Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/10/08 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau explains the differing perspectives on Russia's military readiness following the Ukraine conflict, with varying opinions on the timeline and quality of troops near Finland's border.
Military analysts, policymakers
Insights on the potential impact of Russia's military readiness on regional security dynamics.
#MilitaryReadiness #Russia #Finland #NATO #InternationalRelations
Well, howdy there, Internet of People. It's Beau again.
So today we are going to talk about Finland and Russia and military readiness
and how long it will take Russia to get back up to where it was
prior to everything that's happened over there.
We're going to do this because we have a question from somebody in Finland.
I'm from Finland. One of our secretaries in the foreign ministry said it would take up to three years
for Russia to put troops near our border like before their war in Ukraine.
My father said he was wrong and that Russia could put troops there much faster.
But I think he's trying to convince me to not apply for our defense force.
Many of us are applying. Do you have an opinion on this?
For Americans, the reason that sounds so strange as far as the applying and all of that,
I'm fairly certain Finland has like universal service for men and women apply.
OK, now to the actual question.
The foreign ministry saying up to three years.
Your father is saying much faster. They're both right.
They're looking at it through very different lenses.
They're looking at it from different perspectives.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine severely degraded their war fighting capability.
Their military has been degraded substantially,
and it is going to take a long time to get back up to speed.
They lost a lot of trained troops.
They lost a lot of equipment to vehicles and personal equipment.
And it takes time to replace all of that stuff.
So the government official is talking about it from the perspective of quality and quantity,
because prior to the war, Russia had troops relatively close up there,
and they were decently trained and pretty well equipped.
So that is what that official is looking at.
Looking through the perspective of what a government should do in that situation.
Your father is probably coming from the perspective of what they will do,
which is send a bunch of untrained, ill-equipped conscripts up there.
That's the difference.
You know, Finland places a pretty high value on quality training.
Russia, not so much.
So from your father's perspective, they'll just put a bunch of ill-trained people up there
with the bare minimum of equipment, and those are the troops near your border.
And if Finland completes the process to join NATO,
yeah, that's pretty likely that they probably will do that.
At the same time, the government official is also correct.
With those troops that they'll first send up, they're not really going to be a threat.
They're going to be a placeholder while they get the equipment and get the training they need.
I think three years is optimistic.
The amount of damage the Russian military has sustained is immense.
And we're not just talking about losses here in the sense of personnel.
The equipment and the disruption of what little professional military they had is substantial.
It's going to take them a long time to recover from that.
But at the same time, if there's one thing we've learned about the Russian military lately,
they don't really care about quality.
So your dad's assessment that they'll put troops there faster is probably accurate.
Russia is ??? there are already people debating now what the third most powerful military is,
because Russia's not it anymore.
So it's going to be a while for them to get back up to speed.
I don't know how that factors into your decision making on whether or not you want to apply.
But that's where both people are coming from.
Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}