• Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    14 days ago

    I somewhat vaguely remember reports from the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine and talks about Finland joining NATO, that the region around Murmansk is a somewhat problematic spot for Russia. They have a huge military presence there and it’s also one of their bases equipped with atomic bombs that threaten the west/NATO. But on the other hand land based access is only possible along the long and thin stretch of land along the Finnish border in an area that presumably is hard to defend.

    • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 days ago

      Murmansk is few hundred kilometers from Finnish border and it’s been there for “a while”, it’s no more bigger problem now than it has ever been. And Norway border is slightly closer than ours and Norway has been a NATO country for quite a while.

      • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yes, there’s the border to Norway (and thus NATO) nearby. But look at the map. There’s a small part of border with Norway and a huge border with Finland, which was a ‘neutral’ border back then. Now it’s all NATO.

        • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 days ago

          which was a ‘neutral’ border back then

          There’s quite a few unmarked graves along that border and immense effort from my countrymen to keep the border where it is. It hasn’t been “neutral” for too long. And being prepared to keep that border where it is plays a part on why our president from a small country is on discussions with Ukraine, EU leaders and that orange clown across the pond today.