Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Finland and Sweden Announce They Will Apply for NATO Membership

Finland and Sweden Announce They Will Apply for NATO Membership

Finland President reports Putin had ‘calm’ response to NATO membership news.

Russia’s saber-rattling over Finland‘s potential move to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization didn’t go over as well as it had hoped.

The country’s president, Sauli Niinisto, has officially announced Finland will apply for membership in the NATO military alliance. This move came hours before Sweden’s governing party backed a plan to join the trans-Atlantic alliance due to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Sunday’s announcement comes after Niinisto and Finland’s prime minister, Sanna Marin, said on Thursday they both favoured membership in NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), giving a green light for the country to apply.

“Today, we, the president and the government’s foreign policy committee, have together decided that Finland … will apply for NATO membership,” Niinisto told reporters in the presidential palace in Helsinki.

Niinisto called Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday to tell him of Finland’s plans to join the alliance. Putin said such a move would hurt Russian-Finnish relations.

“I, or Finland, are not known to sneak around and quietly disappear behind a corner. It is better to say it straight what already has been said, also to the concerned party and that is what I wanted to do,” he said on Sunday about his call.

Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson indicates that the move is being made because a policy of alignment with NATO is better for Sweden.

“Non-alignment has served us well, but our conclusion is that it will not serve us as well in the future,” she said.

Supporters of joining the alliance will now command a broad majority in Sweden’s Riksdag with much of the opposition already in favour, and a formal application by Andersson’s minority government will follow.

Swedish officials expressed concerns about nuclear weapon deployment and bases, which will likely play a role in upcoming discussions with the treaty organization.

The party said Sunday that if Sweden’s application were approved, it would work to express “unilateral reservations against the deployment of nuclear weapons and permanent bases on Swedish territory.”

…A security policy review by the parties in Sweden’s parliament presented on Friday concluded that Swedish NATO membership would reduce the risk of conflict in northern Europe.

The report stopped short of offering a concrete recommendation on whether to join, but noted that it was “not realistic to develop bilateral defence alliances outside existing European and Euro-Atlantic structures.”

It also noted that “within the framework of current cooperation, there is no guarantee that Sweden would be helped if it were the target of a serious threat or attack.”

It appears that the two new memberships will get approved quickly.

On Tuesday, Mr. Niinisto is scheduled to begin a two-day state visit to Sweden. There is a widespread assumption that the two countries will submit their applications “hand in hand,” which may occur during that visit, assuming that both parliaments vote to go ahead.

NATO has said that it expects to approve both applications quickly, because it already works closely with Sweden and Finland. Then the governments of all 30 current members must ratify the applications.

Niinisto claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin responded “calmly” when informed of the NATO plans.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

chrisboltssr | May 16, 2022 at 9:28 am

The United States needs to leave NATO.

    Whitewall in reply to chrisboltssr. | May 16, 2022 at 9:42 am

    Well Russia would love that.

      chrisboltssr in reply to Whitewall. | May 16, 2022 at 11:04 am

      Perhaps. Those countries should be handling their own defense and not relying upon the United States to do it for them.

    markinct in reply to chrisboltssr. | May 16, 2022 at 9:51 am

    I disagree. We need to hold our German allies accountable for their obligations to the alliance and for their culpability for enriching and empowering their most obvious and ardent adversary.

    But let’s also look at what we have learned. The Russians are capable of much evil, and there are European countries that will not only fight, but live up to their obligations.

      Guardian79 in reply to markinct. | May 16, 2022 at 10:14 am

      Some European countries are willing to fight and live up to their obligations. You look at how Eastern European countries and Western European countries reacted, it’s clear Eastern is more vested in defense. Scholz and Germany is already backing off his/their pledge to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. France, Italy and Spain have not lived up to their commitment.

      chrisboltssr in reply to markinct. | May 16, 2022 at 11:05 am

      That’s precisely why the United States should leave NATO.

      CommoChief in reply to markinct. | May 16, 2022 at 11:29 am

      Nothing would prevent a USA that had become independent of NATO from choosing to assist a NATO member Nation. The EU is already attempting to set up a parallel military commitment comprised of its members.

    Guardian79 in reply to chrisboltssr. | May 16, 2022 at 10:18 am

    The EU is the 2nd largest economy in the world, but several western European countries spend less then 2% of GDP on defense, instead they rely on the US for their protection. Even Germany’s Scholz is backtracking on his earlier commitment to increase defense spending. If Europeans are unwilling to spend adequately in defense of themselves, why should the US defend them and it’s soldiers die for them?!

    Peabody in reply to chrisboltssr. | May 16, 2022 at 10:19 am

    Well, it is time for a name change. NATO is no longer NATO—it has become the New UN. The Old UN is just a country club where those at the top spend all the money on themselves.

    MattMusson in reply to chrisboltssr. | May 16, 2022 at 10:22 am

    Europe is a Nasty continent that started WWI, WWII and is now trying to start WWIII.

    Now with current Energy and Raw Materials shortages, look for Europeans to implement neo-colonialism. Watch as they carve out parts of Africa to get their gas and minerals.

    And, even now, they are setting up shell corporations to buy Natural Gas using rubles and reselling it for dollars to national energy companies so they can appear to be compliant with the sanctions against Russia.

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to MattMusson. | May 16, 2022 at 10:38 am

      I think China would love people to believe everything you’ve just said.

      Remind me though, which European nation invaded China and attacked Pearl Harbor in the late 30s and early 40s?

      Who is trying to start World War 3, given Russia is as much Asian as European, and given the tremendous restraint exercised by European countries to avoid escalation of the conflict beyond Ukraine?

      Which continent is China in, given they’re doing the most extensive investment in Africa, often in exchange for mineral and other resource rights?

      Perhaps Europe is no worse than any other continent on any of these things. It would be easy to point at countries from every continent except Antarctica that have engaged in warmongering, resource capture and colonialism. Europe’s only real distinction is how many of its countries demonstrate extreme effectiveness and efficiency when they act.

        CommoChief in reply to AnAdultInDiapers. | May 16, 2022 at 11:52 am

        Which world power trained the Japanese Navy? Which world power declined to enforce the Naval restrictions of the Treaty of Washington? Which world power with significantly more interest in the East than any other declined to oppose the Japanese invasion of Manchuria?

        Answer: the UK.

        Restraint by the West? Shipping billions in finance and supplying the anti tank and likely anti ship missiles that are proving to be the decisive edge, levying broad sanctions, making statements that the goal is a lengthy war to degrade the Russian military, destabilize its Govt and topple Putin isn’t very restrained. Nor was the proxy war funded by the West since at least 2014. Nor is seriously considering admitting Finland or Sweden to NATO.

          Turtler in reply to CommoChief. | May 16, 2022 at 10:04 pm

          “Which world power trained the Japanese Navy?”

          Mostly the British Empire, with some honorable mentions from others. Mostly at a time when Japan was a reasonably sane and friendly member of the international community.

          ” Which world power declined to enforce the Naval restrictions of the Treaty of Washington?”

          Pretty much everybody., including the US.

          ” Which world power with significantly more interest in the East than any other declined to oppose the Japanese invasion of Manchuria?”

          Uh, pretty much everybody. Britain, France, Germany, US, USSR, Italy.

          Hell, the damning Lytton Report about the invasion of Manchuria was primarily watered down (to its still devastating indictment) by the French representative of the Commission.

          And then both the British, US, and Dutch largely imposed an inconsistent and frequently ineffective regimen of negotiations and sanctions as the Japanese conquered more and more of the Far East until finally Southern French Indochina was the last straw.

          Trying to blame all of this on the British is wrong.

          “Restraint by the West? Shipping billions in finance and supplying the anti tank and likely anti ship missiles that are proving to be the decisive edge, levying broad sanctions, making statements that the goal is a lengthy war to degrade the Russian military, destabilize its Govt and topple Putin isn’t very restrained.”

          It’s certainly more restrained than Putin threatening to nuke half the countries on his border. Or I might add launching the war in the first place.

          ” Nor was the proxy war funded by the West since at least 2014.”

          The “proxy war” in 2014 was a case of Putin launching a series of false flag invasions and attempts to slice-and-dice a neighboring country that would’ve made the Kwantung Army proud. Ultimate responsibility for “lack of restraint” on those grounds must lie with the Kremlin.

          “Nor is seriously considering admitting Finland or Sweden to NATO.”

          Why? The Kremlin’s been shown it cannot be trusted to abide by the international agreements it made and it has (unwisely) been shooting off at the mouth threatening neighboring countries. Notably, the number of violent conflicts between NATO countries and Russia in Europe remains zero; those between Russia and neutral nations are about half a dozen, and the main time US and Russian forces clashed was in Syria when some particularly stupid Wagner mercs decided to attack US SOF.

          That doesn’t mean this should be our main concern, it isn’t, compared to the Brandon Bundh and their illegitimate rule. But trying to blame the British specifically for Japan going rabid in the 1930s or arguing that the West’s policy on Ukraine shows lack of restraint while omitting Putin’s is rather remarkable.

          AnAdultInDiapers in reply to CommoChief. | May 17, 2022 at 4:28 am

          In addition to the comments by Turtler, I’d draw your attention to the Battle of Tsushima, in which the British trained Japanese navy humiliated the Russian navy.

          I don’t think we need to apologise for helping an Asian power defeat an expansionist European one.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | May 17, 2022 at 10:04 am

          The UK was THE world power of the day. It dominated Asia. It’s empire had carved out treaty ports of Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai. The empire included the Indian subcontinent, the continent of Australia, New Zealand, Burma and Indonesia.

          To attempt to portray any other nation or group of nations as reaching the level of the British Empire’s investment, control, capacity or responsibilities in Asia is farce. The east was a British sphere; they were the hegemony in the east from the mid 1700s as the East India Co pushed out the Dutch and later the French. They loudly and vociferously proclaimed it to be so. If they ‘talk the talk’ then they must be required to ‘walk the walk’.

          I would submit that publicly calling for destabilizing a government is not in any way restrained. Nor is funding an open proxy war. In secret or in a non attributable way sure but not with Sec Def, Sec State, POTUS, PM among others openly calling for a years long war, funded by the west with the specific intent to crush the economy and military capacity of another nation.

          This isn’t an issue of whether the ends are, on balance, a worthy goal. It’s one of honesty in describing the means being used to achieve those end results. Whatever else they are, they are not ‘restrained’ actions. They are quite provocative.

      Sisu in reply to MattMusson. | May 16, 2022 at 11:12 am

      It is the corrupt career politicians in DC who are and have for decades been laundering tax money through the Ukraine, along with the State Dept (and 5Is) and other “deep state” bureaucrats (think “gain of function” and “bioweapons” overseen by fraudchi) and the defense industry, which is playing with the “matches” of WWIII and the likely use of tactical nukes and kinetic weapons.

      It is the illegitimate powers within the US government which are out of control.

      Turtler in reply to MattMusson. | May 16, 2022 at 9:57 pm

      “Europe is a Nasty continent that started WWI, WWII and is now trying to start WWIII.”

      ‘Europe” did less to start the World Wars than bad actors across the globe.

      “Now with current Energy and Raw Materials shortages, look for Europeans to implement neo-colonialism. Watch as they carve out parts of Africa to get their gas and minerals.”

      You’re kind of late to the party; I’ve been hearing people whine about “French Africa” for decades now.

      “And, even now, they are setting up shell corporations to buy Natural Gas using rubles and reselling it for dollars to national energy companies so they can appear to be compliant with the sanctions against Russia.”

      Indeed

    TrickyRicky in reply to chrisboltssr. | May 16, 2022 at 10:24 am

    As well as the UN. Neither organization is credible.

    The funniest thing you can ask any democat useful idiot – ON CAMERA: would they send their son to fight and die for Sweden? Of Finland? Or Turkey, for that matter.

    But they’d send YOUR son.

The most important question is “Will they pay their fare share?”

    AnAdultInDiapers in reply to LB1901. | May 16, 2022 at 10:42 am

    Both of them spend well under 2% of their GDP on defence at present.

    I would however posit that both would individually contribute far more in technology and combat capability than most existing NATO members, even without an increase in their military spending.

healthguyfsu | May 16, 2022 at 9:51 am

Wants to join but already trying to set demands…what lovely partners to work with.

The EU is the 2nd largest economy in the world! Yet, nearly all the major European countries spend less than 2% of GDP on defense. Instead they rely on US military spending and power. It’s time for the EU to step up in their own defense.

    Peabody in reply to Guardian79. | May 16, 2022 at 10:20 am

    Who do they have to defend against?

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to Peabody. | May 16, 2022 at 10:40 am

      Russia.

      I’m in Europe and I agree that the dependence on the US is excessive, and that European countries (within and beyond the EU) need to contribute to NATO.

    Gosport in reply to Guardian79. | May 16, 2022 at 12:15 pm

    EU is not the same thing as NATO of course, but the EU average percentage of GDP spent on defense in 2020 was 1.6. For example, Finland at 2.0 and Sweden at 1.3 are EU but not currently NATO.

    Yes, many NATO countries are not meeting their 2.0% obligations . However, many if not most of the major ones are.
    UK spent 2.2
    France spent 2.1
    Poland spent 2.1
    Greece spent 2.6
    Turkey spent 2.9
    Norway spent 2.0

    Notable NATO members not carrying their loads are Germany at 1.4, Italy at 1.6, Netherlands at 1.5, Spain at 1.2, and Canada at 1.4.

Putin: “Oopski.”

AmyinHinckley | May 16, 2022 at 10:26 am

Interesting that they are looking to join but segments of the government want to negotiate the terms of that deal (no nukes, no bases). In other words, just let us in under the US defense umbrella and make them pay for it all.

    AnAdultInDiapers in reply to AmyinHinckley. | May 16, 2022 at 10:46 am

    Not wanting nuclear weapons deployed on their territory is entirely irrelevant to whether they pay their way. Not wanting bases on their territory means other NATO powers don’t have to pay to build bases there, and loses out on the economic benefits of having a large community paid for by other countries. Not having a foreign base means that they’ll need to absorb and fight off any direct attack by themselves while other countries mobilise and start troop movements.

    So no, they’re actually negotiating a worse position than they might well be offered, taking on additional risk, meeting all the commitments around mutual defence, and forgoing some economic opportunities.

      healthguyfsu in reply to AnAdultInDiapers. | May 16, 2022 at 1:53 pm

      And NATO as a whole also loses out on the strategic advantages of doing such. They shouldn’t be dictating terms to anyone if they want to join.

      You are acting as though a strategic disadvantage for them is absorbed only by them and not the rest of the alliance when nothing could be further from the truth should the alliance be strained by conflict.

        CommoChief in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 17, 2022 at 11:03 am

        In or out. All or nothing. Here’s the problem with European Nations in general from the US perspective:
        1. The govts are seek the security provided by the US military at US expense.
        2. The govts choose to spend their tax receipts not on prioritizing defense but on subsidies and welfare state policies
        3. Despite accepting the benefits of security provided by the US they undermine US govt policies outside Europe. Iran sanctions being one example.

        In sum the European nations have set themselves up as military dependencies of the US but are unwilling to accept the consequences; a hegemony of the US that follows the whims of the US. It’s understandable that these nations don’t wish to subordinate their economic and diplomatic policies to align with those of the US but they can’t claim independence in one sphere while demanding dependence in the military sphere.

        Many people in the US are no longer interested in maintaining this unequal bargain. Many in the EU see the writing on the wall and are pushing the creation of a parallel EU military organization. Someday soon, relatively speaking, the US will pull out of NATO and seek bilateral agreements with individual Nations where the interests of both coincide. The post WWII status quo in which the US largely inherited the ‘world power’ responsibilities of GBR and to a large extent served to further the interests of the European powers v strictly US interests is coming to a close.

          AnAdultInDiapers in reply to CommoChief. | May 17, 2022 at 12:54 pm

          Oh please, historical revisionism is tiresome.

          The US actively sought to damage British interests globally, and in the Pacific in particular. The US wanted that soft and military power and has to accept the responsibilities that come with it.

          The US has also very much not furthered the interests of European powers ahead of its own. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that America always asks the UK to help when it enters a war it actually needs to win.

        AnAdultInDiapers in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 17, 2022 at 12:51 pm

        So NATO doesn’t get to establish bases where it currently has no bases, and doesn’t get to put nuclear weapons where it can’t currently put nuclear weapons, and does get additional intelligence, additional technology and a winter warfare capability to match (or better) Norway, and you think that’s a strategic disadvantage?

        Ok.

The Finns really are a tragic story of “never learn”. TPTB in America have always abused and used Finns, who in general have a “good, quiet, friendly nature”.

Brief American history:

the Finns (before Finland existed, then known as “forest people”) were some of the first “laborers” in Delaware in the mid 1600s, brought by the Swedes to “clear cut” the forests;

the “forest peoples’ cabin” is the predecessor of “American ‘log cabin'”;

“co-operatives” were first a Finnish solution to dealing with scarcity – bartering and sharing that all might be better off;

the first labor unions in America were arguably Finnish immigrants in upper mid west mining communities; …

Many other contributions from these hard working, honest people who are one of the smallest minorities in America and the world.

Regardless, the two incidents which Finns should not forget are:

it was not until 1908 that a US District Court proclaimed Finns were in fact “human beings, because of interbreeding” and thus are “white”. (John Svan v US); and

despite pledges of alliance and mutual defense the US abandon the Finns to fight the Soviet Union and Germany (until being forced to chose sides) alone.

Finland does not need NATO. America and NATO need Finland and are using the impotent females who are the current “government” of Finland.

Finland should remain neutral.

And, Americans should reclaim their country from the corrupt career politicians, State Dept / 5Is bureaucrat war mongers, and exit NATO (let the tribes and oligarchs/monarchs of europe learn to live together on their own).

    gonzotx in reply to Sisu. | May 16, 2022 at 11:29 am

    Then there’s that….

    The main reason for Finland’s siding with Germany was to regain territory lost to the Soviets in the Winter War of 1939 – 1940. As opposed to Axis Power states and affiliates, Finland granted asylum to Jews and had Jewish soldiers serving in its military. It also refused to participate in the Siege of Leningrad.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Sisu. | May 16, 2022 at 2:20 pm

    If you don’t think world alliances are necessary, then you don’t understand the modern context of warfare. Russia is very close to becoming close allies with China. The rest of their side are mostly lessers but they can add up and could easily overtake Finland.

    Without NATO, they could easily be the next site of proxy war like Ukraine is now.

    Believe me, I am wistful for the days of isolationism but the ship has sailed, crashed and sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

      Russia and CCP will never “trust” one another, though they will work together to thwart US/Nato. (Which is evidence of the US/Nato mis-step of driving two competitors to collaborate.)

      Current US alliances do not benefit the American People sufficiently to perpetuate such agreements in current form and pervasiveness.

      Respectfully, I suggest it is you (based on your brief statement of absolutes) who does not understand modern international relations and the evolution thereof (it’s the economy … and money laundering by US and EU “leadership”).

      Start reading information / news analyses sources other than those you are relying on.

    Turtler in reply to Sisu. | May 16, 2022 at 9:54 pm

    I’m not sure where the hell you’re getting this balderdash, but it looks like you’ve had a bit too much Krokodil.

    “The Finns really are a tragic story of “never learn”. TPTB in America have always abused and used Finns, who in general have a “good, quiet, friendly nature”.”

    I mean, as a recent mover to a place with one of the most entrenched Fenno-American communities in the US this side of the Atlantic Coast, I have heard mixed rumors. One hand, that is largely true, on the other hand you still have people nearly killing each other over what happened in the Finnish Civil War.

    “Brief American history:

    the Finns (before Finland existed, then known as “forest people”) were some of the first “laborers” in Delaware in the mid 1600s, brought by the Swedes to “clear cut” the forests;”

    This is true.

    “the “forest peoples’ cabin” is the predecessor of “American ‘log cabin’”;”

    Like, the Log Cabin isn’t exactly a new concept. There’s a reason why logging has been one of humanity’s oldest trades and it was common throughout much of the Atlantic West outside of places without much in the way of forests.

    ““co-operatives” were first a Finnish solution to dealing with scarcity – bartering and sharing that all might be better off”

    Anybody who claims that Co-ops started with the Finns hasn’t studied their history much; the first utopian co-ops were started just years after the American Revolution.

    “the first labor unions in America were arguably Finnish immigrants in upper mid west mining communities; …”

    Uh, what?

    We have documents of labor unions going back to 1794, and particularly they began to explode during the early and mid 19th century. In contrast, outside of the “Old Finns” that came over with the abortive Swedish colonization and set down roots (more on that later) most Finnish-American immigration didn’t really kick off until the 1860s.

    “Many other contributions from these hard working, honest people who are one of the smallest minorities in America and the world.”

    Agreed.

    “Regardless, the two incidents which Finns should not forget are:

    it was not until 1908 that a US District Court proclaimed Finns were in fact “human beings, because of interbreeding” and thus are “white”. (John Svan v US); and”

    This is utterly retarded and pants on head, as shown by the fact that one of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence was a Finnish-American (“John Morton”). Svan v US was never about whether Finns were human beings, but whether Finns were- under the rather retarded racial caste system of the Western Hemisphere- “White” or “Asiatic.” But the idea that they were somehow NOT human at all was something beyond the arguments of all but particularly insane and vehement racists.

    “despite pledges of alliance and mutual defense the US abandon the Finns to fight the Soviet Union and Germany (until being forced to chose sides) alone.”

    Ok, What were the pledges of alliance and mutual defense the US gave to Finland during the interwar era?

    Because I’ve been studying the 20th century for all my life, and have been studying Brave Finland’s history in the World Wars for 20 of those years, and I have never, ever seen any “pledges of alliance or mutual defense” the US gave during the Interwar Era beyond very vague and general purpose things like Kellogg-Briand outlawing war.

    It’s worth noting that at the time, US sentiment was so isolationist that Congress voted down the Treaty of Versailles because it did not want to be involved in Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations pipe dream, and generally dialed down cooperation with even its most important partners like the UK, France, and (initially) Italy.

    But I’m supposed to believe that while ultimately distancing itself from the alliances with France and Britain at the time, it maintained an alliance with Finland?!?

    The US was sympathetic to Finland and generally lobbied on its behalf- and indeed unlike the British it never even nominally declared war on them- but it was just that: a sympathetic neutral.

    “Finland does not need NATO. America and NATO need Finland and are using the impotent females who are the current “government” of Finland.”

    Uh, you haven’t even freaking noticed the history of the Cold War? As bad as Putin is- and I think he is indeed VERY bad- he is a pale shadow of the Soviet General Secretaries of yore, as is his realm. NATO survived quite handily with Finland as a neutral nation ambiguously wedged in between West and East, and periodically considered a possible Soviet vassal if war went down.

    “Finland should remain neutral.”

    Right, because that’s worked out so well for it in the past, and for Ukraine?

    “And, Americans should reclaim their country from the corrupt career politicians, State Dept / 5Is bureaucrat war mongers,”

    Agreed.

    ” and exit NATO (let the tribes and oligarchs/monarchs of europe learn to live together on their own).”

    Yeah, that’d be more convincing if they didn’t tend to come over and screw us in the process.

    “Russia and CCP will never “trust” one another, though they will work together to thwart US/Nato.”

    Largely agreed.

    ” (Which is evidence of the US/Nato mis-step of driving two competitors to collaborate.)”

    Honestly I don’t see it. The Nixon-Mao triangulation was a fluke and one that turned out to be of questionable benefit, and sober analysts like Mark Steyn have been talking about how the Russian elite- at least those around Vladimir Putin- would almost invariably support an anti-Western pole in world politics. The West certainly has made plenty of outreach to Russia and the PRC, and generally with little effect.

    “Current US alliances do not benefit the American People sufficiently to perpetuate such agreements in current form and pervasiveness.”

    I’m somewhat leery, but I think too much willy-nilly cutting them would be a distraction from our conflict.

    “Respectfully, I suggest it is you (based on your brief statement of absolutes) who does not understand modern international relations and the evolution thereof (it’s the economy … and money laundering by US and EU “leadership”).”

    Money laundering’s important, but it’s far from the end all to be all in world politics, as our friends the apocalyptic Mullahs of Iran show. And considering you managed to think that even Jim Crow WASPs thought Asians were “not human”, I’d say you are not in the best position to lecture.

    “Start reading information / news analyses sources other than those you are relying on.”

    Oh I do.

    alohahola in reply to Sisu. | May 16, 2022 at 10:58 pm

    Absolutely.

“despite pledges of alliance and mutual defense the US abandon the Finns to fight the Soviet Union and Germany (until being forced to chose sides) alone.”

In 1939 the US diverted 44 Brewster F2A Buffalo fighters meant for the USN to Finland. That was a very significant amount given that the US was desperately trying to beef up its US military aviation force at the time while also attempting to help arm its other major allies.

The Buffalo served as the mainstay fighter of the Finnish Air Force in both the Winter War and the Continuation War. One Finnish fighter squadron was credited with 477 Soviet aircraft shot down with a loss of only 19 Buffaloes.

The top scoring Finnish Buffalo pilot had 39 Soviet kills in it. One particular Buffalo was found to have 42 1/2 kills credited to pilots flying it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode