nothing new in Russia. They have always treated people as expendable.

Anyway, my beloved Stefan Korshak (who has been impeccable so far) thinks that Russia is in severe trouble. The destruction near Lyman probably took out around 400 troops, and they simply won't have the resources or the willpower to try again. The attack to the north of Kharkiv by the UAF is also notable for being conducted by territorial defences and reservists - which means that Russian defences are simply melting.

Korshak also thinks that Vovchansk is very much in play, and this is a major railhead for the Russians. If Vovchansk comes under attack, then the question is where Russia finds more forces from. The 'legions of volunteers' haven't materialised, and even a general mobilisation would just mean hordes of orcs that will be sitting ducks for a battle hardened and increasingly well equipped Ukrainian Army.

There are other views that Russia is still gaining, and that they're just throwing as many troops as they can with no regard to the actual losses. But again, taking territory is one thing, but can they really defend it after taking so many losses?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The thing is they are not going to. Putin is delusional. There is no reason whatsoever for Finland to want to invade Russia.

I appreciate they are not going to invade, but out of interest, is there any desire in Finland to get back the land that the Soviet Union forced Finland to give the USSR at the end of the Winter War?

 

[najaB]

I appreciate they are not going to invade, but out of interest, is there any desire in Finland to get back the land that the Soviet Union forced Finland to give the USSR at the end of the Winter War?

Going by the Wikipedia article, it seems that it's not a hotbed issue in Finland.

Karelian question - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[AlterEgo]

Geopolitics in January

1. NATO/West had a respect for the abilities of the Russian armed forces
2. Finland and Sweden were neutral countries.
3. German defense spending was embarrassingly small.

Geopolitics in May

1. The Russian forces are a war crime committing laughing stock.
2. Finland (and probably Sweden) are joining NATO.
3. German defense spending has exploded.

Not going the way you planned this is it Vlad?

Don’t worry, someone will be along soon to explain how it’s all part of a big plan and Super Clever Vlad still has the upper hand. He’s much cleverer than us all in the West, after all!

 

[daodao]

NATO isn't going to invade Russia. Not now, not at any point, not ever. It's a defensive alliance.

Most of the world does not perceive as "defensive" NATO's meddling in Russia's "near abroad", which includes Finland/the other 3 smaller Baltic states/Ukraine [roughly where the railway gauge is 5 feet], or elsewhere (Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.). The West's perspective on the current crisis is very much a minority view; the UN vote was a mere token gesture, as in practice most countries have maintained relations with Russia (including transport and trade links) since 24/2/22 and not imposed sanctions. The West's view of war atrocities is in any case very selective; it backs and provides weaponry for the criminal Saudi regime that has terrorised Yemen for the last few years.

Sadly, Helsinki will now be at risk of suffering the same fate as Mariupol, as Russia (and the wider world) will perceive Finland joining NATO as an act of aggression, despite Finland clearly having no intention of attacking Russia. Russia doesn't need to invade to wreck Finnish cities; a barrage of missiles could achieve it. The bear needs handling with care (rather than being poked), which is the policy that Finland has followed wisely from 1944 until now, but seems {foolishly, IMO) about to abandon.

 

[TheEdge]

Most of the world does not perceive as "defensive" NATO's meddling in Russia's "near abroad", which includes Finland/the other 3 smaller Baltic states/Ukraine [roughly where the railway gauge is 5 feet], or elsewhere (Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.).

"Near abroad", newsflash, Russia can't dictate what it's neighbours do.

The West's perspective on the current crisis is very much a minority view; most countries have maintained relations with Russia (including transport and trade links) since 24/2/22 and not imposed sanctions.

Is it? 141 UN members voted for UN Resolution ES-11/1. 35 abstentions and 5 against. Doesn't feel like a minority.

The West's view of war atrocities is in any case very selective, it backs and provides weaponry for the Saudi war criminals who have terrorised Yemen for the last few years.

Whataboutism is always a valid defense to war crimes. Meanwhile more corpses turn up and a cold blooded murder was caught on CCTV

Sadly, Helsinki will now be at risk of suffering the same fate as Mariupol,

PAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's the funniest thing I've read in days. If Russia attacked Finland St Petersburg would fall before Helsinki.

as Russia (and the wider world) will perceive Finland joining NATO as an act of aggression, despite Finland clearly having no intention of attacking Russia.

Joining a defensive pact, aggression. Invading a sovereign state and threatening everyone else, not aggression. Yea, that makes total sense.

Russia doesn't need to invade to wreck Finnish cities; a barrage of missiles could achieve it.

What the same way Kyiv, Odessa and Lviv did? Oh, wait...

The bear needs handling with care (rather than being poked), which is the policy that Finland has followed wisely from 1944 until now, but seems {foolishly, IMO) about to abandon.

You mistyped "Forced upon it after a vicious war with the USSR" and that it's been drifting away from for decades.

 

[daodao]

@the edge

You have completely misrepresented me in your response. I do not in any way condone or excuse Russia's barbaric actions, but just recognise the realpolitic required in dealing with an extremely powerful paranoid nuclear-armed state, the need to stop upping the ante to avoid a nuclear WW3, and the selectivity/humbuggery of the West's stance in external affairs.

 

[najaB]

...but just recognise the realpolitic required in dealing with an extremely powerful nuclear-armed state...

The last few months have shown that Russia is more accurately described as a militarily weak state with a large nuclear arsenal.

 

[TheEdge]

@the edge

You have completely misrepresented me in your response. I do not in any way condone or excuse Russia's barbaric actions, but just recognise the realpolitic required in dealing with an extremely powerful paranoid nuclear-armed state, the need to stop upping the ante to avoid a nuclear WW3, and the selectivity/humbuggery of the West's stance in external affairs.

How can I misrepresent you by quoting your points directly?

 

[DustyBin]

Don’t worry, someone will be along soon to explain how it’s all part of a big plan and Super Clever Vlad still has the upper hand. He’s much cleverer than us all in the West, after all!

I read some comments on BBC HYS earlier, just out of interest. Apparently quite a few people think Vlad is holding back his best, most advanced tanks, aircraft, etc. and this is all just to soften up Ukrainian defences. Mind you, he managed to deploy all of two T-14s during the victory day parade so maybe he could send those! Parallel universe anyone?!

@the edge

You have completely misrepresented me in your response. I do not in any way condone or excuse Russia's barbaric actions, but just recognise the realpolitic required in dealing with an extremely powerful paranoid nuclear-armed state, the need to stop upping the ante to avoid a nuclear WW3, and the selectivity/humbuggery of the West's stance in external affairs.

The problem is that you use terms such as “NATO meddling”. Russia has spooked Finland (and Sweden) by invading Ukraine, as a result they’ve applied for NATO membership and NATO will say yes. How is that meddling?

I’m quite happy to accept that diplomacy between NATO/the West and Russia has been lacking, and that it’s probably not all Russia’s fault, but it’s difficult to hold your nose when dealing with a country that behaves the way Russia has under Putin. If anything we’ve appeased him when we shouldn’t have, and ignored him when we should have been listening. Nobody however has forced him to invade his neighbour on the basis of some 19th century geopolitical ideology.

 

[Falcon1200]

The bear needs handling with care (rather than being poked)

If we're using animal analogies I would say it's more a case of the rabid Russian bear poking, and finally awakening, the sleeping Western lion.

Russia (and the wider world) will perceive Finland joining NATO as an act of aggression, despite Finland clearly having no intention of attacking Russia.

Annexing some of another country's territory, then invading it in an attempt to annex more, involving mass murder and destruction, is a more aggressive act than anything NATO has ever done, or will do. Russia will of course spin things differently to its truth-starved population but most people know what is going on.

 

[AlterEgo]

One of the big takeaways from the conflict is that Russia is a military paper tiger and much less scary than some people thought. They’re crap, and it matters a little less now what Russia thinks of Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Suggesting Helsinki is “the next Mariupol” is diseased thinking. Putin will not attack a NATO country. The Finns are pragmatic and organised people an order of magnitude less bonkers than their insane neighbour; I trust their judgment.

 

[Giugiaro]

Suggesting Helsinki is “the next Mariupol” is diseased thinking. Putin will not attack a NATO country. The Finns are pragmatic and organised people an order of magnitude less bonkers than their insane neighbour; I trust their judgment.

Not many people want to hang around a drunkard who beats his wife, even after being divorced.

 

[oxfordray1]

@the edge

You have completely misrepresented me in your response. I do not in any way condone or excuse Russia's barbaric actions, but just recognise the realpolitic required in dealing with an extremely powerful paranoid nuclear-armed state, the need to stop upping the ante to avoid a nuclear WW3, and the selectivity/humbuggery of the West's stance in external affairs.

I don't think you were misrepresented at all. Perhaps you should write with more clarity in future.

 

[DustyBin]

One of the big takeaways from the conflict is that Russia is a military paper tiger and much less scary than some people thought. They’re crap, and it matters a little less now what Russia thinks of Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

Suggesting Helsinki is “the next Mariupol” is diseased thinking. Putin will not attack a NATO country. The Finns are pragmatic and organised people an order of magnitude less bonkers than their insane neighbour; I trust their judgment.

My biggest fear when the war started was the (widely accepted) rapid defeat of Ukraine, and an emboldened Putin lining up his “modern and highly advanced” military along NATO borders. Whilst I played down the possibility of a NATO-Russian conflict at the time, and still maintain that it would have been unlikely, the situation would have been far more tense than the one in which we actually find ourselves.

Putin is in no position to dictate anything to anyone and he knows it, even less so to start picking fights with countries an order of magnitude more powerful militarily than Ukraine.

 

[GS250]

To be honest, if Russia started to attack Helsinki I would expect others to come to their aid. Not necessarily NATO, maybe Sweden, who have quite a formidable air force would assist.

Cannot see it happening though.

 

[Strathclyder]

Most of the world does not perceive as "defensive" NATO's meddling in Russia's "near abroad", which includes Finland/the other 3 smaller Baltic states/Ukraine [roughly where the railway gauge is 5 feet], or elsewhere (Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.).

Russia can't dictate what it's neighbours do, end of.

The West's perspective on the current crisis is very much a minority view; most countries have maintained relations with Russia (including transport and trade links) since 24/2/22 and not imposed sanctions.

Is it really a minority when 141 UN members voted yes on UN Resolution ES-11/1 (with 35 abstinations and 5 all-out rejections)? Or have I somehow missed a seismic policy shift in respect to the majorty of the world's view on Russia's actions in Ukraine?
/sarcasm

The West's view of war atrocities is in any case very selective; it backs and provides weaponry for the Saudi war criminals who have terrorised Yemen for the last few years.

Ah, falling back on the old 'whataboutism' trope for the war crimes yet again. Nobody in the West is condoing the atrocities of those criminals in Yemen, nor are we condoning the atrocities Russia has committed in Ukraine. A war crime is a war crime, no matter where on this planet it's committed.

Sadly, Helsinki will now be at risk of suffering the same fate as Mariupol,

This is just flat-out bonkers. St. Petersburg would be more likely than Helsinki to fall first in another Russo-Finnish conflict, which isn't at all likely to happen as stated multiple times above.

as Russia (and the wider world) will perceive Finland joining NATO as an act of aggression, despite Finland clearly having no intention of attacking Russia.

Russia invading a soverigen nation and issuing threats to anyone who dares try and intervene isn't aggression while Finland and Sweden joining a defense pact is? Pull the other one.

Russia doesn't need to invade to wreck Finnish cities; a barrage of missiles could achieve it.

And how well has that been going so far with the likes of Kyiv, Odessa and Lviv?

The bear needs handling with care (rather than being poked), which is the policy that Finland has followed wisely from 1944 until now, but seems {foolishly, IMO) about to abandon.

The (rabid and paranoid) bear struck first, spooking Finland (and Sweden) sufficiently to want to join NATO to better defend themselves should they ever become a target. Seems like a perfectly logical thing to do and the furthest thing from foolish.

This was bound to happen one day - Finland has been slowly moving away from that policy it had foisted on it after that bloody conflict it had with the USSR ended - Putin merely sped up the process.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Most of the world does not perceive as "defensive" NATO's meddling in Russia's "near abroad"

The "near abroad" is a Russo-centric term, used by people who think that Russia has a given right to control countries that aren't in Russia. Wake up, those days are gone.

, which includes Finland/the other 3 smaller Baltic states/Ukraine [roughly where the railway gauge is 5 feet], or elsewhere (Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.).

None of those countries consider themselves to be in Russia's orbit. Kosovo, demographically, was majority Albanian throughout the entire period of socialist Yugoslavia and afterwards. Also, before WW2, the Baltic states were far more influenced by Germanic than Slavic culture.

Sadly, Helsinki will now be at risk of suffering the same fate as Mariupol, as Russia (and the wider world) will perceive Finland joining NATO as an act of aggression, despite Finland clearly having no intention of attacking Russia.

If they try that, they will get destroyed. The Finns have been preparing for this since the end of WW2, and I wouldn't underestimate just what the Finns are capable of doing. WW2 showed how capable they are, and their entire military is orientated around defending themselves against Russia. Do you really think the Finns aren't capable of reducing St Petersburg and Murmansk to rubble from within?

Russia doesn't need to invade to wreck Finnish cities; a barrage of missiles could achieve it.

With what missiles? Russia is running so short that they're having to use missiles launched from the Black Sea Fleet, which are intended for an entirely different purpose. There's simply no barrage available to them, and meanwhile the Finns are about to buy Israeli technology. What Russia has is also badly needed on other borders, particularly as the threat of the Chinese is always there.

You're massively overestimating the actual military capability of Russia. They're also having severe problems with producing new missiles, due to the sanctions.

The bear needs handling with care (rather than being poked), which is the policy that Finland has followed wisely from 1944 until now, but seems {foolishly, IMO) about to abandon.

The bear needs to go back where it belongs.

This was bound to happen one day - Finland has been slowly moving away from that policy it had foisted on it after that bloody conflict it had with the USSR ended - Putin merely sped up the process.

Finland, since around the 1970s, has been quietly integrating within NATO without officially declaring so. That's why it won't take long for them to join NATO, because they already work to NATO standards.

St. Petersburg would be more likely than Helsinki to fall first in another Russo-Finnish conflict

Agreed. The Finns are trained and ready, and they have a strong sense of national pride. Military service there is seen as honourable, and it's tough to get a good job without it.

 

[Strathclyder]

Finland, since around the 1970s, has been quietly integrating within NATO without officially declaring so. That's why it won't take long for them to join NATO, because they already work to NATO standards.

Indeed. Most of the framework is already in place behind the scenes and barring a few things, there wasn't much else Finland really needed to do apart from officially announce that they were joining. I fully expect them to be fully joined up with NATO by the end of the summer/start of autumn at the very earliest. It may take quite a bit longer for Sweden to join up though, unless there's some method (does such a method exist or am I getting my wires crossed somewhere?) to expedite the process.

Agreed. The Finns are trained and ready, and they have a strong sense of national pride. Military service there is seen as honourable, and it's tough to get a good job without it.

Quite. Anyone who thinks that the Finns would just roll over and accept the Russians rolling over to their side of the border, let alone welcome them as liberators - as Putin genuinely thought the Ukrainians would before being proved badly wrong - is occupying an alternate reality at best and utterly delusional at worst.

They are very well trained and more than capable of handing the Russians their backsides on a plate should they ever be foolish enough to invade. That was never in doubt (see the prior Russo-Finnish conflict for proof of just how capable the Finns are in conflict), Russia's catalouge of strategic failures in Ukraine have merely reinforced the view that they'd be in for one hell of a tough time should they try this in Finland.

(emphasis on 'should they ever', as again, I doubt it will happen)

 

[Cloud Strife]

Indeed. Most of the framework is already in place behind the scenes and barring a few things, there wasn't much else Finland really needed to do apart from officially announce that they were joining. I fully expect them to be fully joined up with NATO by the end of the summer/start of autumn at the very earliest. It may take quite a bit longer for Sweden to join up though, unless there's some method (does such a method exist or am I getting my wires crossed somewhere?) to expedite the process.

Sweden is a bit more awkward because they've more stubbornly protected their neturality throughout the years, but they're at a similar level to Finland when it comes to interoperability. So, from a technical point of view, they're also good to go. The question with Sweden might be about just how much NATO presence they'll accept during peacetime - NATO may well want freedom of access to the Baltic and for a base in Gotland, both of which can be tricky issues for Sweden. There's also the question of transit flights.

Finland up until now never really paid much attention to NATO breaches of their air/sea spaces, unlike Sweden.

Quite. Anyone who thinks that the Finns would just roll over and accept the Russians rolling over to their side of the border, let alone welcome them as liberators - as Putin genuinely thought the Ukrainians would before being proved badly wrong - is occupying an alternate reality at best and utterly delusional at worst.

They are very well trained and more than capable of handing the Russians their backsides on a plate should they ever be foolish enough to invade. That was never in doubt (see the prior Russo-Finnish conflict for proof of just how capable the Finns are in conflict), Russia's catalouge of strategic failures in Ukraine have merely reinforced the view that they'd be in for one hell of a tough time should they try this in Finland.

The other thing about the Finns is that their entire defensive doctrine is based around their advantages. Movement through Finland is tough at any time of the year, and that's before you count the 900,000 or so reserves. Unlike Ukraine, Finland will be able to quickly arm and equip their reserves, meaning that you're looking at Russia needing around 2.5-3m just to mount an invasion. They're running out of forces in Ukraine, so where are they getting the forces to invade Finland?

Even if you look at the Finns, they're an incredibly resourceful, self-reliant nation.

One interesting thing that I've noticed today: getting to Moscow is a lot, lot more difficult than it was before the invasion. I can fly from Berlin or Warsaw, and tickets are at least 500 Euro return via Turkey. It's even more crazy when you look at Minsk - you can fly to Vilnius for around 100 Euro return, but Minsk is around 400-450 with an insane flight time of around 24 hours.

 

[birchesgreen]

The geography / climate helps. Finland can't just wing it!

 

[Strathclyder]

Sweden is a bit more awkward because they've more stubbornly protected their neturality throughout the years, but they're at a similar level to Finland when it comes to interoperability. So, from a technical point of view, they're also good to go. The question with Sweden might be about just how much NATO presence they'll accept during peacetime - NATO may well want freedom of access to the Baltic and for a base in Gotland, both of which can be tricky issues for Sweden. There's also the question of transit flights.

Finland up until now never really paid much attention to NATO breaches of their air/sea spaces, unlike Sweden.

Ah I see. And yeah, I did think that Sweden's being fiercely protective of it's neturality would present a few issues in terms of NATO having a presence there, particularly in peacetime. Certainly those are issues Sweden and NATO will have to sort out in some way going forward.

The other thing about the Finns is that their entire defensive doctrine is based around their advantages. Movement through Finland is tough at any time of the year, and that's before you count the 900,000 or so reserves. Unlike Ukraine, Finland will be able to quickly arm and equip their reserves, meaning that you're looking at Russia needing around 2.5-3m just to mount an invasion. They're running out of forces in Ukraine, so where are they getting the forces to invade Finland?

Even if you look at the Finns, they're an incredibly resourceful, self-reliant nation.

Quite. All of that makes Russia invading Finland now a complete and utter non-starter with or without Finland officially being part of NATO, and for all his lies, bluster and threats, Putin knows that.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The geography / climate helps. Finland can't just wing it!

Very much so. Invade now, and you're going to suffer in the mires, swamps and more. Invade in winter, and you'll be facing an enemy which is equipped for winter warfare while your guys are running around with entirely unsuitable equipment.

Ah I see. And yeah, I did think that Sweden's being fiercely protective of it's neturality would present a few issues in terms of NATO having a presence there, particularly in peacetime. Certainly those are issues Sweden and NATO will have to sort out in some way going forward.

It's definitely the one sticking point for swift NATO accession, although I suppose it's probable that NATO will agree that these are issues to be sorted out later. There's no pressing need for a NATO base in Sweden, and the Swedes don't necessarily need a NATO fighting presence at this moment.

 

[Strathclyder]

It's definitely the one sticking point for swift NATO accession, although I suppose it's probable that NATO will agree that these are issues to be sorted out later. There's no pressing need for a NATO base in Sweden, and the Swedes don't necessarily need a NATO fighting presence at this moment.

Yeah, it's not a critical need at the moment. Something to sorted at a later date.

 

[coppercapped]

Sweden is a bit more awkward because they've more stubbornly protected their neturality throughout the years, but they're at a similar level to Finland when it comes to interoperability. So, from a technical point of view, they're also good to go. The question with Sweden might be about just how much NATO presence they'll accept during peacetime - NATO may well want freedom of access to the Baltic and for a base in Gotland, both of which can be tricky issues for Sweden. There's also the question of transit flights.

I'm not sure that I quite understand. I'm not sure that NATO can have a 'presence'; it's not a country it's more of a club. I can however see how military personnel of other member countries of NATO can be present on Swedish territory, but from a logistics point of view I don't see a reason for large numbers of troops from other NATO countries being based in Sweden under normal circumstances.

Also I can't see why, at the moment at least, 'NATO' would want a base on Gotland as other NATO countries already border the Baltic; sea access is possible through Danish waters and air cover can be supplied from any or all of Denmark, Germany, Poland and the three Baltic states. If Sweden joins NATO then Swedish military facilities will be available to the armed forces of other member countries as required.

If Finland joins NATO and Sweden decides not to do so, then Finland can be supplied by sea and air without have to cross Sweden's territory.

Finland up until now never really paid much attention to NATO breaches of their air/sea spaces, unlike Sweden.

I have no information about Finland's reactions, so I can't comment!

 

[JamesT]

I'm not sure that I quite understand. I'm not sure that NATO can have a 'presence'; it's not a country it's more of a club. I can however see how military personnel of other member countries of NATO can be present on Swedish territory, but from a logistics point of view I don't see a reason for large numbers of troops from other NATO countries being based in Sweden under normal circumstances.

Also I can't see why, at the moment at least, 'NATO' would want a base on Gotland as other NATO countries already border the Baltic; sea access is possible through Danish waters and air cover can be supplied from any or all of Denmark, Germany, Poland and the three Baltic states. If Sweden joins NATO then Swedish military facilities will be available to the armed forces of other member countries as required.

If Finland joins NATO and Sweden decides not to do so, then Finland can be supplied by sea and air without have to cross Sweden's territory.

I have no information about Finland's reactions, so I can't comment!

Sweden's current status outside of NATO and tendency to neutrality doesn't preclude them running exercises with members of other nation's armed forces, for example:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/activities/exercises/northern-wind/

Northern Wind is a Swedish Army Exercise conducted in the north-east part of Sweden during march 2019. A total of 10 000 personnel is participating in the exercise. Of these, approximately 7 000 comes from our partner nations: Finland, Norway, USA and Great Britain.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I'm not sure that I quite understand. I'm not sure that NATO can have a 'presence'; it's not a country it's more of a club. I can however see how military personnel of other member countries of NATO can be present on Swedish territory, but from a logistics point of view I don't see a reason for large numbers of troops from other NATO countries being based in Sweden under normal circumstances.

There doesn't need to be large numbers, but it's more of a deterrent than anything else. Look at the British presence in Estonia, for instance - it's not a huge presence, but it's a very clear sign that attacking Estonia means attacking the UK as well as Estonia.

In general, NATO needs more bases with multinational forces stationed there.

Also I can't see why, at the moment at least, 'NATO' would want a base on Gotland as other NATO countries already border the Baltic; sea access is possible through Danish waters and air cover can be supplied from any or all of Denmark, Germany, Poland and the three Baltic states. If Sweden joins NATO then Swedish military facilities will be available to the armed forces of other member countries as required.

Gotland is incredibly important when it comes to controlling the Baltic Sea. If there's a NATO presence on Gotland with artillery, then Russian ships within the very thin international corridor are within range. Yes, you could put the weapons in Latvia, but Sweden (from a Russian perspective) is considerably more frightening. There's also no risk of sabotage from ethnic Russians, unlike in Latvia.

The Polish media today is reporting that the Russian and Ukrainian generals are holding talks with a view to avoiding outright war. Could this be a sign that the Russian military leadership is taking command of the war?

 

[TheEdge]

I have no information about Finland's reactions, so I can't comment!

Up until these events Sweden has been very strictly neutral, going back centuries unlike Finland which really had neutrality thrust upon it after the Winter War and Continuation Wars by, yup, you guessed it, the USSR. In the following years Finland was much more forgiving of Western transgressions of its neutrality and didn't really react to things like NATO aircraft in their airspace. Sweden however treated everyone identically, NATO aircraft would be chased off with the same reaction as Warsaw Pact ones.