NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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." "

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.

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.

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.

Thank you very much for this video!

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".

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....

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.

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

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.