I remember in December 2021 and January 2022, the ‘alarmists’ were also claiming that Russia would invade Ukraine…

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.

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

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.

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.

With this explanations it became clear why Sweden army commander said to prepare for possible war!👍

Thank you very much for this video!

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.

We all benefit from Anders contributions. No emotion, no clickbait just informed comment. Thank you.

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.

Wow, thanks for talking about this.

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

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.

Great analysis. Your points add great depth to current conflict.

A thoughtful take, Subscribed.

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....

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.

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." "

Thank you for your insight. I love this channel.

The highest art of war is to convince the opponent not to fight. Another super lecture Anders👍👍👍

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.

Great analysis thank you!

Spot on Sir, absolutely correct analysis.

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.

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. 👍

I sure hope this doesn't escalate more... War is horrifying... You gave me a lot to think about..

Tak for dit bidrag 🙂

Svalbard, Norwegian territory where ru already have a presence and where the territorial government is somewhat 'unclear' is a likely candidate.

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)

That makes a lot of sense unfortunately. It's very scary!

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 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.

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!

Commendable analytical work.

Thank you - quite scary.

I think any fighting in Lapland would get Sweden and Norway involved fairly quickly.

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?

Very interesting and alarming..

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.

This is an extremely important point and I hope people hear this and take it seriously.

Never underestimate the cowardice or gullibility of modern politicians. There are would be Neville Chamberlain's waiting in the wings everywhere.

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.

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!

As a simple Ukrainian citizen that had hands-on experience of survival in besieged city of Kharkiv, during first weeks of All-out open War with Russia, I want to say that simple quote: "Si vis pacem, para bellum". From my perspective, All EU members should prepare to defend itself without US help entirely. Yes, they have money and equipment, but seems like they "lost their balls" (no offense, I appreciate their help, but it could be done better) and they have will to fight only some dudes which wearing sandals and shooting rusty AKs. Current US and US during Cold War and President Reagan are two completely different things, unfortunately. Also, about postponing and meddling with Ukrainian military and financial support: If Ukraine Falls - I will be probably dead (or become refugee), but YOU ARE NEXT!

I would say though - if the USA didn't respond to an attack on NATO, it would put all of the US's alliances in jeopardy across the globe, not just the NATO alliance, so I don't think they could risk not responding. Also - with the difficulties Russia is facing in Ukraine, it is difficult to see how they could hope to win a fight other countries such as Poland or Finland with very large and prepared militaries.

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.

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.

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.

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".

But Russia also have a risk to do a wrong calculation, and then NATO react harder than Russia have calculated with.

First Georgia, then Ukraine, then Ukraine again, then Finland. When are we going to stand up to this man?

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.

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!

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?

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.

War is strangely so unlikely that the more you treat it as unlikely… the more likely it becomes

Well, ok, but even if USA would back out and not commit under Trump or whatever, that doesn't automatically means that Europe would fall apart and Russia would be dealing with all the separate countries, they might just be dealing with united Europe.

very interesting.

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! 🌿

As a Dane: If the gopniks try ANYTHING in Finland or the Baltics I'll promptly forget that I left the army 11 years ago, and just go before the politicians even have time to call everyone in for a crisis meeting. I know plenty of people in the reserves who feel the exact same. We won't ask permission and we won't wait for instructions. My wife specifically forbade me to go to Ukraine because she could tell I was contemplating it. I will not be receptive to neither reason nor pleading in the case of NB8 countries. Those are our brothers. Messing with the brothers automatically triggers berserk mode.

As a Norwegian, my scenario of russia "testing" NATO response is by annexing Svalbard. This can be done by a small group of soldiers.. If none immidiate response by NATO, this russian "invasion" could be backed by the russian north atlantic fleet, and further fasten the grip on the annexation. If NATO should response, the russian soldiers could just "flee" Svalbard jumping on a russian submarine and just diaesappear.

New subscriber I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

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.

Outstanding as always. Thank you Anders.

Well, If Putin decides that he must attack a NATO country, then Finland would be a costly mistake. Finland is admirably well prepared and their neighbours too would most likely come to their defense: Sweden, Norway, and Poland, and even the UK would not just stand by and watch.

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.

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.

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.

The Best option for all of us is to stop that war. Simple like that.

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.

I always find your videos helpful and informative, Sir. Keep it up!👍👍

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.

Thanks

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.

I do believe we have 'lost our balls' in the West, in a military sense but also in leadership and public patriotism, grit and sacrifice. These past 3 to 4 days in the UK there has been a real shitstorm in the media as the outgoing Army Chief has mentioned that the British military will need to be expanded to deal with the threat of Russia and a 'citizen army' (reserves, basically) expanded. The media in this country has shown a real hysteria with the word CONSCRIPTION!!! written on many headlines. "Brits to be CONSCRIPTED if war with Russia!!!" The push back from the public has been quite strong. Most saying they will never fight for this country and especially not another European country. I do genuinely believe we would really struggle in the UK, western Europe, in getting people to fight in a war. Even a war of national survival, such as a Russian war would be. I suppose 80 years of pacifism and film, literature and education that has, rightfully, shown war to be hell and best avoided. Problem is dictators like Putin don't care about our public pacifism. They only see weakness and take advantage.

This was an excellent video. Lots to think about after watching this one.

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.

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)

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).

Excellent analysis - I really learnt a lot from that, and it explains a lot - thanks.

Very well informed and presented video about the current situation in Ukraine,but things should be better for everyone ❤❤❤

This was a problem I became very acquainted with in 2017. In a TownHall with the Joint Chief of Staff, it became apparent they would prepare for the most likely scenario and not worst case. This was a far cry different from my initial training in 1998. AND today’s shortcomings are a direct result of preparing for mediocrity.

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.

Very cogent analysis, as usual. Thank you.

Dude you are too right

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)

Thanks a lot! I am going to share this with my Finnish friends

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.

Honestly I'm too dumb and uninformed to know if all of this is true or complete nonsense but its the scariest video I've seen in a while.

well reasoned and explained and i think your 1000% on target sir! thanks Anders

Anders, excellent presentation and explanation. I very much appreciate your thought provoking work. Please continue...Pat Murphy

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.

Lapland is difficult to traverse with mechanized units. This was realized by both Nazis and Soviets in WWII. That border region has wilderness areas and national parks and not many roads. That is why Finnish Army uses vehicles like BV206 there. It would not be a fun operation to come over the border there. Finland and other Nato air forces would have air superiority there. Units crossing the border would be under fire, stuck in a swamp somewhere most of the time, while the Finnish units could move more freely and enjoy proper logistics. Norway and Sweden would be involved. And because the offensive could not be huge (due to logistical issues), other Nato countries could simply support with their air power and supplies, which would already be enough to win that one.

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.

Putin attacking Santa Claus? Well sign me up for military duty, I got Rudolph's back.

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.

Equally, NATO honours article 5 and a grave mistake has been made. That sounds like a huge risk to me.

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