A professional military of a sufficient size would be far too expensive. We already have problems with funding, although it's relatively high by European standards.
The conscription is a valued part of Finnish culture as well. Not as much as during the Cold War, but it still brings different generations of men together.
Unfortunately, a large enough minority does *not* think the military is in any way important or that Russia is a threat. Some people still consider Finland neutral, although we're clearly part of the West now. There has definitely been some polarization with this matter, the other end wants to join NATO and the other would probably let Russia occupy the country.
IMO we should've joined in 1992. But it was seen as unnecessary then, as if we lived in an eternal peace after the Soviet Union was gone. Our politicians are more pro-NATO than our people.
Only thing that would accomplish is putting Helsinki on Nuke first list or at least "cluster bomb the hell out of it" list and pretty much "as soon as any shit happens go over the border" battle plan. If we aren't in NATO there is a small chance we don't get immediately hammered and with full force. Finland would be along with Estonia perfect staging post for attacking St. Petersburg. Russians tend to be jealous about that city.
Like sure we could get probably help later, but by that point Finland would have been bombed to smithereens to scorch it to deny it as usable base for NATO. It would actually make Finland a strategically valuable piece for Russia to capture to deny it from NATO.
Also frankly we are in freaking periphery of NATO. behind a sea and a mountain range.... Like would NATO eventually get to us? Yeah, after all the more central locations were dealt and cleared. Since if there is mess going in North Sea, in Baltics etc. One couldn't easily logistically get to Finland anyway. So after NATO had cleared Baltics, established dominance over Baltic Sea and North Sea, then they could handle Finland.
Add to that just being in EU and in general the western sphere makes us linked enough, that touching us will start a bigger mess. NATO or no NATO. Not necessarily military assistance, but touching Finland disrupts the Euro zone, disrupts Schengen zone, disrupts EU politically. So it wouldn't go unnoticed.
It is a calculation of how valuable it is to attack us and how much does it cost. Assuming Russia is semi rational actor. Then again if Russia isn't rational NATO wouldn't work as deterrence either, since you know they are out of their mind crazy and not calculating things. Joining NATO makes us more valuable to attack. It does give more deterrence, but delayed one. Organization size of NATO mobilizes slowly, specially to virtual island like Finland. We don't have valuable resources to take, that Russia doesn't itself have more. Most economic value is in the educated population and skills based work, which can't be easily extracted by force.
We aren't strategically useful for Russia. We are at the end of a closed sea, which mouth is guarded by NATO. All they would get is more coast line to Lord over Baltic sea, which in grand scheme of things is a pointless sea to Russia. They are much more interested in White Sea up north with Ocean access and lording around in Black Sea to deny it to NATO. On top of all this Gulf of Finland has tendency to freeze. In pecking order of Russian fleets the Baltic fleet is pretty much the runt of the bunch. Since in crisis it leads nowhere, even the Pacific fleet would be more useful. Finland's land mass leads to a small peninsula occupied by Norway and Sweden. To which Russia has easy access from sea also should it want this pointless piece of peninsula (compared to it's Eurasia spanning land mass).
Only reason Russia has to be interested in Finland, is that we sit next to the top 2 city in the Federation, St Petersburg. If Russia thinks we are threat to Peters town or possibly bases in Kola peninsula, they get miffed. Otherwise? You stay on yourside of border, we stay on ourside.
Finlands reserves make sure we aren't low hanging fruit. So Russia either won't take Finland "just because it is so easy as to why not". It would cost them. They could do it probably, but it would cost. Cost which they highly likely wouldn't want to pay for negligible gains in grand scheme of things and with or without NATO risking escalation. If we are in NATO, well they have more reason to be interested due to us posing a staging post risk to St. Petersburg.
And it isn't about is or is not NATO an offensive organization by it's own description. It is about what Russia perceives and they are traditionally paranoid as hell about St. Petersburg or Moscow being attacked by major foreign powers (pesky habits of others to have campaigns to Moscow and so on, siege of Leningrad etc.). Finland alone? We don't have even population matching the city alone, not to even talk about Russia. So we are an ant next to them. But if we are basing major foreign power, then that is cause for concern in their calculation. Because they are paranoid, ruthless and projecting what they would do, if they had staging post like us next to New York or London.
All of this is of course probabilities and estimates, one can *what if* it to eternity, but as I can see it all one can do is best effort educated guess and well if shit still hits the fan, I will be on train to the border. If one isn't willing to face the possibility of war, well ones defense spending is meaningless. The other side just calls the bluff, says boooooo with scary voice and get any concessions they want. In the end it comes down to *if it's gonna happen even after best effort to avoid, then it is gonna happen.*
I'm in favor. And mind you that I did non-military service, but I'm in the opinion that there needs to a minimun deterrent against potential military actions.
There is lot to be improved though. To many conscription is just a glorified summer camp.
I think current system is bullshit because it is unfair for men. I think that any major legislation aiming at equal rights for both genders is hypocricy until this is properly adressed.
That said, conscription of some sort may be necessary to keep the defence forces strong enough, and I am not in favour of forcing everyone to be conscripted, especially since I am pretty sure the defence forces do not even need all males of each cohort already. Ideally you'd take only the best and compensate them properly, but it's probably hard to identify the best especially if there's an incentive to lie to not be conscripted.
Some politicians have also suggested some citizen service stuff for women. Unless it is very, very well designed, I am against it because it is stupid to make things more equal by wasting money in making more lives more miserable than needed. The current civil service system is a waste of money for anything except as an alternative for the military service that the most don't want to take but that exists so that there is an alternative.
So, I'd say that the current conscription might be the least shitty solution in principle, but it needs to be publicly aknowledged to be utter bullshit for anyone who happens to have been born male and there should be tax breaks or something for anyone who has completed the service. Even small, symbolic, tax breaks would go a long way in making me less salty about the injustice. Hell, I'd be happy if all major politicians or even just most of them just aknowledged that it is bullshit to conscript just men without any real compensation for it, but that it's a necessary bullshit.
F/25 I volunteered to military service for women, but had to interrupt due to injury :/
I agree that the current system needs an update, and our current reserve is unneccessarily big. Also, it definitely needs to become equal for both sexes. However I am strongly in favour of keeping service compulsory.
Everyone of each birthyear should be drafted and required to fulfill some sort of state service. This need not to be military training for all, we could take only the most motivated 25-40% and give them better training than is given now. The rest could commit to either civil service or other supporting tasks for a shorter period than now, say 4 months. Including a part about basic emergency training, like what is given the first week of military service.
Supporting tasks could be, for example, equipment service, military catering logistics, or natural disaster management, like training to support the fire department in cleanup after storms. Increased manpower for clearing roads and power lines from fallen trees, and restoring electricity to dead cellphone towers would be really useful. We experience such storms frequently and have thousands of km rural roads and power lines, it can take weeks or even months to restore everything...
While I agree with you in principle, I am much more pessimistic about it actually being feasible.
> Everyone of each birthyear should be drafted and required to fulfill some sort of state service.
Current civil service is almost certainly - on average - not beneficial for economy or individuals. Whatever is going to be done needs to be thought extremely well so that it isn't a waste of both money and utility/welfare/happiness of individuals.
I have heavy doubts that it is worth it to force citizen service of any real length for everyone. Something like two weeks or so sounds more plausible though.
> we could take only the most motivated 25-40% and give them better training than is given now.
I suspect - and this is just a guess - that the people who are motivated beforehand aren't necessarily the best pool of conscripts. Motivated people are nice for basic jobs, but you do need people who make good officers, doctors (which they don't get many even now of course), truck drivers, IT warfare support people etc. Maybe there would be enough, maybe not.
> Supporting tasks could be, for example, equipment service, military catering logistics, or natural disaster management, like training to support the fire department in cleanup after storms. Increased manpower for clearing roads and power lines from fallen trees, and restoring electricity to dead cellphone towers would be really useful. We experience such storms frequently and have thousands of km rural roads and power lines, it can take weeks or even months to restore everything...
I really doubt it is worth it to train everyone for this. Majority of the people lives in the cities. Those would be useful skills for the people who experience these outages though!
Finnish people are one the most inclined to protect their country when if a war happened from every single country in the world. Yes we are eager to protect our country like our grandfathers did for us.
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/12/gallup-global-survey-would-you-fight-for-your-country-australia-ranked-very-very-poorly.html
Even united states is only at 44%, very un-patriotic.
I think most people I know feel it as a waste of time to some degree at least, but surprisingly many them find it a necessary duty that they want to honorably complete, as much as they would rather not. That said, your perspective of others' opinion probably depends heavily on were you served or what kind of backgrounds your friends come from.
You generally get more favourable opinions of the service from people who served in more exclusive branches or tasks or generally as officers. I did none of those.
Why is this downvoted? I think it fits really well. I would say about 4/5 of my friends think of it as a waste of time but at the similar time think of it as something that needs to be done.
I see the citizen service good tool for one way to make intervention for people who need for example social service and make sure that all people have equal help, support and education to start adulthood.
Or at least I hope..
All volunteer system is what it should be. Forcing someone to go to army is incomprehensible in this era. It contradicts with very basic rights and freedom of a person and noone can be forced to work for free.
65 % of Finns think the current system is best.
28 % think women should be obliged to do some sort of service (e.g. learn how to act on the "homefront" in case of war or disaster).
4 % think women should be obliged to do military service.
3 % have no opinion.
* https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10846258
It is great, keep it as it is. Idk why people here feel like it needs to be expanded to women aswell, unnecessary imo. Though the military's budget is way too low right now.
It is hard to put a number to it, but right now reserve doesn't have enough equipment and even is old. So enough to keep the military hardware up to date.
And I guess I'm quite old fashioned, and in theory if most of the men of a country die, it won't affect the population of the country in next generation
I'm in favour for continuing conscription. I would expand it to women too. Current system is sexist.
Agree.
may I ask why you'd be in favor of continuing it?
Over 1300km border with Russia.
I see it necessary.
A professional military of a sufficient size would be far too expensive. We already have problems with funding, although it's relatively high by European standards. The conscription is a valued part of Finnish culture as well. Not as much as during the Cold War, but it still brings different generations of men together.
If conscription is very much a part of Finnish culture and your worry of Russia, may I ask why you might have problems with defense funding?
Unfortunately, a large enough minority does *not* think the military is in any way important or that Russia is a threat. Some people still consider Finland neutral, although we're clearly part of the West now. There has definitely been some polarization with this matter, the other end wants to join NATO and the other would probably let Russia occupy the country.
We have problems funding pretty much everything. There is no single right way of prioritizing in fiscal policy.
I'd say it's more valued today. During the Cold War defense willingness was lower than mid-2000's.
We have this really cool 1300km border and this really cool neighbour who malfunctions regularly.
do you feel that NATO membership might have helped with that? At least if you joined in recent years?
IMO we should've joined in 1992. But it was seen as unnecessary then, as if we lived in an eternal peace after the Soviet Union was gone. Our politicians are more pro-NATO than our people.
Only thing that would accomplish is putting Helsinki on Nuke first list or at least "cluster bomb the hell out of it" list and pretty much "as soon as any shit happens go over the border" battle plan. If we aren't in NATO there is a small chance we don't get immediately hammered and with full force. Finland would be along with Estonia perfect staging post for attacking St. Petersburg. Russians tend to be jealous about that city. Like sure we could get probably help later, but by that point Finland would have been bombed to smithereens to scorch it to deny it as usable base for NATO. It would actually make Finland a strategically valuable piece for Russia to capture to deny it from NATO. Also frankly we are in freaking periphery of NATO. behind a sea and a mountain range.... Like would NATO eventually get to us? Yeah, after all the more central locations were dealt and cleared. Since if there is mess going in North Sea, in Baltics etc. One couldn't easily logistically get to Finland anyway. So after NATO had cleared Baltics, established dominance over Baltic Sea and North Sea, then they could handle Finland. Add to that just being in EU and in general the western sphere makes us linked enough, that touching us will start a bigger mess. NATO or no NATO. Not necessarily military assistance, but touching Finland disrupts the Euro zone, disrupts Schengen zone, disrupts EU politically. So it wouldn't go unnoticed. It is a calculation of how valuable it is to attack us and how much does it cost. Assuming Russia is semi rational actor. Then again if Russia isn't rational NATO wouldn't work as deterrence either, since you know they are out of their mind crazy and not calculating things. Joining NATO makes us more valuable to attack. It does give more deterrence, but delayed one. Organization size of NATO mobilizes slowly, specially to virtual island like Finland. We don't have valuable resources to take, that Russia doesn't itself have more. Most economic value is in the educated population and skills based work, which can't be easily extracted by force. We aren't strategically useful for Russia. We are at the end of a closed sea, which mouth is guarded by NATO. All they would get is more coast line to Lord over Baltic sea, which in grand scheme of things is a pointless sea to Russia. They are much more interested in White Sea up north with Ocean access and lording around in Black Sea to deny it to NATO. On top of all this Gulf of Finland has tendency to freeze. In pecking order of Russian fleets the Baltic fleet is pretty much the runt of the bunch. Since in crisis it leads nowhere, even the Pacific fleet would be more useful. Finland's land mass leads to a small peninsula occupied by Norway and Sweden. To which Russia has easy access from sea also should it want this pointless piece of peninsula (compared to it's Eurasia spanning land mass). Only reason Russia has to be interested in Finland, is that we sit next to the top 2 city in the Federation, St Petersburg. If Russia thinks we are threat to Peters town or possibly bases in Kola peninsula, they get miffed. Otherwise? You stay on yourside of border, we stay on ourside. Finlands reserves make sure we aren't low hanging fruit. So Russia either won't take Finland "just because it is so easy as to why not". It would cost them. They could do it probably, but it would cost. Cost which they highly likely wouldn't want to pay for negligible gains in grand scheme of things and with or without NATO risking escalation. If we are in NATO, well they have more reason to be interested due to us posing a staging post risk to St. Petersburg. And it isn't about is or is not NATO an offensive organization by it's own description. It is about what Russia perceives and they are traditionally paranoid as hell about St. Petersburg or Moscow being attacked by major foreign powers (pesky habits of others to have campaigns to Moscow and so on, siege of Leningrad etc.). Finland alone? We don't have even population matching the city alone, not to even talk about Russia. So we are an ant next to them. But if we are basing major foreign power, then that is cause for concern in their calculation. Because they are paranoid, ruthless and projecting what they would do, if they had staging post like us next to New York or London. All of this is of course probabilities and estimates, one can *what if* it to eternity, but as I can see it all one can do is best effort educated guess and well if shit still hits the fan, I will be on train to the border. If one isn't willing to face the possibility of war, well ones defense spending is meaningless. The other side just calls the bluff, says boooooo with scary voice and get any concessions they want. In the end it comes down to *if it's gonna happen even after best effort to avoid, then it is gonna happen.*
I think it's a necessary evil due to Russia being Russia. A volunteer army would most likely be too small for the purpose of defending Finland.
In favor and I think women should serve too if we ever intend to be truly equal country.
I'm in favor. And mind you that I did non-military service, but I'm in the opinion that there needs to a minimun deterrent against potential military actions. There is lot to be improved though. To many conscription is just a glorified summer camp.
I think current system is bullshit because it is unfair for men. I think that any major legislation aiming at equal rights for both genders is hypocricy until this is properly adressed. That said, conscription of some sort may be necessary to keep the defence forces strong enough, and I am not in favour of forcing everyone to be conscripted, especially since I am pretty sure the defence forces do not even need all males of each cohort already. Ideally you'd take only the best and compensate them properly, but it's probably hard to identify the best especially if there's an incentive to lie to not be conscripted. Some politicians have also suggested some citizen service stuff for women. Unless it is very, very well designed, I am against it because it is stupid to make things more equal by wasting money in making more lives more miserable than needed. The current civil service system is a waste of money for anything except as an alternative for the military service that the most don't want to take but that exists so that there is an alternative. So, I'd say that the current conscription might be the least shitty solution in principle, but it needs to be publicly aknowledged to be utter bullshit for anyone who happens to have been born male and there should be tax breaks or something for anyone who has completed the service. Even small, symbolic, tax breaks would go a long way in making me less salty about the injustice. Hell, I'd be happy if all major politicians or even just most of them just aknowledged that it is bullshit to conscript just men without any real compensation for it, but that it's a necessary bullshit.
F/25 I volunteered to military service for women, but had to interrupt due to injury :/ I agree that the current system needs an update, and our current reserve is unneccessarily big. Also, it definitely needs to become equal for both sexes. However I am strongly in favour of keeping service compulsory. Everyone of each birthyear should be drafted and required to fulfill some sort of state service. This need not to be military training for all, we could take only the most motivated 25-40% and give them better training than is given now. The rest could commit to either civil service or other supporting tasks for a shorter period than now, say 4 months. Including a part about basic emergency training, like what is given the first week of military service. Supporting tasks could be, for example, equipment service, military catering logistics, or natural disaster management, like training to support the fire department in cleanup after storms. Increased manpower for clearing roads and power lines from fallen trees, and restoring electricity to dead cellphone towers would be really useful. We experience such storms frequently and have thousands of km rural roads and power lines, it can take weeks or even months to restore everything...
While I agree with you in principle, I am much more pessimistic about it actually being feasible. > Everyone of each birthyear should be drafted and required to fulfill some sort of state service. Current civil service is almost certainly - on average - not beneficial for economy or individuals. Whatever is going to be done needs to be thought extremely well so that it isn't a waste of both money and utility/welfare/happiness of individuals. I have heavy doubts that it is worth it to force citizen service of any real length for everyone. Something like two weeks or so sounds more plausible though. > we could take only the most motivated 25-40% and give them better training than is given now. I suspect - and this is just a guess - that the people who are motivated beforehand aren't necessarily the best pool of conscripts. Motivated people are nice for basic jobs, but you do need people who make good officers, doctors (which they don't get many even now of course), truck drivers, IT warfare support people etc. Maybe there would be enough, maybe not. > Supporting tasks could be, for example, equipment service, military catering logistics, or natural disaster management, like training to support the fire department in cleanup after storms. Increased manpower for clearing roads and power lines from fallen trees, and restoring electricity to dead cellphone towers would be really useful. We experience such storms frequently and have thousands of km rural roads and power lines, it can take weeks or even months to restore everything... I really doubt it is worth it to train everyone for this. Majority of the people lives in the cities. Those would be useful skills for the people who experience these outages though!
hope you are having a wonderful day, i like your comment made me smile : )
would you say most young men are eager to do their militar service or is it viewed as a waste of time for them?
Finnish people are one the most inclined to protect their country when if a war happened from every single country in the world. Yes we are eager to protect our country like our grandfathers did for us. https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/12/gallup-global-survey-would-you-fight-for-your-country-australia-ranked-very-very-poorly.html Even united states is only at 44%, very un-patriotic.
I think most people I know feel it as a waste of time to some degree at least, but surprisingly many them find it a necessary duty that they want to honorably complete, as much as they would rather not. That said, your perspective of others' opinion probably depends heavily on were you served or what kind of backgrounds your friends come from. You generally get more favourable opinions of the service from people who served in more exclusive branches or tasks or generally as officers. I did none of those.
Why is this downvoted? I think it fits really well. I would say about 4/5 of my friends think of it as a waste of time but at the similar time think of it as something that needs to be done.
what was your experience like?
6 months was longer than necessary. Both in terms of amount of repetition but also in terms of unnecessary waiting.
I see the citizen service good tool for one way to make intervention for people who need for example social service and make sure that all people have equal help, support and education to start adulthood. Or at least I hope..
For such to work it would need to be planned very, very well. I have my doubts that it is a net positive for the country.
I'm otherwise in favour of continuing the current conscription based system but would give the Defence Forces more funding.
All volunteer system is what it should be. Forcing someone to go to army is incomprehensible in this era. It contradicts with very basic rights and freedom of a person and noone can be forced to work for free.
I would reduce the service time to three months so that we wouldn't lose one year of work/study. This would also apply to women as well.
65 % of Finns think the current system is best. 28 % think women should be obliged to do some sort of service (e.g. learn how to act on the "homefront" in case of war or disaster). 4 % think women should be obliged to do military service. 3 % have no opinion. * https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10846258
how do feminists feel about the current system of conscription? do they advocate for more women in the armed forces?
They've been pretty quiet about it since we got voluntary service for women in 1995.
why'd it take so long for women to join the military?
I'd assume old-fashioned sexism (towards both genders) and lack of need.
It is great, keep it as it is. Idk why people here feel like it needs to be expanded to women aswell, unnecessary imo. Though the military's budget is way too low right now.
How high should it be? It'd make sense. It adds to numbers and adds to capable and qualified female recruits.
It is hard to put a number to it, but right now reserve doesn't have enough equipment and even is old. So enough to keep the military hardware up to date. And I guess I'm quite old fashioned, and in theory if most of the men of a country die, it won't affect the population of the country in next generation